What Happened to Republican Opposition to Big Government?

Paul Revere spreading the alarm, prior to
composition of the U.S. Constitution

Federalism does not give exclusive political power to a central government but divides power between national and state governments. The United States of America was designed as a federalist system. The 20th-century Republican Party (not to be confused with the 19th-century Republican Party), and especially its right wing, used to be very strong for noninterference by the federal government. Twentieth-century Republicans were against the Feds most of the time. They were all "Don't Tread On Me!" Funny (not really), but now that they are (I don’t say “firmly”) in the seat of federal power, they have changed their tune big-time and seem more than willing to go along with a L'état c'est moi! executive.

 

Look no further than the president’s war against “sanctuary cities” and his sending National Guard troops into cities with democratically elected Democratic mayors, against the wishes of both city mayors and state governors, even where Republican governors say the troops aren’t needed. Without search warrants, without probable cause, ICE troops—and make no mistake, they are definitely “troops,” too—are seizing individuals off the streets, out of their homes, from school and store parking lots, even from courthouses where they, the individuals seized, were showing up for court appointments in the legal pursuance of their paths to citizenship. The people thus abducted are not arrested, only “detained,” without lawyers, without court dates, in prison-like facilities often far from their homes (there is one in Baldwin, Michigan), where visits from family members are difficult when not impossible.  

 

It doesn’t stop with the deployment of the National Guard and with ICE seizures, either. Many states with reasonable questions about the role of so-called Artificial Intelligence are looking for ways to control that genie before it is completely out of the bottle (too late?), and now the president is raging against state attempts at control and has signed an order to override and invalidate states’ laws controlling AI. It's an issue that is only going to get larger, state by state, with big companies angling for land for huge data centers, e.g., 280 acres in Wayne County’s Van Buren Township; 172 acres in Ionia County’s Lyon Township; 250 acres in  Saline Township south of Ann Arbor; and more.

Water, energy, noise and light pollution are the immediate concerns as data centers “flock” to Michigan communities (and what protection do these communities have from billionaire-owned corporations backed by federal executive power?), but that doesn’t even begin to address the large possibility that these data centers constitute the largest financial investment bubble our country has ever seen. If you didn’t follow the link to watch this podcast in my recent Books in Northport post, please follow and watch and listen now. You don’t have to go through my blog. Here is the direct link. Know what’s at stake before you take a position, please, but don't wait to find out what's at stake!

 

Finally (and I say “finally” only because I’m stopping today with this item, not because it exhausts the list), the right-wing Heritage Foundation is now targeting ranked-choice voting as something to be shot down. The idea of increasing voter choice has been gaining momentum in Michigan through a petition drive, but eliminating ranked-choice voting is among the priorities for the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a wish list of policies with the overall goal of taking power from individual voters and from states and handing it to a federal government with strong right-wing goals.  

 

(Was our federal system designed with states as incubators, so-called “laboratories of democracy,” or is that only myth? It's the rationale I've always heard for the limited independence of state governments. I found an interesting article online that argues against states as laboratories for democracy, but the argument seems to be that it is third-party groups within states that shake things up, not the state governments themselves, so how strong an argument is that? After all, those third-party groups are working through the state governments. What do you think?)

 

Washington is not dictating every single state law (yet), so when does the current administration think it’s okay for states to take an initiative? Banning abortion or restricting voting rights on a state-by-state basis seem permissible to Heritage-Washington. (I can only wish those vitally concerned with the lives of zygotes had at least equal concern for the lives of air-breathing children and adults.) Otherwise? The Great Father in Washington will decide for you. 

Are you on board with that? What kind of freedom is possible without community control and state power overpowered?