Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is this a sound political position? I always championed Liberal hotspots like UC Berkeley, Boulder Colorado, Northampton Mass, Portland Oregon, Burlington Vermont, Austin Texas, Asheville North Carolina, Cambridge Mass
But these happy Liberal places exist because of communities that support it, not because of Govt politicians in Congress and the White House.
Federal Govt need not be anything more than Centrist, practical, wise, and frugal
Political and social controversies must be locally determined, community by community, not dictated by a U.S. Supreme Court.
The more Federal power dictates and regulates, the less freedom we have. The more overegulated the Govt becomes, ironically, the LESS likely you will see places emerge like Boulder and UC Berkeley. It is counterproductive to Liberal goals to have Too much Liberal power in the central Govt.
I think Liberals and Conservatives should actually both withdraw their struggle for national political takeover And compromise on a very limited but vaguely regulated central Govt that is wise and frugal and leaves it to local governing authorities and the people to fill in the voids. Every American will be happier because of it, Liberals AND Conservatives.
Well, that's the essence of federalism, really. The intention was for state and local communities to be somewhat autonomous, leaving the federal government to take care of things that couldn't practically be done on a state and local level. Yes, I would very much like to see that happen. Not only is federal overreach stifling, but what does a government in D.C. know about what a community in Alaska needs, 3,500 miles away? Local communities are by definition more in tune with the needs of their people, and they can almost certainly be more responsive to those needs.
I recall that around 1975-80 'decentralization' was a common buzzword on the left. Probably a reaction to Richard Nixon and the notion of the 'Imperial Presidency.' There was the whole 'commune' phenomenon around that time.
Now fast forward 40 years later, and I don't know of any on the left who still promote 'decentralization.' Instead the push is to get more and more gov't function shifted to Washington DC. Everything from anti-obesity programs to hooker stings is now under the purview of DC. Federal spending as a pct. of GDP is at a peak.
I agree with you. If there is a bad policy at the state level 1)it's easier to get it changed; 2) you can move to another state if it becomes bad enough. But good luck selling this notion to others on the left.
Yes, it's notable how the focus on the left has shifted from trusting and working for things to get done at the local level to letting the feds handle it. All it's done is undermine the autonomy of our states and communities.
It seems one of the only groups that still focuses on the local is the paleoconservatives. Bill Kaufmann wrote an excellent article a while back about how we need to dismantle the empire and become a "front porch republic," falling in love with our neighborhoods and local communities again, rather than looking to D.C. for all our answers. He makes the case that our hometowns and communities are where the real America lies, and from where it can find its greatness again. I agree with him 100%.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,543 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Something important you are missing: having power be distributed as locally as possible is the conservative ideal. Thus it makes no sense to say that conservatives should withdraw their struggle for national takeover and compromise on a limited central government. That's already what conservatives want. We struggle for national control so that we can stop liberals from imposing federal authority everywhere. It's like trying take a gun not so that you can shoot it but so that you can keep it safe and not have it shot at all.
I believe that you believe what you said. That doesnt make it true.
Both ideologies believe in a central government, both ideologies believe in ideals that should be held on a national level and both think there are things that should be only done on the local level.
The disagreement is on which issue should be which.
I believe that you believe what you said. That doesnt make it true.
Both ideologies believe in a central government, both ideologies believe in ideals that should be held on a national level and both think there are things that should be only done on the local level.
The disagreement is on which issue should be which.
The Constitution decides that. Course it isn't followed like the founders intended.
Liberal ideals would be higher tax shares: More restructuring of wealth to community/determined values (Teachers and performing artists to get say more tax bebefite eventhough the supply/demand market rewards more money to say financial consultants)
You are a Big Government, group think Socialist. You remind of Liberals who claim to be "Centrists" with this same type of sneaky rhetoric.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) work? Try nowhere.
