Fred on Restoring Federalism: Bring Back Reagan on the 10th Amendment

“Beyond specific policies, what’s needed are some basic rules to restrain the federal rule-makers.

“A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected.

“It is not enough to say that we are ‘for’ federalism, because intoday’s world it is not always clear what that means. What we are ‘for’ is liberty for our citizens. Federalism divides power between the states and government in
Washington . It is a tool to promote freedom. How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom are questions we must answer. Our challenge – meaning the federal government, the states, our communities and constituents – is to answer these questions together.”

Putting down a marker on behalf of the 10th Amendment – which reserved to the states and to the people all powers not specifically designated by the Constitution as federal perogatives – is surely a cornerstone of a genuine conservative appeal to voters.

Thompson’s mention of the Reagan executive order recalls this hallowed passage from the former president’s first inaugural address:

“So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government–not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

“It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.

“Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it’s not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work–work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.”

That passage was behind Reagan’s issuance of the executive order referenced by Thompson. Had the GOP majority in Congress devoted itself to reinvigorating the 10th Amendment as it did to expanding earmarks, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would still be minority leaders. More important, much progress would have been achieved towards restoring the proper balance among governments at all levels in the U.S.

But Thompson points to a consequence of excessive federal power that ought to ring true with everybody regardless of persuasion who cares about preserving the credibility of government at all levels:

“Federalism is not an 18th century notion. Or a 19th century notion. It retains its force as a basic principle in the 21st century, because when federalism is ignored, accountability, innovation, and public confidence in government at all levels suffer.”

Indeed, there is a clear correlation between the expansion of federal spending, regulation, taxation and presumption, and the decline of public confidence in all major public and private institutions. When one element of the federal system is out of balance, it throws all the other elements out of balance,  which in turn leads to confusion and contradictory claims of responsibility throughout civil society.

Thompson points to the explosion of federal involvement in public education since the Great Society as the classic illustration of the correlation:

“Perhaps the clearest example of federal over-involvement in state and local responsibilities is public education. It’s the classic case of how the federal government buys authority over state and local matters with tax-payer money and ends up squandering both the authority and the money while imposing additional burdens on states.

“Between 1970 and 2005, federal spending on education increased nearly 150 percent without results to match. The No Child Left Behind law itself increased federal funding by some 26 percent, while creating 50 new educational programs nationally, imposing almost 7 million hours and more than 140 million dollars in compliance time and costs. The classrooms of America, where the learning actually takes place, receive but 61 cents out of every tax-payer dollar appropriated.

“A little more federalist confidence in the wisdom of state and local governments might go a long way toward improving America’s public schools. The most encouraging reforms in education are occurring at the local level, with options like charter schools. And often the best thing Washington can do is let the states, school districts, teachers and parents set their own policies and run their own schools.”

The situation is actually worse than suggested by Thompson’s assertion that only 61 cents of every tax dollar appropriated to education actually is spent in the classrooms. Spend some time here in the U.S. Census Bureau’s school finance data and you will see exactly whyI say that.

I often remind my liberal friends in the mainstream media and non-profit advocacy communities who believe Washington has become too secretive that you can have open government or you can have big government, but you can’t have both simultaneously.

Liberals who want the government to be efficient in addressing critical social challenges should recognize the value of the 10th Amendment in assuring that officials can actually address those problems effectively.

It’s encouraging that Thompson seems intent upon moving the presidential campaign towards a debate on first principles. It is too little recognized among the current generation of conservatives that Reagan’s great advantage during his career was that he always sought to put issues and proposals in the context defined by first principles.

Those first principles of the Constitution – including especially the division of powers enshrined by the 10th Amendment – are our greatest guarantee of security, liberty, accountability and efficiency.

UPDATE: Morrissey lauds Thompson’s “Philosopher’s Campaign”

Captain’s Quarters’ Ed Morrissey has had no hesitation from the outset of the current campaign season about commenting on the actions, records and statements by the presidential candidates.  He praises Thompson’s lengthy post on federalism as the latest example of a campaign Morrissey has characterized as one devoted to discussion of first principles.

Says Ed: “Thompson has conducted the most substantive campaign of the cycle. Hopefully, he will continue that effort once he officially enters the race.” I agree.  Frankly, Thompson is the only one of the major candidates (or candidates-in-waiting) in either party who has done this, at least in my judgement.

UPDATE II: Electorate hasn’t forgotten RR

Scott Johnson of Powerline offers some useful analysis of a new Rasmussen survey that found “like Reagan” polled most strongly among a selection of potential presidential candidate descriptions. Says Scott:

“‘Moderate’ polled only 29%, which suggests that most Americans want a Presidential candidate to stand for something, as long as it isn’t liberalism. But what people really want, apparently, is another Reagan. And they’re much more likely to see a Republican in that role than a Democrat.”

2008 presidential campaigns

Fred Thompson

Porkbusters

Earmarks

Federal Spending

Bush

Congress

Politics

Democrats

GOP

Conservatives

Liberals