The consensus among most Americans, especially conservative Americans, is that local governments promote liberty because they are held accountable by their constituents, while the federal government is a big liberty-eating monster. In this piece, Jonathan Chait argues that local governments can be more tyrannous than the national government and their actions are not noticed by voters. Although this isn't directly related to the current election, it is an interesting read considering that most Republicans running for state office attack the current administration for being too powerful.
The article offers an interesting perspective on a common argument, but it's not without its flaws. Chait never defines what he means by "Big Small Government" and, as a regular columnist for a liberal magazine, is obviously biased. Do you guys think he's on to something?
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/ferguson-worst-governments.html
Chait does define a "Big Small Government" in the article. As he writes, "Paul (writer of Time) was expressing an almost axiomatic belief on the right that bad government equals big government, and big government equals centralized government." Later on, however, Chait proves that the local government is actually the ones who are the most tyrannous, not the federal government. Thus, the big federal government is not necessarily the bad government, but the big local (or small) government is actually being the problem, spreading its ruthless power upon citizens in stealth.
ReplyDeleteThis article was a good read; it discusses a varying perspective on small vs large governments and the power they oversee. I find why small governments may be feared as tyrannical since they have more control over the smaller population, but then again the federal government has power over the state to prevent such a tyranny from existing.
ReplyDeleteThe topic of local government vs. national government will always be prevalent in America. One side will always say that local governments are tyrannical and another side will argue the federal government is tyrannical. I personally think that local governments are not as powerful as this article makes it out to be. Local governments heavily rely on federal wants and needs. The federal government has way more control over the country (and ultimately citizens) than local governments do.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Woojung: as we discussed in class, the local governments of the United States used to be much bigger than they are now concerning power over the people. Nothing has changed much legislatively since the writing of the Constitution and now concerning what the states have the right to do (e.g. establish public education, issue marriage licenses), but financially, a lot has changed. The federal government can easily influence how a state uses its money by tightening or loosening the purse strings. A majority-Democratic Congress could coerce a state into legalizing gay marriage (something the federal government wants) by giving federal funding towards building new schools (something the state government wants) if the state government does so. Likewise, a majority-Republican Congress could coerce a state into giving tax breaks to the upper class by restricting funding towards state healthcare. So, the federal government generally has more power.
ReplyDelete