Pedro's Podium: U.S. Federalism vs. Nationalism

Since before the creation of the United States of America there has been a constant argument over our form of government. The first things that was decided was that the states would form a representative republic. The form of our elections have changed several times with the final process becoming a modified democratic system. This system is still debated. (Look at the 2000 election and the debate over the Electoral College for a good example.) Alteration in our government occur constantly. But I feel that we are straying too far from the Constitution, which could spell disaster for our freedoms as a whole.

One argument that has persisted is the structure of the central government. The founders argued at length on this. The most convincing case for the formation of the United States of America was put forward in the Federalist Papers. These 85 articles were used to sell the independent states that it would be better to have one central Federal government. A federal government is formed from the bottom up. The states were willing to give up some of their sovereignty to form a union. This union was designed to promote the common good and mutual defense. It is hard for us to remember today that the British Empire was a very large enemy of these, as they saw them, wayward colonies.

There have been those that have argued for a strong central government. These Nationalist think that we must have a national government. One of the first major victories for this cause was the American Civil War. If you consider that war as a war of secession then you can say that Abraham Lincoln was our country's first Nationalist leader. Lincoln was the first president to declare open war upon some of the original states that had created the union. Yes Lincoln preserved the union by force of arms. Of course we all know that the war started when Federal troops were fired upon in Charleston SC. But that is not my argument. Lincoln's actions emboldened the nationalist spirit.

Since Lincoln we have had several Presidents who have strengthen the central government. The next major Nationalist was FDR. He used the crisis at the end of the 20's to implement national laws and programs that greatly expanded the role of our central government. Some of these programs were found to be unconstitutional, but many remained on the books.

After Franklin Roosevelt the next major Nationalist was Johnson followed in quick order by Nixon and Carter. In fact the only elected president that has not advocated nationalism in his governance was Reagan. All of the Presidents since have followed Progressive Nationalist agendas. A few examples of the policies or laws promoted:

FDR: Social Security
Thurman: Medicare
Johnson: The Great Society and Medicare
Nixon: National Price and Wage Controls
Clinton: National Heathcare (HillaryCare)
G.H.W. Bush: Americans with Disabilities Act
G. W. Bush: No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D

But let me say that the President does not rule by fiat. He can only be an advocate. He does and can not simple make laws. But in some cases, as we've seen recently, he can do a lot of strong arming. He can do somethings through an Executive Order, but even those are limited. More on that later. The power to create law is in Congress and with such a large number of members it is expected that there will be a number of Nationalist thinkers in the mix. Plus you should also look at the third branch of government. Many of these policies would not be on the books if not for the blessings of the courts.

In the debate over the Heathcare Deformation it has become clear that our elected officials do not consider the constitutionality of the laws that they propose. They assume that they will pass and the courts will decide. This is a betrayal of their oaths:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Compare this oath to their actions and tell me if they are being loyal to you and the country as a whole. They do not swear to protect the federal system, but to support and defend the Constitution. But that document was created and sold on the principals of a Federal, not a National government.

Please Support us by visiting our sponsors

In today's political discussions the two terms are rarely heard. All of the talk about left vs. right, Liberal vs. Conservative, Progressive vs. Conservative, and others leave out these fundamental ideas that have been at the heart of our political lexicon for over 240 years. There is much more at the heart of who we are then mere left vs. right. We need to know where our politicians fall on these two issues before we hear any other stance of other issues, since many of their ideas of governance can be determined by this basic question: Are you a Federalist or a Nationalist?

How can you determine a person's political beliefs in this? Well consider some basics. It has nothing to do with Democratic or Republican Party since there are Progressives in both. If you are a Communist, a Socialist, a Liberal, or a Progressive then you must be a Nationalist. If you are a proponent of Roe v. Wade you have to be a Nationalist. The only way to obtain the goals of these groups is to impose your will nationally. If you are an advocate for state rights and smaller government, then you are a Federalist.