You’re ruining the world, apparently, and one liberal writer would like you to just cut it out.
“If you look back over the last 30 years or so, most of the major national agenda, one way or another, came out of Texas,” she said in a recent interview about the book. “The savings and loan crisis began with regulations that were based on Texas regulations. Our education policies are based on the No Child Left Behind law, which George W. Bush based on Texas education policy. The same is true for environment, for energy policy. And all the land wars the country has been involved in for my lifetime have been led by Texas presidents.”
On to her next claim.
But her real point is that Texas should change its ways and stop thinking of itself so much as a state.
Here’s an example:
“Gun rights is something Texas cares a lot about,” she says. “I think at this point people would agree that whatever Texas wants to do about gun rules is OK for Texas, but when it comes to things like sale of guns, when those guns that are sold in Texas go over the border and are used in crimes in say, California, or in Mexico frequently, then that’s something more. Then that’s no longer just a Texas issue. It’s no longer about states’ rights, it’s about national issues and national security.”
Is that really a can of worms this avid Obama supporter wants to open? That guns from Texas are walking over the Mexican border? Perhaps she should discuss that with Attorney General Eric Holder.
But it’s not right to merely mock one’s opponents. Her argument, as far as we can tell, is that states’ rights are an inconvenience in our system; federal interests should come first.
What she misses is that tension between states’ rights and the central government is the system. It’s called federalism, and it keeps power from becoming concentrated in any one area.
As Alexander Hamilton said, “this balance between the national and state governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them.”
Of course ambitious liberals (and at times, ambitious conservatives) find it inconvenient to their aims.