Do consider States' Rights (including secession) to be left-wing or right-wing?

[Anarchist420]

If you had to say, would you consider it to be left-wing or right-wing?

I'd say it's largely right-wing, with a few exceptions (military/PATRIOT Act mainly).

I see no reason as to why anything should to be Federalized (other than the power to declare war and maybe citizenship/border enforcement as well as limited treaty making powers plus some limitations on the member states), but that's just me.

 

[fskimospy]

If you had to say, would you consider it to be left-wing or right-wing?

I'd say it's largely right-wing, with a few exceptions (military/PATRIOT Act mainly).

I see no reason as to why anything should to be Federalized (other than the power to declare war and maybe citizenship/border enforcement as well as limited treaty making powers plus some limitations on the member states), but that's just me.

Right, but that's because you're poorly educated. When you grow up, you'll look back on this time in your life and be embarrassed.

 

[TheBDB]

I'm not sure what the attraction is to the idea of state's rights, as opposed to federal power. It seems like the problems with government are much larger than the balance between states and the federal government. If the balance shifted either way it wouldn't solve all our problems.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

States don't have a right to secession.

 

[Thump553]

States don't have a right to secession.

Don't confuse him with facts. It's coming up on 4:20.

Personally I find the whole concept of right wing versus left wing usually used in a very distorted and not very meaningful way. We invented all sorts of bogus terms like social conservatives to mask the inconsistencies. Most idealogues merely characterize all wife beaters, child molestors and kitten drowners in the other camp from what they percieve themselves. After all, look at all the straight faced claims that have been made here that Hilter was a leftist.

 

[werepossum]

States don't have a right to secession.

If there's one issue that has been definitively settled, it's got to be secession rights.

I think it's almost always the right calling for states' rights. The left wants to force everyone in America to behave as they wish, so the right wants to settle for making only those in their particular state behave as they wish. Were it the right that had more recent success in enforcing it's agenda nationally, I imagine it would be reversed, but maybe not.

Personally I think the federal government should exercise only those rights established in the Constitution, with any and all other programs run completely by the states (including tax collection.) But I also think that rights should be established equally across all states and territories, so that when you cross state lines you may pay a different tax rate but have the same basic rights (not to be confused with having the same benefits, merely the right to have and to work to gain those benefits.)

 

[ElFenix]

some of the more considered lefties i know want to abolish states as separate sovereigns anyway, so i guess that tells you what they think.

 

[Infohawk]

Right, but that's because you're poorly educated. When you grow up, you'll look back on this time in your life and be embarrassed.

Agreed. Assuming he is young... which it seems like he is.

 

[Craig234]

We don't need more of this left/right nonsense that conveniently divides the people from being united against the rich who are harmful to them both.

Left/right is convenient for discussing some differences, for identifying some groups, but it's not really worth a thread here to try to put things into right/left.

What's wrong with just 'what level of states rights is best?'

The OP is highly ideological on the issue, but it's a reasonable topic then.

As to the topic: one reason states' rights is viewed as a right-wing issue is the history of racial discrimination.

When the south - which was heavily Democratic for a century after the civil war despite high levels of racism, often in opposition to the rest of the party - had to deal with the rest of the disapproving nation (which largely had its own racism happily for that century), it found it convenient to say 'we're defending states' rights' rather than 'we're defending racism'. So the 'principle' of states' rights was corrupted.

Meanwhile, the Democrats under JFK especially had the federal power view on this - using the federal government under the President's brother as the Attorney General to push for civil rights (eventually after a slow start), continuing and increasing the enforcement of court decisions begun under Eisenhower, to the point of violence and JFK sending marshals and troops to the South, as well as nationalizing the Mississippi National Guard, in a very controversial 'federalist' move, to deal with state governments who were more than happy to fight him and use the state police on the side of segregationists, which came to a head with a white mob fighting the enrollment of black James Meredith, for which JFK sent 500 federal marshals - the people Bobby Kennedy felt were the most reliable - and 200 of them were injured, two shot.

That has had a big effect on how 'states' rights' is viewed an issue, more than many economic and policy issues.

But ask Republicans who push for federal action to ban gay marriage in all states, or to limit abortions in all states (ban if they could), and the issue isn't all on one side.

Something left out of the left right issue is what works.

For example, on civil rights, not only did states rights not work in enforcing the law for that century after the civil war, but in the civil rights movement, JFK tried in a number of ways to have states follow the law - and it did not work. It was a practical issue that if blacks were not going to have a lot of discriminatory policies - like not being able to vote - that the only way to change that was a federal effort.

That doesn't mean the practical issues overrode states rights in the constitution, but it meant to use the constitutional federal power more than less.

We don't near enough from the 'states' rights' advocates to distinguish between the people who followed a constitutional principle - and warriors for racism.

In fact, I can't remember hearing pretty much anything on the topic - which discredits some of the states' rights advocates.

But I think people have little to worry about on states' rights today as opposed to the issue of concentrated wealth dominating the society including in politics.

Money, propaganda, ideology, are all threats to the people so that the nation's historic norms of policies for the people are marginalized.

The Tea Party has a strain of anti-corporatism - one they would do well to not lose and to support progressives on. Too bad about their corporate sponsorship on that.

Which is kind of why the tea party is doomed not to be 'for the people' it seems - they have no organization or money to do anything, but monied interests can pay for events, speakers, agendas, transportation, advertising and much more to 'steer' the movement the way a rancher steers his cattle. The tea party itself has its roots in the corrupt wall street interests - through the Rick Santelli 'rant for the rich'. Sure, his group just raped the country of trillions - but hate the poor.

States' rights is a fine constitutional question, but not that important currently compared of the larger issue of the people's rights - under attack by the the wealthy.

A key issue for states' rights advocates is less the constitution than a fear of a strong federal government whatever the constitution says. That's somewhat understandable, but I haven't seen these people show much understanding of the difference between the government when corrupted by the wealth, and the government when protecting the people from the wealthy. So they seem confused. In fact it serves the wealthy for people to just 'blame the government' - blame democracy, the 'power of the people'.

In effect, today's anti-government people, in our democracy, are rooting for the old English aristocracy, that had both private wealth and political power - against democracy. They hate the democratically elected government - which leaves power not in the hands of 'the people' but in the hands of American's aristocracy, the wealthy.

 

[Craig234]

some of the more considered lefties i know want to abolish states as separate sovereigns anyway, so i guess that tells you what they think.

First I heard of it. Links? After all, 95% of what we hear about the left here is wrong or lies, and I can't remember the other 5%.

 

[Jaskalas]

States don't have a right to secession.

Men do not have a right to be free you say? Fascinating.

No Union should be recognized without it being voluntary, of one's own free will. Paramount to the very notion is the right of secession.

 

[Craig234]

States don't have a right to secession.

I think they should. It's horribly impractical, but there's a principle that IMO outweighs that practical issue, self-determination.

What a small population does at one time to join the US should not force a large population a century later to be bound when they don't want to.

 

[bamacre]

I think they should. It's horribly impractical, but there's a principle that IMO outweighs that practical issue, self-determination.

What a small population does at one time to join the US should not force a large population a century later to be bound when they don't want to.

 

[werepossum]

We don't need more of this left/right nonsense that conveniently divides the people from being united against the rich who are harmful to them both.

Left/right is convenient for discussing some differences, for identifying some groups, but it's not really worth a thread here to try to put things into right/left.

What's wrong with just 'what level of states rights is best?'

The OP is highly ideological on the issue, but it's a reasonable topic then.

As to the topic: one reason states' rights is viewed as a right-wing issue is the history of racial discrimination.

When the south - which was heavily Democratic for a century after the civil war despite high levels of racism, often in opposition to the rest of the party - had to deal with the rest of the disapproving nation (which largely had its own racism happily for that century), it found it convenient to say 'we're defending states' rights' rather than 'we're defending racism'. So the 'principle' of states' rights was corrupted.

Meanwhile, the Democrats under JFK especially had the federal power view on this - using the federal government under the President's brother as the Attorney General to push for civil rights (eventually after a slow start), continuing and increasing the enforcement of court decisions begun under Eisenhower, to the point of violence and JFK sending marshals and troops to the South, as well as nationalizing the Mississippi National Guard, in a very controversial 'federalist' move, to deal with state governments who were more than happy to fight him and use the state police on the side of segregationists, which came to a head with a white mob fighting the enrollment of black James Meredith, for which JFK sent 500 federal marshals - the people Bobby Kennedy felt were the most reliable - and 200 of them were injured, two shot.

That has had a big effect on how 'states' rights' is viewed an issue, more than many economic and policy issues.

But ask Republicans who push for federal action to ban gay marriage in all states, or to limit abortions in all states (ban if they could), and the issue isn't all on one side.

Something left out of the left right issue is what works.

For example, on civil rights, not only did states rights not work in enforcing the law for that century after the civil war, but in the civil rights movement, JFK tried in a number of ways to have states follow the law - and it did not work. It was a practical issue that if blacks were not going to have a lot of discriminatory policies - like not being able to vote - that the only way to change that was a federal effort.

That doesn't mean the practical issues overrode states rights in the constitution, but it meant to use the constitutional federal power more than less.

We don't near enough from the 'states' rights' advocates to distinguish between the people who followed a constitutional principle - and warriors for racism.

In fact, I can't remember hearing pretty much anything on the topic - which discredits some of the states' rights advocates.

But I think people have little to worry about on states' rights today as opposed to the issue of concentrated wealth dominating the society including in politics.

Money, propaganda, ideology, are all threats to the people so that the nation's historic norms of policies for the people are marginalized.

The Tea Party has a strain of anti-corporatism - one they would do well to not lose and to support progressives on. Too bad about their corporate sponsorship on that.

Which is kind of why the tea party is doomed not to be 'for the people' it seems - they have no organization or money to do anything, but monied interests can pay for events, speakers, agendas, transportation, advertising and much more to 'steer' the movement the way a rancher steers his cattle. The tea party itself has its roots in the corrupt wall street interests - through the Rick Santelli 'rant for the rich'. Sure, his group just raped the country of trillions - but hate the poor.

States' rights is a fine constitutional question, but not that important currently compared of the larger issue of the people's rights - under attack by the the wealthy.

A key issue for states' rights advocates is less the constitution than a fear of a strong federal government whatever the constitution says. That's somewhat understandable, but I haven't seen these people show much understanding of the difference between the government when corrupted by the wealth, and the government when protecting the people from the wealthy. So they seem confused. In fact it serves the wealthy for people to just 'blame the government' - blame democracy, the 'power of the people'.

In effect, today's anti-government people, in our democracy, are rooting for the old English aristocracy, that had both private wealth and political power - against democracy. They hate the democratically elected government - which leaves power not in the hands of 'the people' but in the hands of American's aristocracy, the wealthy.

Some remarkably good points in there, not least of which is that the right often uses states' rights to attempt to make popular positions nationwide (or nearly so) one state at a time. The left tends to make less popular positions nationwide using the judiciary. Although I'm much more right than left, I have to admit that in human rights the left has been more often correct with its less popular positions than the right with its more popular positions. That's recognizing that the Republicans were the left trying to end racism before the Democrats were the left trying to end racism, as well as the right pushing bans on gay marriage. In both cases it was (and is) the left, no matter the party, in trying to lessen discrimination.

 

[wuliheron]

Where did you think they got the name "Republican Party" from? They didn't draw names out of a hat. The name reflects their core values including that the US should be a republic and not a democracy or federation. In a Republic states rights come second and that includes the right to secession. Lincoln was their first president and fought the bloodiest war in US history to ensure that the term "Republic" stuck for good. Republicans may be today's conservatives who espouse states rights, but originally they were the radical upstarts who promoted taking away states rights such as slavery!

 

[Phokus]

Vermont has lots of secessionists and they're sorta anarcho-socialists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vermont_Republic

 

[Phokus]

Where did you think they got the name "Republican Party" from? They didn't draw names out of a hat. The name reflects their core values including that the US should be a republic and not a democracy or federation. In a Republic states rights come second and that includes the right to secession. Lincoln was their first president and fought the bloodiest war in US history to ensure that the term "Republic" stuck for good. Republicans may be today's conservatives who espouse states rights, but originally they were the radical upstarts who promoted taking away states rights such as slavery!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

 

[Craig234]

Where did you think they got the name "Republican Party" from? They didn't draw names out of a hat. The name reflects their core values including that the US should be a republic and not a democracy or federation. In a Republic states rights come second and that includes the right to secession. Lincoln was their first president and fought the bloodiest war in US history to ensure that the term "Republic" stuck for good. Republicans may be today's conservatives who espouse states rights, but originally they were the radical upstarts who promoted taking away states rights such as slavery!

I'm very sympathetic to Lincoln's position about the south's secession. And in terms of building the US into a global power - arguably a world champion for freedom and democracy - it was a great success. I like a lot about the result of his policy - there are all kinds of benefits.

Yet there is the principle of self-determination - I have my opinion as a Californian, but the South has its opinions about what they want.

I abhor their immoral position on slavery - which has its irony as they grossly deprived a group of their right to freedom and had their 'freedoms' denied as well.

But in terms of the basic question whether they should be free to not permanently be part of the US if they don't want to, there's still the issue of that freedom.

While they had no defense on their moral crimes on slavery, they did have legitimate grievances against the federal system for having 51% be abusive to them.

Grievances there's little they could do about under our system.

The next state might have far better reasons, different than slavery, and their freedom will be impaired. The United States is an amoeba now slowly gobbling the world.

Of course, every other country without the right to secede is as well, leading to the inevitable conflicts as one amoeba eats another.

I think the essential thing for freedom is to somehow maintain diversity of power in the world - the opposite of the current agendas of the most powerful nations.

We've had some luck as the 'right' amoebas won previous battles, as Germany and Japan did not get to expand their empires in WWII for long.

But since then we've seen every powerful nation involved in this aggressive agenda as millions have been killed, tortured, and more, often by 'puppet' dictators.

Self-determination did not happen for those less powerful countries and people paid heavily.

It's never easy to deal with these things - what granularity has the right to secede? the Kurds in Iraq? A county or city in the US? The Chechnyans or the Tibetans?

But the basic idea of self-determination is one we should try to support - such as the recent developments in the Middle East, opposing our dictator Mubarak et al.

Why don't we give the states reasons not to secede instead of guns telling them they can't?

How could the civil war conflict have gone if the North had been fairer on issues other than slavery?

It worked out well on slavery, ending it - even if that hadn't been the intent, for example Lincoln having plan to phase it out by 1800 - but there were other issues.

 

[Steeplerot]

"States rights" has been the codeword for the racist southern strategy and the rallying cry for the changing of the guard from what was once the GOP to a party of southerner radicals, religious fundamentalists and other assorted "third way" elements. Is it "Republican" historically? Actually the opposite. But it is part of the GOP now with all the revolutionary war-loser divisive bitterness that goes with it. Quite ironic really, Lincoln would seriously facepalm the modern GOPs nonsense. (and probably burn the south one more time as they are getting stupid and divisive again it seems)

 

[ElFenix]

First I heard of it. Links? After all, 95% of what we hear about the left here is wrong or lies, and I can't remember the other 5%.

people i know personally, no links. a couple of people consider states to be historical accidents. i didn't say it was a common position.

thanks for your standard vomit % quote.

 

[wuliheron]

Politicians in either party will say anything to get votes and Lincoln, who was a lawyer or "mouthpiece", knew this better then any of us. You might as believe a professional wrestler when he starts trash talking his opponent. The proof is in the pudding and in this case the Republican party promotes big business and conservative agendas. Neither one of which support state rights much less secession. Quite the opposite, they support unity and uniformity.

 

[davmat787]

First I heard of it. Links? After all, 95% of what we hear about the left here is wrong or lies, and I can't remember the other 5%.

Notice he said "know"? To me at least, that implies a personal antecdote, rather than a study online you could link to.