***Part 2 in the series of “When In The Course Of Elections” series. For part 1 click here***
***In the interest of full disclosure: I am a rock-ribbed Conservative, both fiscally and socially. I am also a fervent Constitutionalist and Federalist. With that in mind – please read on.***
When In The Course Of Local Elections: Arguing The Case For Social Conservatism… At the state and local level.
It is important to note that there is a chasm between possessing ideological views and legislating them. Simply because a person holds a particular view doesn’t necessarily mean that they will impose that ideology upon the American people. This is what separates Federalists from the herd. A Federalist believes in the 10th Amendment. Any powers not specifically given to the federal government or prohibited by the Constitution shall be the sole property of the individual state.
As previously discussed in Part 1 of this series, the federal government should consist of Federalists who – true to the constitution – leave the social agendas and legislation to the states. The state is the proper place to install socially conservative views through our local representation.
For far too long have we Conservatives and the people of America focused on the federal level. By advocating social views in our Congress and President, we have brought about the very thing that we, as Conservatives espouse to stand against – Statism. In the mean time we have continued, to a certain extent, to ignore the local and state level. This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Collectively we have abandoned the core essence of Federalism while declaring our dedication to it. And in so doing, precipitated its undoing.
By continually issuing decree that our federal politicians must espouse and legislatively support our social views we have held the door open and allowed the statists to stream in and legislate theirs at the federal level – thereby usurping the appropriate role of the individual states. Conversely we have neglected, by and large, the arena in which social issues should be addressed. That is the state and local arena.
This is not to suggest that we should elect the morally ambivalent or ambiguous to the federal level. It is to state that it is in the best interests of the Republic that we ensure that the states remain a moral compass and the federal government remain a slave to that compass. Rather than the opposite – which is currently what we have. By ensuring that the federal government is comprised of those that refuse to legislate social issues we ensure that tyrannical oppression of the states cannot happen. It is also ensured that the states will be the de-facto moral fiber and compass – as designed by our forefathers – of the Union. Appropriately this is where social conservatism truly belongs.
This will also give the people a resounding and solid voice on the issues impacting their lives and locale. Which is where the social litmus tests yield positive results. One will also find the tendency of states to move towards the right. Of note is also the ease of changing state law as opposed to federal. It is also at the state level that “We the people..” have the power of referendum. By focusing our socially conservative ideology on the state and local level we give ourselves the loudest possible voice and greatest defense against the statist agenda. We will also find a more receptive audience at the state level.
Our forefathers designed a system of government that gave the states the greatest authority and impact on our daily lives. It is fitting that we embrace this design and direct our social views towards local governance where it will have the greatest possible impact. Utilizing this model will ensure the greatest possible amount of liberty for all Americans and provide the solid social fabric necessary to protect it. Which is precisely where the ideals and principles of social conservatism shine.
It will also remove the strain of social agenda from our federal representatives allowing the people to elect appropriately conservative federalists. Thereby placing our system of government back into balance. Rather than have 300 million people fighting over social issues that are not at the core of our union, the people within their own states can govern their own social behavior and allow the centralized government to settle inter-state disputes.
Should we achieve this form of self-governance the society as a whole will prosper and the morally ambivalent agenda of the liberal Democrats will eventually and inevitably die out. The people will see the virtues of the socially conservative states and the prosperity that they enjoy. And then they will see the social and economic rot within their own states. Nothing could make the case for conservatism more clear, more apparent, and less arguable. Seeing the inevitable success of the conservatively governed states, the citizens of liberal states will hoist the liberal oligarchs out on their collective keesters.