The Decentralization of Political Power

Today the United States, and much of the world, is mired in uncertainty about what the future holds. People are divided, and we continue to throw gasoline on the bridges between us as they burn to ash. At the heart of so much of these issues is a simple question that has been asked by some, but not enough. Do we even want those bridges in the first place?

Now that we are done with the hyperbole, let’s get down to some specifics. Like all things, the problem isn’t a matter of complete separation or complete integration, it’s a matter of gradient. We can isolate ourselves ideologically and geographically from each other, we can live in constant communication and under a unified set of laws and principles, but also the vast swathes of options in between. The right has increasingly put forward the idea that cultural groups must live apart for stability to be possible, where liberals have continued advancing the policy of complete integration and acceptance. However, this problem is not new, and solutions to this conflict have been put forward before.
Federalism was a system designed to provide a compromise to this conflict. People would live in diverse areas with governments that were designed to care for the unique needs of their group, which sometimes meant having practically no government at all. These small targeted governments would be linked together in metastructures designed to coordinate their actions while allowing them to operate independently. In this way, no one group got absolute say over the actions of a distant out group. However, this has changed over the course of the history of the United States. Today, we see it as normal that people in San Francisco make laws regarding the way that schools teach their children in Ohio, and at the same time those in Ohio elect a president that can decide which health care those in San Francisco have access to. Forcing these two groups with vastly different objectives to vie over this massive power structure if only to prevent it from being wielded against themselves is a disaster that has already become almost unbearable. Despite this, each side also continues to grow the power of this weapon while it is in their hand causing the dangers to escalate even further. However, when we look for the causes of this all consuming fight, we see many choices that seem just and right. The left took up the sword to defeat slavery and protect civil rights for the disenfranchised. The right took up the sword to protect the rights enshrined in the constitution, and to defend against what they saw as their morals and freedoms being attacked. One might argue that because their cause was just, the left had no choice but to use the power of government and military might to control the right. However, this question is not so simple. If the north had a moral duty to invade the south and stop them from holding slaves, does the United States today have a moral obligation to invade and occupy countries which we believe are hurting their own citizens? If the left has an obligation to compel the business owner in the Midwest to serve certain customers, do they also have the obligation to go unto Indian reservations and force them to give universal suffrage? The left finds it too easy to ignore that states have a right to self governance for a reason, and that that right is just as real as the rights of any other sovereign power. States may have more restrictions than a nation, but the fact that there are restrictions on their sovereignty must be predicated with the idea that they have it to begin with. The left again and again has told conservatives that they are not welcome, and now the right has withdrawn from the institutions which served as the last vestiges of unity.

Now, I would be remiss to not point out that this problem is present from both sides. The right made cannabis an illegal drug across the nation, and has repeatedly tried to restrict access to abortion. The problem here is not what one side or the other is doing with this power, the problem is that they have it in the first place. When people are given power over others who are unlike themselves, they tend to wield that power to the detriment of others. It’s clear to see where this is going. All we need to do is move power back to the states, right? I think that while the arguments made above work to show the flaws in centralized control, they also show the weaknesses in decentralization. Would it be worth keeping slavery in order to preserve the tenets of decentralization of power? One argument I’ve heard when it comes to this balance, is that one has to take it on a case by case basis. If this is the opinion you hold, I simply ask what policies do you think are good, but should not be passed in order to preserve the rights of states. Many people have a hard time answering, because they only support losing power in the abstract. When it comes to losing the ability to affect positive change, most people will realize that the really do want to hold that power. If one wants to accept the benefits of decentralization, they must also accept the loss of power to themselves. This is similar to the fact that if one want free speech for themselves, they must also be willing to accept speech that they see as negative. For us to successfully create institutional rights, we have to be willing to uphold them, even when that has a cost.

Today, so many have forgot that simple truth. Society doesn’t just happen, it is the hard work and sacrifice of those willing to give up personal power and control in order to achieve a more stable world. People have no rights other than those that have been won over the centuries by the hard work of humanity, in our attempt to make a world where the ability to coerce others doesn’t reign supreme. If we are to continue on this path, we have to accept that we must give power to those that we feel will misuse it if we wish the same to be done for us. I often fear however, that we’ve walked too far down the path for a simple solution to be possible. The bridges are burning, and too few are willing to attempt the crossing in earnest. Perhaps it’s too late to turn around. If so, then let us walk forward, and instead of trying to go back to what was, to build anew the rights and values that we have forgotten.