The Short Life and Sudden Death of Faux Federalism

After more than a century in exile, or maybe banishment would be a better word, the founding principle of Federalism came roaring back into fashion in many Democrat-dominated states in the Trump era, with California and Colorado leading the rebellious pack. The transformation came miraculously and instantaneously on the day Donald J. Trump took the oath of office. It seemed like a sea change of sweeping significance.

Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, the party that spent the last century methodically concentrating power in the grasping claws of central government, the party that long dismissed and denigrated conservative support for "states' rights" as a sinister echo of slave-era thinking, the party of one-one-size-fits-all, as long as that size is XXL, rediscovered "states' rights" and even "local control" as rallying cries.

These newly-neofederalist states weren't going to just take orders from the hated Trump administration. They weren't going to follow federal laws and regulatory diktats with which they disagreed. These states now wanted the autonomy and sovereignty they were due under our federalist system of governance. A strong whiff of secessionism filled the air, especially in California. 

Some went even further down the road toward open rebellion by forming a state-led cartel, with California at the helm, to establish stricter-than-federal vehicle emissions standards. Members of this new "Cali cartel" weren't just seeking autonomy under this unworkable two-tiered regulatory scheme; they were (and still are, since this power struggle is now before the courts) hoping to leverage their clout as car markets to make their standard the de facto national standard, effectively turning the federalist idea on its head.

This wasn't federalism but reverse federalism, in which a subgroup of states attempts to impose its emissions standard on all the other states, in textbook wag-the-dog fashion.   

Some rebel states further tested established boundaries my engaging in foreign policy. They vowed to abide by terms of the never-ratified Paris Climate Accord, for instance, a treaty Trump ran against.  California further upped the ante by negotiating a cross-border cap and trade scheme with Canada. 

Such shows of defiance delighted liberals and turned certain Governors (like California's Gavin Newsom) into instant celebrities. But they also constituted a challenge to federal power and prerogatives without parallel in recent history, prompting the Trump administration to push back. The provocateurs then posed as the "victims" of Trump's aggression and iron rule. It was a simplistic morality play some in the press eagerly played up. 

But then -- BAM! -- COVID19 hit and the zebras began showing their statist stripes again. 

Suddenly, America's most Trump-defiant states are the states bleating loudest for federal help, federal bailouts, federal guidelines, federal "leadership" -- even for federal force against states that won't impose Constitutionally-dubious lockdowns of various sorts. And suddenly, states unwilling to join the stampede to trample civil liberties become rogue "holdout states" that must be brought to heel. Trump now finds himself under fire from the neofederalist left for not imposing a national lockdown; for not ordering states to comply; for granting governors the latitude to tailor responses that meet their circumstances.

We're learning a lot about ourselves and our country, good and bad, during this crisis. It's become a gut check that was probably overdue. We're seeing the world more clearly and soberly as a result. True colors become much more vivid in a midst of tough times. Now we can put to rest any notion that Democrats suddenly have seen light on the merits and virtues of the federalist system of governance. We can see that faux federalism was just another pose they struck for partisan purposes.

They are what they've always been; statists to the marrow. 

The George Orwell Film Festival

The EPA recently announced a contest -- the "Rulemaking Matters Video Contest" -- asking Americans to submit videos extolling the virtues of the regulatory superstate. It's a fun, creative way to show how grateful we all are for the blessings bestowed on us by Big Government.

Here's the actual press release, in case you think I'm joking. And because it's the EPA, don't forget to carefully follow all the rules. Naturally, there will be a form or two to fill out. The EPA prefers that you use the term "rulemaking," instead of "regulating" -- the latter carries such negative connotations with some folks. Finally, please be sure that no plants or animals are harmed, or noxious chemicals released into the environment, during the making of your video: You don't want to end up on the bad side of the EPA. The winner will walk away with $2,500 in prize money (before taxes, of course, since all this "protection" doesn't come cheap).

My fun-loving former colleagues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute have entered the contest, with a somewhat tongue-in-cheek short called "A Day in the Life of the The Regulatory State." Find it on YouTube by following this link. Somehow, I don't think it will win top prize. But I found it entertaining.

The New Religion

No national columnist hits the nail as squarely on the head as consistently as Charles Krauthammer. He does it again today, with a piece about the EPA's attempted takeover of the U.S. economy, through the proposed regulation of CO2.

Of particular interest to me, though, since it echoes my own views on the subject, is Krauthammer's assertion that environmentalism has become "a new religion" -- but a religion that differs in significant ways from most others, and poses a greater threat to our political and economic liberties, because it is embraced by the state and has socialist underpinnings.

Here's the sound of the hammer hitting the nail:

"Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means more than a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.

This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet."

All totalitarian movements need a grandiose mission statement; a goal big enough to justify their abuses of power. Some have marched under the banner of racial purity; others under the banner of the proletarian revolution. In the name of "saving the planet" -- what mission could be more important than that? -- almost any abuses of political or economic liberty can be justified. It's that awareness that explains my strong aversion to the new religion called environmentalism -- and my belief that Americans, just as they insist on a separation of church and state, must also demand the separation of cult and state.