Patrick Henry on the Constitution and State’s Rights

Since the Tea Party has tended to use the founding fathers of the United States as the basis (after, perhaps, the Bible) of their ideology, I think its useful to look back to that early period and see, even then, there was serious contention between political activists on what the role of government ought to be. (We should remember as well, that this was before the Industrial Revolution, and even before incorporation laws existed in the states, so America was not only a different society, but there were no corporations for the government to regulate or contend with.)

Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution, on the grounds that it “was as radical a revolution as the one which separated the colonies from Great Britain”. I find it interesting that libertarians and tea partiers oppose a strong centralized government, while at the same time regarding the Constitution as a sacred, unchangeable document. Their counterpart in the 18th Century regarded any central government stronger than a loose Confederation of states to be jeopardizing individual liberties; from these “proto-libertarians” the Constitution was akin to modern notions of the “socialist” Obama government.

[5 June, 1788]

I am not free from suspicion: I am apt to entertain doubts: I rose yesterday to ask a question, which arose in my own mind. When I asked the question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and America may depend on this: Have they said, we the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing--the expression, We, the people, instead of the States of America. I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a Monarchy, like England--a compact between Prince and people; with checks on the former, to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a Confederacy, like Holland--an association of a number of independent States, each of which retain its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a Confederacy to a consolidated Government. We have no detail of those great considerations which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is as radical, if in this transition our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the States be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see, that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this same relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans: It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and an half had adopted it, I would with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.
--Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention

…To Henry I would reply, that the governments of provinces or states are just as apt to curtail individual liberties as a central government. It did, after all, take national legislation in the 20th Century to give equality to people of color and women.

Ohio Sovereignty Amendment

Just read about this in my Columbus Dispatch feed. It looks as if a group of teabaggers is trying to get a Amendment to the State Constitution on the ballot, which would implant some of the extreme right wings' ideas into Ohio's Constitution. The gist of it is this:

" Among other things, the Ohio Sovereignty Amendment would allow juries to nullify laws; expand the right to bear arms and maintain militias; permit recall of elected officials by petition signatures alone; ban federal enforcement of laws except through a county sheriff; and require all public school operations through the 12th grade be regulated only at the local district level."

Sounds like typical teabagger lunacy to me, but if they somehow push it through, it could make Ohio into its own breakaway republic, with the county sheriffs ruling over us like a class of petty warlords (see Sheriff Joe Arpaio). If an elected official makes an unpopular decision, or even if they piss off people (read: corporations) who can raise enough money to push through a mass petition, they're kicked out of office. Local schools can teach whatever they want. It also means that at a time when the state's economy isn't doing so great, we'd be cutting ourselves off from Federal aid.

So, basically, there are increasingly vehement groups out there trying to dissolve the governmental structures that hold our society together.

Actually, in following the Dispatch's link to the home page of this movement, I was surprised to find that it in turn is associated with the former Democratic representative Jim Traficant, who has now joined the Tea Party movement. For a definition of the Tea Party movement, see Demagogy.

Health Care Reform

I've been waiting with bated breath to see if the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act would be passed by Congress. It has, and now I won't hold my breath to see how well it is implemented. Actually, it seems to have played into the insurance industry's hands, requiring everybody to buy insurance even though there are no caps on premiums and no national market for insurance that I know of. It does support consumers from some of the abuses foisted upon them by insurance companies in the past. Now I'm really afraid that the disloyal opposition, as the right-wing has become, will begin a last-ditch, state-by-state fight against the Act, or even win next years elections and try to repeal it. One step forward, three steps back.

In the meantime, even though the tea party put up a smokescreen of mass opposition, as time goes on (if things don't change) less and less people will find themselves in a good position with medical coverage, because of the arbitrary association of health care with jobs. Moreover, health insurance companies don't compete with each other nationally like car insurance companies do (I've seldom heard complaints about mandating that!), so there isn't a real market. Moreover, the supply side of health care providers and pharmaceutical companies do not compete on an even playing field, so costs for insurance providers and individual "consumers" are not controlled by any market forces (besides what large-scale employers and insurance groups are able to negotiate through weight of numbers).

I'm not the expert on this issue by any means, but I've personally been hit hard by health care bills despite having supposedly "comprehensive insurance" as a student. So I feel very strongly that something must be done: either create a system of real market competition where patients can select the best value for their money from both insurance plans and health care providers, or socialize everything.

I might add that abortion has been used as a foil to get Christians to oppose reform. But if the reforms fail, abortion will still exist. If on the other hand reform succeeds, it will enable poor people to better get the care they need. You can organize all the Church-led charity and service programs that you want (and you should!) but without large-scale reforms led by the State, inequity in health care will continue to be just another hedge keeping white-collar middle class society insulated from the impoverished masses.

Moreover, I fear that without real reforms, with a shrinking middle class we will eventually have a REAL social and political revolution: the worst fears of tea-baggers will come true.