In a piece from the LA Times, Ronald Brownstein explains Rudy Giuliani’s emerging “federalist” approach to issues such as abortion and gun rights.

In an interview last week, Giuliani said the key to resolving cultural arguments “where our society on a national level ends up being very divided” is to apply the “principle of federalism.” Questions on topics such as gun control, gay rights or aspects of abortion, he continued, “are issues that I think the founding fathers would say should be consigned to state and local governments, experimenting, deciding, having different views, and the federal government having a more limited role.”

Rudy’s new found appreciation of states’s rights (as a mayor he advocated strongly for much more expansive federal gun laws) only goes so far, however.

Even with this strong preference, Giuliani says “you can’t be a rigid slave to federalism.” Disappointing conservatives, he says he’s inclined to retain the nationwide educational testing requirements Bush imposed (though he would seek greater incentives for private school choice).

Nor would he “absolutely rule out” federal legislation on assault weapons if the state action he prefers proves insufficient. Disappointing liberals, he says he might eventually support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage if too many states approved it, especially through the courts.

If you’re a little cynical (or maybe just a little savvy) you might observe that Rudy is gung-ho for federalism as a way to avoid taking decisive positions on abortion or gun rights during an election season, but is giving himself a big out to ditch the concept once in office on the basis that, “well, we gave it a good try, but it’s just not working.”

Rudy’s not the first candidate — or should I say potential candidate — to suggest that federalist principles should be revived as a key part of the next president’s governing philosophy. Fred Thompson talked about it earlier this year in his ABC radio commentary. Perhaps he noticed how Giuliani seems to be attempting to put his brand on the concept, because he has now posted a relatively detailed exposition of his own views on the subject.

It is as true today as it ever was: the closer a government is to its people, the more responsive it is to the felt needs of its constituencies. Too often, however, state and local leaders have to answer to federal bureaucrats first and their constituents second. When the federal government mandates a program that states and localities are forced to implement, or when a federal grant program is created to fund a specific state or community need, it blurs the lines of accountability.

[...]

Back in my days in the Senate, I found myself on the short end of a couple of 99 to 1 votes. They involved issues that had been under the purview of states for over 200 years. I asked why we should federalize what rightly were state and local issues.

I’ve been saying it for years, and it bears repeating: what works in Tennessee may not work in Nebraska and may be different from what succeeds in Oregon. That’s why President Ronald Reagan compared federalism to letting a thousand sparks of genius in the states and communities around this country catch fire. It’s not a perfect system, but it works a lot better than the alternative of central planning.

...................
Share this!

Posts which might be related to this one based on a mysterious algorithm:

• America’s Mayor
• The Fredlog
• Rudy and Robertson