5 ms·

>he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. No, he's a states rights guy because he's a states rights guy, an

by scythe 15y ago

>he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. No, he's a states rights guy because he's a states rights guy, and he holds to that position even when states pass laws he disagrees with. Look, the two most decentralized first-world countries that I can think of are Canada and Switzerland. These are not draconian racist hellholes; they're considered some of the freest countries in the world. This is a guy who thinks abortion is the most evil thing in the world and still opposes federal laws banning abortion because he thinks it's a state issue. I disagree with him about abortion, but the fact remains: he's not some scheming ne'er-do-well who wants to bring back Jim Crow laws, he's a consistent, ideological antifederalist who thinks decentralization is the way to go. In the majority of recent, real-world instances, local laws have tended to be more liberal than federal laws. We've seen this with gay marriage, we've seen it with medical marijuana, and we've seen it with election reform (see also Calif. Prop. 14); we may very well soon see it with recreational marijuana.

whycombine 15y ago
he's a consistent, ideological antifederalist who thinks decentralization is the way to go. Wouldn't that actually make him a federalist? Federalists support the type of government called a federation, which is what the Articles of Confederation originally created and the Constitution sort of maintained. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist
fl3tch 15y ago
> Look, the two most decentralized first-world countries that I can think of are Canada and Switzerland. These are not draconian racist hellholes But the South was. You're ignoring the evidence of history. Canada and Switzerland are simply much less diverse, and it's pretty naive to think that racists in Mississippi and Alabama, who never went away, wouldn't seize on the chance to reinstitute something resembling Jim Crow laws. Edit: > No, he's a states rights guy because he's a states rights guy The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club. He's a states rights guy because he's a Christian fundamentalist who wants the power to enforce his provincial values on others, and the federal government gets in the way of that.
- adbge 15y ago
  > it's pretty naive to think that racists in Mississippi > and Alabama, who never went away, wouldn't seize on the > chance to reinstitute something resembling Jim Crow laws. He's the naive one? Frankly, what you're suggesting is absurd and borderline offensive. As if the enlightened North and federal legislation are all that prevents the re-institution of Jim Crow laws! Give me a break.
  - scythe 15y ago
    Let's take a look at what modern-day Mississippi residents actually have to say: http://mississippibelieveit.com/home/ http://mississippibelieveit.com/home/ >The “good ole boy” network alive and well in Mississippi? Not hardly. Our new “network” consists of more black elected officials than any other state in the country – a number that grew from a mere 81 in 1970 to 897 in 2000. Mississippi is as racist today as Russia is Communist. Give me a break.
    - jbooth 15y ago
      Take a look at the legislative maps. Creating 99% black districts to consolidate the black vote into the smallest number of seats isn't really support for your position, even if the people doing it are pure post-racial political optimizers (they're not post-racial). Also, I don't know how old you are, but you do realize that many southern people from 50 short years ago are still alive, right? You're positing that right after the civil rights act was passed, all those people firehosing black people and setting the dogs on them and stuff, they just changed their minds and did a 180? And raised their kids that way?
      - scythe 15y ago
        Every state gerrymanders. Mississippi is hardly alone on this. >In the state of Ohio, a conversation between Republican officials was recorded that demonstrated that redistricting was being done to aid their political candidates. Furthermore, the discussions assessed race of voters as a factor in redistricting, because African-Americans had backed Democratic candidates. Republicans apparently removed approximately 13,000 African American voters from the district of Jim Raussen, a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives, in an attempt to tip the scales in what was once a competitive district for Democratic candidates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States That's coming at you from blue-collar freezing-cold northern Ohio. Furthermore, "right after" the Civil Rights act was passed? It was passed a full 47 years ago.
grandalf 15y ago
In the majority of recent, real-world instances, local laws have tended to be more liberal than federal laws. This is an excellent point. It's also far more expensive for lobbying groups to try to influence politicians state by state. Powerful Federal officials represent a one stop shop for buying influence, so decreasing Federal power will reduce corruption.
- espeed 15y ago
  Exactly. And for this reason, would we be served better if there were more members of Congress? (http://www.quora.com/Would-US-citizens-be-served-better-if-there-were-more-members-of-Congress http://www.quora.com/Would-US-citizens-be-served-better-if-t...). How many members would it take before lobbying became prohibitively expensive?
toyg 15y ago
Switzerland is really not a model when it comes to racism. Until very recently, its government was blatantly organized along ethnic lines, with clear glass ceilings for some groups. Public opinion is very conservative on this matter, and most laws are enacted in clearly racist terms.

by scythe 15y ago

whycombine 15y ago

he's a consistent, ideological antifederalist who thinks decentralization is the way to go. Wouldn't that actually make him a federalist? Federalists support the type of government called a federation, which is what the Articles of Confederation originally created and the Constitution sort of maintained. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist

fl3tch 15y ago

> Look, the two most decentralized first-world countries that I can think of are Canada and Switzerland. These are not draconian racist hellholes But the South was. You're ignoring the evidence of history. Canada and Switzerland are simply much less diverse, and it's pretty naive to think that racists in Mississippi and Alabama, who never went away, wouldn't seize on the chance to reinstitute something resembling Jim Crow laws. Edit: > No, he's a states rights guy because he's a states rights guy The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club. He's a states rights guy because he's a Christian fundamentalist who wants the power to enforce his provincial values on others, and the federal government gets in the way of that.

adbge 15y ago
> it's pretty naive to think that racists in Mississippi > and Alabama, who never went away, wouldn't seize on the > chance to reinstitute something resembling Jim Crow laws. He's the naive one? Frankly, what you're suggesting is absurd and borderline offensive. As if the enlightened North and federal legislation are all that prevents the re-institution of Jim Crow laws! Give me a break.
- scythe 15y ago
  Let's take a look at what modern-day Mississippi residents actually have to say: http://mississippibelieveit.com/home/ http://mississippibelieveit.com/home/ >The “good ole boy” network alive and well in Mississippi? Not hardly. Our new “network” consists of more black elected officials than any other state in the country – a number that grew from a mere 81 in 1970 to 897 in 2000. Mississippi is as racist today as Russia is Communist. Give me a break.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    Take a look at the legislative maps. Creating 99% black districts to consolidate the black vote into the smallest number of seats isn't really support for your position, even if the people doing it are pure post-racial political optimizers (they're not post-racial). Also, I don't know how old you are, but you do realize that many southern people from 50 short years ago are still alive, right? You're positing that right after the civil rights act was passed, all those people firehosing black people and setting the dogs on them and stuff, they just changed their minds and did a 180? And raised their kids that way?
    - scythe 15y ago
      Every state gerrymanders. Mississippi is hardly alone on this. >In the state of Ohio, a conversation between Republican officials was recorded that demonstrated that redistricting was being done to aid their political candidates. Furthermore, the discussions assessed race of voters as a factor in redistricting, because African-Americans had backed Democratic candidates. Republicans apparently removed approximately 13,000 African American voters from the district of Jim Raussen, a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives, in an attempt to tip the scales in what was once a competitive district for Democratic candidates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States That's coming at you from blue-collar freezing-cold northern Ohio. Furthermore, "right after" the Civil Rights act was passed? It was passed a full 47 years ago.

grandalf 15y ago

In the majority of recent, real-world instances, local laws have tended to be more liberal than federal laws. This is an excellent point. It's also far more expensive for lobbying groups to try to influence politicians state by state. Powerful Federal officials represent a one stop shop for buying influence, so decreasing Federal power will reduce corruption.

espeed 15y ago
Exactly. And for this reason, would we be served better if there were more members of Congress? (http://www.quora.com/Would-US-citizens-be-served-better-if-there-were-more-members-of-Congress http://www.quora.com/Would-US-citizens-be-served-better-if-t...). How many members would it take before lobbying became prohibitively expensive?

toyg 15y ago

Switzerland is really not a model when it comes to racism. Until very recently, its government was blatantly organized along ethnic lines, with clear glass ceilings for some groups. Public opinion is very conservative on this matter, and most laws are enacted in clearly racist terms.