Trump’s
election to the American presidency despite all conventional expectations
disrupted the past patterns and practices of national political governance.
Trump’s inconsistent but populist policies have upended the mono-partisan
American politics of the late 20th and early 21st century. The two
differently labeled wings (Republican, Democrat) of the same statist
warfare-welfare political party are now splintered and broken. Since neither wing
was able to prevent Trump’s ascendancy, neither is fully capable of holding him
in check.
In a recent fit of
presidential pique President Trump threatened to
remove federal ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) agents from
California. This due to the mayor of Oakland’s warning of pending ICE raids
targeting illegal immigrants in the SF Bay Area. Angry that the intended
targets were tipped off, Trump claimed that removal of ICE agents from Golden
State ports of entry would result in an immediate invasion by foreign
criminals. If Trump wants to pull ICE out of Cali and put federal checkpoints
up on I-5, I-10, I-20 and I-40, who’s to stop him?
Libertarians
may have a different take on this idea. Small separatist movements have long
existed in several American states, mainly California, Texas and Vermont,
though other states have also seen that idea gain traction. Recently the rise
of state level legalization of marijuana for medical or personal use, along
with practices by some large Democrat run cities about ICE enforcement actions
and firearm restrictions, have led to open defiance of federal laws about these
matters.
Imagine
if President Trump delivered on his threat to remove US customs/immigration
check points from California. We might then see highways and airports outside
of California borders dotted with federal agents inspecting travelers and
vehicles from the newly semi-independent California Bear Republic. “Please open
your luggage for inspection. Have your passport or other proof of American
citizenship available for inspection! California plate vehicles over here!”
If
this drastic action were to withstand legal challenge, it could well lead to other
states opting out of locally unpopular federal rules and regulations. This
might lead to a decentralized Balkanization of the American federal republic. A
republic of federated states no longer legally dominated by national federal
laws and regulations. One can imagine both Vermont and Texas deciding to tailor
immigration, drug and other laws to their own local preferences. Add Florida,
Hawaii and Alaska to the list, for obvious geographical reasons, and you have
real concrete steps towards meaningful decentralization envisioned by
libertarians.
But
the impact of internal ICE checkpoints surrounding federally non-compliant
immigration and drug policy states (among other local heresies) would have a
dramatic effect on the federal-versus-state relationships. Popular resentment
and hatred of federal border checkpoints would be immediate. The hallowed
American tradition of smuggling would soar. At the same time state level
policies on immigration and drug laws chosen by local governments and their
citizens would provide a dramatic laboratory for the effects of new laws and
practices.
None
of this would automatically bring about libertarian Utopia. But it would crack
the façade of untouchable federal diktat by the fewer than 600
politicians sitting in Washington DC telling everyone how to live. The unhealthy
concentration of federal officeholders is highly vulnerable to financial
bribery direct or indirect, which requires enormous amounts of special interest
money to get elected in the first place. Add to that the hundreds of federally
appointed judges and thousands of unelected appointed bureaucrats, and you have
a concentration of State power in one small city not seen since Moscow in
Stalin’s era or Paris during Louis XIV’s reign.
Does
any serious person believe that laws governing permanent residency/work,
personal drug use, online gaming or use of firearms should be the same for
citizens of Massachusetts, Texas and California? Why? Change can be good, and
the real world effects of differences could be judged.
There
is a liberal bias towards federal domination of the states. This comes as a
result of the historical experience of legal rights being expanded by federal
laws/jurists as the more restrictive state laws were overturned. This is mainly
a byproduct of smaller, rural states being more conservative law-and-order
places, as well as the legacy of legally enforced racism. Using the excuse
provided by now vanished state level laws, modern political liberals have
looked only to the feds when demanding changes. But this is mere historical
legacy. Now liberals are experiencing the opposite effect: federal political
leadership now is often more restrictive or conservative than what liberal
politicians would like in their own states and cities. It is no longer only
conservatives who advocate “state’s rights.”
Decentralized
politics can work both ways, for and against more individual liberty. In some
cases it is the federal level law and regulation which maintains libertarian
federal constitutional protections, as with the 1st, 2nd and
5th Amendments. So bedrock constitutional protection of individual rights
should not and need not be subject to local jurisdiction veto. But only a tiny
fraction of federal law actually protects individual liberty or promotes safety
and prosperity for American citizens.
Trump
inspired decentralization could be a good idea for the libertarian future. The
original 13 American states were not a monolithic polity where all resources
were directed by President George Washington and federal officeholders. Our
current nation is not monolithic in culture, economic development or political
direction. Californians should regard themselves as a proud, separate people,
even when they choose to be governed by neo-commies like Jerry Brown & Co.
No one is forced to live there. Ditto for Texas, Hawaii, Montana, Vermont or
Louisiana. Kansans don’t think like New Yorkers. Mainers have different
lifestyles and opinions than New Mexicans.
We
should be open minded. Trump’s irritable tweets may well hold the best future
path for a decentralized American republic. Each state or territory seeking its
own path to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Local self-control may
not always be perfect, but it is surely better than rule by the self-sustaining
and permanently entrenched DC Beltway oligarchy.
As a
wonderful bonus, you can bet that the citizens of Texas, California, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, et. al. do not want to be in the dangerous and
financially ruinous business of choosing which despot becomes ruler of Syria,
Afghanistan or the Congo. For that reason alone – improving prospects for world
peace — we should consider Trump’s California ICE removal threat
seriously. And positively. Decentralization needs to start somewhere.
Mike
Holmes [send
him mail] is a practicing CPA in the Houston area.
Previous
article by Mike Holmes: Trump the Disruptor
