Having taken Wirt's correction to heart and done my research, I find I am much closer to being a conferdaralist (not capitalized, OK I'm inventing a word) doctrine than federalist. I should not have said I was a Federalist, but a federalist. I was remiss to allow the natural implication of historical context, which put the Federalists on the side of a stronger federal government than their adversaries of the day.
My point was that federalism with it's balance between centralized control (only where appropriate) and the limited sovereignty of the states is more desirable than a sovereign central government (a republic, in our representative "democracy").
I say I lean toward a confederalist attitude because in a confederation, the central government does not hold authority over the individual, and the member states tend to be more sovereign; in a federation that authority over the individual is divided between the federal government and the state government. It is the nature of the division and overlap of such authority that naturally continues to be in contention.
I react negatively to any trend toward awarding more of this authority to the federal government.
As an aside, I note that the encyclopedia.com entry for "federation" states that a cultural affinity is considered necessary to the success of a federation. I admit that encyclopedia.com does not state whose opinion they represent.
I have long said that for our form of government to work, and our nation to remain functional, a shared set of moral and ethical principles, and a culturally consistent value set, are required.
However, the current push toward invalidating and denigrating traditional values, and toward promoting the idea that individuals should not be expected to conform to same, will bring (is bringing) our society into decline.
I'm certainly no bigot, even though some who remember my posts from last year will disagree (pink is not a color in my rainbow); I value and enjoy other cultures and those that represent them. I feel that if society is working well, the demographics of the workplace will mirror the demographics of the society. However, it is my belief that the Diversity movement as being pushed today will serve to eventually support arguments for Globalism as a governmental form. That is, national governments that are successful stand in the way of Globalism, but those that are not will be the Globalist poster children.
-dtd
[log in to unmask] on 07/26/2001 05:21:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]@Internet
cc: (bcc: David T Darnell/CO/KAIPERM)
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Federal Budget Surplus....
David writes:
> I wish to remind or inform our viewers (tho most are probably aware) that "
> Federalist" meant very restricted power to the national government, a
> federation of states being more loosely coupled than a republic. I have
> always been a federalist.
Actually, you have it backwards. You're apparently an Anti-Federalist, not a
Federalist.
The Encyclopedia Britannica writes this about the Federalist Party:
"[The Federalist Party was an] early U.S. national political party, which
advocated a strong central government and held power from 1789 to 1801. The
term federalist was first used in 1787 to describe the supporters of the
newly written Constitution, who emphasized the federal character of the
proposed Union [over the powers of the individual states]."
In contrast, the Britannica writes this about the Anti-Federalists:
"[The Anti-Federalists were] in early U.S. history, a loose political
coalition of popular politicians such as Patrick Henry who unsuccessfully
opposed the strong central government envisioned in the U.S. Constitution of
1787 and whose agitations led to the addition of a Bill of Rights. The first
in the long line of states'-rights advocates, they feared the authority of a
single national government, upper-class dominance, inadequate separation of
powers, and loss of immediate control over local affairs. Stilling their
opposition in order to support the first administration of President George
Washington, the Anti-Federalists in 1791 became the nucleus of the
Jeffersonian Republican Party (subsequently Democratic-Republican, finally
Democratic) as strict constructionists of the new Constitution and in
opposition to a strong national fiscal policy."
As stated above the Anti-Federalists eventually evolved themselves into the
modern Democratic Party, thus let me be the first to welcome you into the
Democratic Party, Dave :-).
Wirt Atmar
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
