 | Edwards Stumps in Chicago | |
| In Today's Video Vault | |
| Grassley Swings at (and Misses) Obama | |
| Richardson's Interview | |
| This Just In.... |
| In Defense Of Incrementalism | |
| The War Comes Home | |
| Roe, Not Giuliani, Is The Real Abortion Muddle | |
| Rudy's Party Or Reagan's? | |
| Blair's Influence To Outlast His Iraq Stand |
| Problem-Solving Trumps Polarization | |
| Democrat Victory, Conservative Gain? | |
| Hot Story: Great Expectations | |
| The 527 Media's Predicament | |
| Busting This Year's Election Myths |
|
November 02, 2006
50-State Democrats: Back to the Lunch Pail
By Froma HarropImagine Democrats in Washington who don't all sound like Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel or Ted Kennedy. That's about to happen, as party Chairman Howard Dean's 50-state strategy bears fruit. The plan involves running strong candidates on Republican turf and letting them speak the native tongue. Some worry that a socially varied Democratic Party would lead to chaos. California liberals would clash with Colorado libertarians, who would spar with Bible Belt Carolinians.
Doesn't have to happen. A more diverse Democratic delegation could avoid geo-cultural warfare by sending many socially contentious issues back to the states, where they belong. Then Democrats in Washington could concentrate on their lunch-pail issues, above all, economic justice.
A 50-state Democratic Party can calmly govern Washington thanks to the federal system. States can make their own gun laws, for example. They already do. Texas and Wyoming go easy on guns, but New York and California maintain tough controls.
The laws reflect local attitudes and conditions. And that's what the Founders of our federal system -- which divides power between the central government in Washington and the states -- wanted to happen.
Consider gay marriage. Domestic law is a state responsibility, and marriage is part of domestic law. So who may marry whom should be no business of the politicians in Washington.
But when the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that its state constitution guarantees same-sex couples the legal benefits of marriage, President Bush immediately stuck his nose in. At a campaign stop in Indiana, he denounced New Jersey's "activist" judges. Whether these state judges are activist or not should be the concern of New Jerseyans and no one else.
Again, each state sets its own rules. Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage. Vermont and Connecticut permit civil unions. Nebraska and Georgia, on the other hand, retain bans on same-sex marriage, which their courts have upheld. So be it.
Regulating the practice of medicine is another state function. That didn't stop the Bush administration from stomping on Oregon's doctor-assisted-suicide law. And was there any weirder sight than federal agents ripping out marijuana stalks in the backyards of California cancer patients -- plantings that state law permitted?
The state power to regulate medicine should also apply to abortion. I know this does not sit well with many fellow pro-choice advocates, who revere Roe v. Wade's federal guarantee to abortion. But legal experts on both sides of the issue regard Roe as flawed constitutional law. Were the Supreme Court to strike it down, the abortion question would move to the states. Draconian bans on abortion would lead to enormous hardship, in this writer's opinion. The states that institute them would then have to deal with it.
Democrats should welcome taking abortion off their national agenda. They could then appeal to the many religious conservatives who oppose abortion but care deeply about the environment -- a federal responsibility that the Bush administration has shirked.
Education is supposed to be a state concern, but the president seems very much into micromanaging what high schools must teach. Shorn of this task, Washington politicians would still have lots to do -- and not inconsequential things, like defending the nation, controlling immigration and setting fiscal policy.
Of course, culture colors many federal issues, as well. The 50-state strategy should ease future conflict by bringing heartland sensibilities into a party long dominated by the swingers on the coasts.
A party that becomes a more viable option for evangelicals, hunters and rural folk would be good for the country and good for Democrats. A 50-state Democratic Party can govern in Washington, as long as it keeps its eyes on the lunch pail and lets states do their job.
| Sponsored Links |
