This story in the New York Times about northeastern states developing their own pollution control program provides an excellent segue into an issue I have been advancing for months. This is the possibility of Democrats becoming the party of states’ rights. Although this may seem like reactionary proposal from a party that is out of power at the national level, I believe that in addition to winning the support of a few niche voters, Democrats can better advance their policy objectives by supporting more states’ rights.
A good example of this would be gay marriage, a difficult question for many Democrats. In the current climate any kind of national acceptance is highly unlikely. And although a federal Constitutional amendment is unlikely, it is still a probability. In my opinion Democrats should follow what John Kerry said during his campaign and leave it up to the states. This provides Democrats would a fairly solid argument, all the while preventing a federal Constitutional amendment.
Environmental issues provide another avenue. It is evident that the Bush Administration is not concerned with passing any kind of meaningful legislation, so it is up to the states to get in front of this issue. California is leading the charge for a regional pollution control pact much like the one in the northeast. More states should follow their lead; I would also encourage states to follow California’s lead in requiring higher standards for mileage per gallon from cars.
I believe that by supporting
states rights in these issues, in addition to issues like gun control,
education, and a variety of economic issues, Democrats can capture a group of
voters that have felt somewhat alienated by the federal power grabbing that has
gone during the Bush Administration. Making
such a transition may not be easy, but the Republicans have done just fine
leaving their fiscal responsibility tenets behind, and I think the Democrats
can do the same thing with their belief that federal programs and laws are preferable
to state ones.
Comments