Via Obernews, an item in Slate on the Republican party's growing abandonment of federalism. For me federalism was always one of the great appeals of the Republican party (along with not hating commerce), so this trend is particularly unfortunate. As the author points out, it's a bit of a stretch to expect elected representatives at the federal level to oppose their own power (though Gingrich and company did at least make a little progress in that direction). Still, it would be nice if there was a viable political party that believed the "small is beautiful" principle applied to government.

Incidentally, if you've got libertarian leanings and you like your politics with a twist of sarcastic humor, swing by Obernews from time to time.

Yes, Glenn Reynolds and others have commented on "fair-weather federalists"--Republicans who profess to federalism, except when they can use the federal government to impose their desires on the nation.

I've just about gone over to the side of anti-federalism. The government is too big, and wants control of too much. Neither major party seems to care, making me wonder why I should support either one.

Ummm...David? I'm not sure you understand what "federalism" means (hint: it doesn't mean more power for the federal government).

David, read the Slate article. Yup, the Constitution was designed specifically to limit what the Federal government can do, but you can always expect government to look for loopholes to expand their power. It is sad to see how far they have gone.

I prefer a semi-libertarian regime: Define specific rights for the people and have the government stay out of the way there. For government issues, always keep them at the level closest to the people affected - usually that is city (or lower), then state, then federal.

And in this administration - well, I really have to hold my nose when I look at Ashcroft.

I found Mr. Chapman's piece a yawn. His message is apparently that politicians of all stripes are more wedded to practical results than abstract principle, and that therefore the fatal attractions of imperial government are still potent 1800 years after the Romans succumbed to them.

Ah. And what else is new? Surely few over the age of 30 could think there will ever be a fire-and-forget government, which we can vote into office and then blissfully ignore, trusting it will serve our interests (and not its own) selflessly and forever. Maybe it could happen when Dr. Asimov's robots are eligible for office -- but not so long as governments are made of ordinary men. So, yes, politicians of the right need as much skeptical oversight by the body politic as do politicians of the left. Even Ralph Nader knows that.

In politics, as in the Royal Navy, you must always choose the lesser weevil, so Mr. Chapman's general point is not only boring, vide supra, but moot, or at least a red herring. Once we grant the pedestrian point that both Republicans and Democrats will, from time to time, fashion new imperial machinery in Washington to "solve" problems which are insoluble or better solved privately, the important question becomes: which will do so less, on average, over time? I'd say that question answers itself.

Uhm, no. What is the answer? Certainly the two major parties tend to focus on different areas, but the result is the same. It really comes down to which flavor of federal intrusion annoys you less.

Far for government you can ignore, local control results in MORE political involvement and less apathy. The whole point of the constitional limits on Federal government was to stop that imperial nonsense. It worked for awhile, I suppose.

The "voting for the lesser evil" bit can work up to a point, but it fails when the actions of both parties converge towards the same end.

I prefer a semi-libertarian regime: Define specific rights for the people and have the government stay out of the way there. For government issues, always keep them at the level closest to the people affected - usually that is city (or lower), then state, then federal.

K3nnTm pqmqmgkzmovj, [url=http://mfjzxusjlxuc.com/]mfjzxusjlxuc[/url], [link=http://blcdqsfsqcfo.com/]blcdqsfsqcfo[/link], http://domlqaexrzzv.com/