KenH
Well-Known Member
"Our Union, a growing number of people agree, is in trouble. Many people fear that ‘cultural issues’ are on the verge of rending it asunder — or at least our democratic political process, at a minimum. If that goes, though, this will be an utterly different nation, one without liberty under the law.
...
Under the Articles, though, the states were very much independent units.
...
More generally, the weaknesses of that Congress as a governing body are widely and to an extent incorrectly attributed to the Articles of Confederation — though it had problems aplenty, mostly related to relations among the newly formed, independent states.
...
Next year (2026) will mark 250 years since the issuance of the Declaration of Independence. So, unlike when that occurred, we now have as a nation two and a half centuries of living together in a Union. Many of the reasons for having abandoned that form of Union no longer exist.
Today, we have a strong, fully integrated national economy with a national currency. We are used to deferring to a national government to decide matters pertaining to international relations. Returning to a Confederation would reduce drastically the budget of the central government...It could continue with the structure it has in place, only with many fewer issues to decide.
...
In short, many of the issues that vexed the Confederation no longer exist. We now have a history binding us together as a geopolitical unit. Even so, those cultural issues appear to be possibly stronger than our Union — or at any event our Constitution — is.
When political liberals were routinely the dominant force in national politics they wanted as many issues as possible, including cultural ones, decided at the national level and conservatives wanted as many issues as possible decided at the state level. Now that the latter are in power nationally they want as many issues as possible, including cultural ones, decided at the national level. Yet, liberals are not at the point of wanting to refer issues to the individual states.
Perhaps they should be. The same logic that underlies deciding issues at the state level impels us to the conclusion that issues should be decided as much as possible at the local level. All governmental entities would still be bound by the constraints on governmental power in the Constitution. Within that context, cities, where political liberals dominate politically, would be free to be bastions of political liberalism concerning ‘cultural issues’ while the rest of the localities in each state would be free to be as conservative as they liked.
The idea of going back to (some version of) the Articles of Confederation would be a means of preserving our Union...while allowing for much greater cultural diversity among localities...Viewed from a far enough distance, the states in our nation are more culturally homogeneous than our nation as a whole is. Yet, the real divide in this nation is not state-to-state, but urban/rural. To, for the sake of “ourselves and our Posterity,” establish a yet “more perfect Union,” we should consider a contemporary iteration of the Articles of Confederation.
- rest at Back to the Articles of Confederation?
...
Under the Articles, though, the states were very much independent units.
...
More generally, the weaknesses of that Congress as a governing body are widely and to an extent incorrectly attributed to the Articles of Confederation — though it had problems aplenty, mostly related to relations among the newly formed, independent states.
...
Next year (2026) will mark 250 years since the issuance of the Declaration of Independence. So, unlike when that occurred, we now have as a nation two and a half centuries of living together in a Union. Many of the reasons for having abandoned that form of Union no longer exist.
Today, we have a strong, fully integrated national economy with a national currency. We are used to deferring to a national government to decide matters pertaining to international relations. Returning to a Confederation would reduce drastically the budget of the central government...It could continue with the structure it has in place, only with many fewer issues to decide.
...
In short, many of the issues that vexed the Confederation no longer exist. We now have a history binding us together as a geopolitical unit. Even so, those cultural issues appear to be possibly stronger than our Union — or at any event our Constitution — is.
When political liberals were routinely the dominant force in national politics they wanted as many issues as possible, including cultural ones, decided at the national level and conservatives wanted as many issues as possible decided at the state level. Now that the latter are in power nationally they want as many issues as possible, including cultural ones, decided at the national level. Yet, liberals are not at the point of wanting to refer issues to the individual states.
Perhaps they should be. The same logic that underlies deciding issues at the state level impels us to the conclusion that issues should be decided as much as possible at the local level. All governmental entities would still be bound by the constraints on governmental power in the Constitution. Within that context, cities, where political liberals dominate politically, would be free to be bastions of political liberalism concerning ‘cultural issues’ while the rest of the localities in each state would be free to be as conservative as they liked.
The idea of going back to (some version of) the Articles of Confederation would be a means of preserving our Union...while allowing for much greater cultural diversity among localities...Viewed from a far enough distance, the states in our nation are more culturally homogeneous than our nation as a whole is. Yet, the real divide in this nation is not state-to-state, but urban/rural. To, for the sake of “ourselves and our Posterity,” establish a yet “more perfect Union,” we should consider a contemporary iteration of the Articles of Confederation.
- rest at Back to the Articles of Confederation?