Other people who saw through “states’ rights”
God, I couldn’t be more sick of the disingenuous “states’ rights” argument, now being whipped out on the gay marriage decision in California. It’s bizarre watching wingnuts get into a self-righteous huff about the all-important rights of states, when they only care about it when dismissing the fundamental rights of people. Which of course is never explicitly said, but that’s the point of it: “States’ rights” only seem to matter to people who feel the states can do a better job of oppressing the people than the federal government can. Should the federal government take the opportunity to wield power against individual rights—as they did with the federal ban on certain kinds of late term abortions—nary a peep to be heard from the people who have great love for the right of states, but not for people.
It just so happens that I started reading Nixonland by Rick Perlstein. In it, he quoted LBJ’s speech supporting the civil rights movement on March 15, 1965. I thought Johnson’s contempt for the “states’ rights” argument has some relevance right now.
There is no issue of state’s rights or national rights. There is only the struggle for human rights.
Blunt and to the point, as was his habit. With the gay marriage debate, you have the opposition forever arguing that the institutions set up to serve the people should take precedence over the people they’re meant to serve. The institution of marriage—at least the conservative definition of it—is supposed to be so sacrosanct that it can’t be modified to serve the very people marriage is supposed to serve. The government is not about serving the interests of the people, all of the people, but about just mindless oppression in the name of rights held by institutions that have no reason to exist without the people.
I mean, it’s obviously bullshit. But it’s such tenacious bullshit, and I have to wonder how many people who spout off about “states’ rights” honestly think the state is something that exists for its own sake and that it has rights above and beyond the rights of the human beings it’s meant to serve. 5%? 2%? 80%? What’s the stupid to evil ratio on this argument? How many of them realize that they’re echoing an argument that was reinvigorated to deny black people the right to vote? How many of them feel twinges of guilt, and how many would probably get on board with the idea that the state should be able to deny the right to vote on the basis of race? I am honestly curious about this.
23 Responses to “Short memories breed big sleaze”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I think that Conservatives are finally starting to realize that they really are going to lose this fight and that they may be losing it sooner then later. Thus their arguments against icky homo-marriage become even more absurd and more transparently hateful because they are reaching a state of desperation.
It’s so fantastic for me to think that just 13-14 years ago, back when I was in high school, I thought I would never be able to marry in my lifetime. Now in my new home state I can (!) and really think we are going to see full marriage equality on the national level in the next 15-20 yrs.
Wait, but shouldn’t the states rights fans be dancing in the streets about California right about now? The gay marriage situation is a TRIUMPH of the states rights approach. You have a divisive issue which isn’t being handled very well at the federal level. So the states take matters into their own hands. This should be paradise according to the theory at the center of states rights, which is that the states are better equipped to address the needs of their residents, and since people are relatively mobile they are free to choose a state that best responds to their needs.
Which is exactly what is happening — liberal states tend to be wealthy states, and reactionary states tend to have brain drain issues.
Of course, this “theory” at the center of their pet idea always manages to disappear whenever states rights results in more freedom for a wider range of the population. Anytime that happens, the whole thing collapses in on itself and is revealed as the rationale for bigotry that it is.
And to completely change the subject, is anyone else kind of disturbed that even though Obama cites Loving v. Virginia as a landmark for Civil Rights, he still thinks gay marriage should be handled by the states? I’m an Obama supporter, and that’s the only thing that sticks in my craw. For reasons of logic more than anything else.
The argument that you are making - that rights are human and not possessions of the state - is a standard libertarian argument, one made formally and informally in formal prose and over beers, almost to the point of triteness. Stating among libertarians that “the state has no rights, only human beings have rights” is sometimes the equivalent of walking down Bourbon Street in tacky touristwear shouting “Laissez les bon temps roulez!” - yeah, they agree, but have heard it before.
The general libertarian position on gay marriage is that the state should not be involved in the details of the question beyond enforcement of general contract law, period, but that if it must tinker and toy, it should absolutely enforce the covenants of marriage between all who elect to assume them, without discrimination for or against any subset of married people or for against the married re: the non-married. Again, this is not controversial in that community; stating it at a Libertarian Drinking and Debating Society meeting (which predates Drinking Liberally) is about the equivalent of arguing among Democrats that a minimum wage is a good idea.
While it’s almost always “libertarian season” at Pandagon, it’s good to note where some common ground might exist.
I only support state’s rights because, to me, it is easier to turn a small boat like a state (for example, Gay Marriage) then to turn a huge boat, like the federal government. The states should have every right to look at a law the federal government makes, nods, and then says “yeaaaah, that’s bullshit, we’re not going to do that.” The federal government would then throw a hissy fit, and go pout in its room.
I wonder where all those state rights conservatives are the next time some medical marijuana center gets busted.
I like how the conservatives are stumbling over-themselves to justify opposing gay marriage for a reason other than because it would “destroy marriage”
[libertarian nutjob]
of course, a better solution would to be get rid of state-sanctioned marriage altogether.
[/libertarian nutjbob]
While it’s almost always “libertarian season” at Pandagon, it’s good to note where some common ground might exist.
Yeah, as much as Pandagon and the commentators hate on libertarians, I noticed that much of the narrative of the site crosses over with my own individualist and cosmo-libertarian philosophy about 60% of the time.
Actually, we pretty much hate on Libertarians (and Randians), not libertarians. We are libertarians. It’s the Libertarians and Randians who decided you can’t be a libertarian without agreeing with them.
I don’t think anyone likes Libertarians or Randians except for sellers of XXXL t-shirts with dragons on them.
There is meant to be a tension between state and federal governments within our constitution. Generally, the idea has been that the local government can serve its citizens better than the far off federal government.
Conservatives have been playing fast and loose with the states rights argument to curtail civil rights since the Missouri compromise. This convenient interpretation of states rights has grown in the past few decades: be it the Oregon death with dignity law, the California clean air initiatives, or marriage equality.
Conservatism is an ideology of nostalgia, and it’s adherents will eagerly use any argument to maintain the status quo or to try to return us to some Edenic past.
I think the governments have duties, not really rights. Maybe some of their powers get expressed as “rights”, but it would be wiser to call them powers, don’t you think? I don’t think government power is illegitimate, like some crank libertarians. I just think it should be utilized to benefit citizens. Libertarians generally make the mistake of limiting the definition of “citizen” to “white, property-owning male”.
For instance, most of your folks that you’d call libertarians would object to all the federal protections for human rights, lending me to think that their interest in “liberty” is about as shallow as conservatives interest in “states’ rights”. It seems between conservatives and libertarians an argument on how to best oppress women and minorities—through individual force or through state power? The idea that institutions are good so long as they work for the people, all the people is not part of the conversation.
Here in KY I hear a lot about how states rights should be a priority. Usually I respond by saying, “Oh, like how wonderful it would be if states could vote to legalize gay marriage, or medical marijuana, or . . . ”
By then, people usually interrupt and say, a bit nervously, “uh, not really, uh, uh, uh.”
States rights are apparently ok, as long as you are promoting a “conservative” social agenda. And states rights is never (snark) a euphemism for bigotry.
The whole “state’s rights” business is interesting from the MA perspective … when there was a very loud outcry from the knuckledraggers that the federal government should do something about the renegade state letting the homos marry!
Funny how they weren’t for state’s rights when, you know, a state was going against their Heterohatred Agenda?
It’s like tort reform. The Righties espouse the whole “accountability” thing until it comes down to paying for your own negligence. You shouldn’t have to be accountable for your own actions if it’s going to cost you…
Lower case libertarians span a huge range of opinions - I know some who are in favor of national health insurance, for example. The problem is that the loudest and most influential ones tend to be douchebags (yes, Mr. Reynolds, I’m looking at you). I identify as a liberal rather than a libertarian mostly because the center of mass of libertarianism is dragged too far in the direction of douchebaggery, not to mention the fact that so many self proclaimed libertarians are really “I’ve got mine” conservatives trying to look sophisticated and principled rather than simply greedy and soulless.
That said, liberalism suffers from an interventionist predisposition towards social problems that can have unpleasant side effects. Government is inherently a blunt instrument, which makes addressing social problems in detail all but impossible. The correct (IMHO) approach is simple, uniform laws that aim at leveling the playing field rather than achieving a particular social outcome. Within the level playing field people will be able to choose what seems best for their particular situations. That means marriage ought to be treated as merely a special form of contract binding people together, with the details left to the parties involved. No requirements on gender, division of property or responsibilities or any of that stuff. In a way we are already headed in that direction with the increasing use of prenuptual agreements which modify the standard legal contract. Between now and the future Utopia of liberal limited government, however, we are stuck with an intrusive and rigid system of defining marriage, and the only way from here to there is expand the definition one little bit at a time.
Can we finally give now Johnson his due. I don’t think that Johnson would have allowed gay marriage and thus this comment doesn’t quite hit the level of relavency that we need but it is time to say that even though the vietnam war was a damn boondagle that killed a bunch of people, there what no one else on the scene that could have done the types of things that johnson did. Civil rights act, voting rights act, fair housing act, and many more.
togolosh:
Not that I’m accusing you of this, togolosh, but the problem I have with the “level the playing-field” approach is that all too often the subtext is actually “I know we’re all standing on a 60% slope in the freezing cold, but nonetheless, I hereby declare the playing field to be level and toasty warm.” Nearly all of the right-libertarians, Randians and conservatives in libertarian clothing I’ve come into contact with are of this ilk.
Government is inherently a blunt instrument, which makes addressing social problems in detail all but impossible.
Speaking as someone who comes from a country where the knee-jerk first solution to social problems is to expect the government to at least help fix them, and we have a healthy distrust of private sector “solutions” at best, I’d be cautious about expressing this sentiment as a universal generality. The United States governments may be blunt instruments; I’m not entirely sure that’s true of governments at large.
Is ’states rights’ just a moribund concept? Should there actually be NO states?
While local government may be convenient from a management perspective, is there any significant* right that one state could confer that another state could deny?
(IMO, local government by geographical watersheds makes a hell of a lot more sense than the arbitrary state borders we mostly have. )
*(here’s the sticking point, eh? What’s ’significant’?)
Dan - your objection is well founded. That’s sort of what I meant when I talked about “I’ve got mine” conservatism. The strategy is to profit as much as possible from immoral laws that enforce and encourage inequality, and then when those laws are removed pretend that everything is just hunky-dory and that the inequality remaining is due not to history but due to differences in innate qualities of the people involved. It’s a major problem with my preferred approach, and I’m acutely aware of that. To intervene directly in an attempt to level not just the legal playing field but that socio-economic playing field as well seems both necessary and intensely dangerous. Necessary because the inequalities are a direct result of government interference and because protecting the weak from the strong is a legitimate function of government. Dangerous because government intervention is a blunt instrument, and any intervention has the potential to both create new dynamics for exploitation and to foster dysfunctional social structures built around the details of how the intervention is implemented.
At least among the younger libertarian set - the ones who gave Ron Paul most of his money and who you see on streets, handing out literature - I’d say it’s pretty low on the “realize what they’re echoing” score. Mostly (90% maybe?) they don’t know about that history, so it seems perfectly benign and they can’t figure out why anyone WOULDN’T agree. They don’t particularly dislike minorities, and if dropped back in time to the 50s and 60s, would oppose using states’ rights to deny them their civil rights. A plurality of their douchebaggery, I’d say, in unintended and comes more from ignorance than maliciousness.
The argument that you are making - that rights are human and not possessions of the state - is a standard libertarian argument, one made formally and informally in formal prose and over beers, almost to the point of triteness.
It’s trite because it’s written into the US Constitution. The idea that individuals, not governments, have rights has been around for a good 200+ years, and acting like it’s something new and special that libertarians just thought up is pretty ridiculous.
Maggie Pax nails it:
“States rights” is a dodge dating back to before the Civil War. The 9th and 10th Amendments are continually cited whenever there is a Federal policy or law that a particular out-group finds odious; fine, let the Federal government declare their policy, but if we get control of a State we have the right to refuse to obey the law or to set our own policy.
The only reason “States rights” is cited by conservatives on any issue whatsoever (abortion rights, gay marriage, or whatever) is when they know that they cannot enshrine their preferences in federal law and indeed face the prospect of the opposite position being or becoming the law of the land. Then they will scream bloody murder about how it’s a States Rights issue and the Federal government ought not to be in the business of overruling the States.
I doubt that any of them actually truly believe in States’ Rights, as a Constitutional theory.
Gay marriage, reproductive justice, marijuana decriminalization, environmental protection and minimum wage laws are all popular sovereignty redux: With a veneer of democracy, let mob rule win the day and you can keep your free states while we keep our slave states.
I think Amanda said it best: States don’t have rights; they have powers - and duties, to the federal government, other states and American citizens. But we do live in a federalist system in which, historically, state governments did have more power than the federal government. This obviously changed after the Civil War and then again during the New Deal, but the U.S. Constitution was written to declare explicit federal powers, with the idea that remaining implicit powers belonged to the states or individuals themselves.
A constitutional amendment that was never adopted (duh) was the Corwin amendment. Proposed not long after the first seven states seceded from the Union, it prevented the federal government from interfering with the “domestic institutions” of states (meaning the feds can’t abolish slavery). I mention this, because if the whole “states’ rights” argument carried legitimacy THEN - when states did have much greater power (nevermind the supremacy clause of the USC) - why wouldn’t this amendment have been ratified? Instead, the 14th amendment was ratified 7 years later which codifies the exact opposite sentiment:
The U.S. Constitution is saying that states have to guarantee equal protection under the laws to all American citizens. That pretty much gives the shaft to the notion that the federal floor of civil rights can be further eroded by state government discrimination, even if it comes in the form of direct democracy or representative democracy.