Jeffrey D. Sadow is an associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University Shreveport. If you're an elected official, political operative or anyone else upset at his views, don't go bothering LSUS or LSU System officials about that because these are his own views solely. This publishes five days weekly with the exception of 7 holidays. Also check out his Louisiana Legislature Log especially during legislative sessions (in "Louisiana Politics Blog Roll" below).
18.5.17
HB 71 support consistent with conservative principles
My colleagues at the Baton Rouge Advocate raise an issue concerning appropriateness of
state government intervention particularly according to conservatism, a concept
easily understood if cognizant of the scope and purpose of government as
defined in America and conservatives’ views on where in the act of governance optimal
policy-making occurs.
Referring to HB 71 by
state Rep. Thomas
Carmody, which passed the House after two hours of contentious rhetoric,
the editorial page shows confusion over the issue. Presently, state law
mentions nothing about how local governments may deal with objects such as
monuments related to military entities and events. In that vacuum, New Orleans through
its representative institutions has removed three related to the Confederacy
and has plans to cart off one more.
The bill would change the imputed process as it
currently exists – the governing authority brings up the issue of removal or
other alteration and may decide whether to make any changes – so that a local
governing authority would bring up the issue in the form of a plebiscite where
the voters in that jurisdiction decide. To this, the Advocate opines,
“For the Legislature’s self-proclaimed conservatives, who are supposed to
champion limited government, to meddle in how local communities manage their
monuments is the height of hypocrisy.”
That sentence contains two mistaken views, one
concerning the relationship between state and local governments and the other
in comprehending how conservatives define “limited government,” that leads to
the erroneous charge of “hypocrisy.” The former requires knowledge of the
philosophy behind the organization of power and relationships among different
levels of government in America, while the latter demands an uncaricatured
comprehension of conservatism.
Political debate about federalism typically follows
the Constitutional imperative establishing two levels of governments that gave
some exclusive powers (in the document) to each while granting some shared
powers (through subsequent judicial determination) as well. Thus, each level
has some degree of independence from each other and work to do different
things.
Unfortunately, very often discussion about
state-local government relations mistakenly assumes a similar arrangement. Rather
than the co-equal status afforded in the Constitution for the federal and state
governments, local governments exist fully as creatures of a state government.
States entirely choose whether to have these, the forms these take on, and what
powers to delegate to these. This principal-agent relationship causes local
government to serve as means by which the state implements its policy, which
may or may not include autonomy, by the state’s choice, for local governments
to make policy on the state’s behalf.
So, to argue that when the state wishes to make
policy regarding disposition of objects under local government jurisdiction is
“to meddle,” this misunderstands the fundamental relationship between state and
local government. By definition, the state can’t “meddle;” making this kind of
policy is in its purview. The state has the complete right to determine the
process by which changes can come to these objects.
This brings up the optimal way in which to shape
the process, which the Advocate presumes
to analyze using a conservative lens on the basis of “limited government.” To
conservatives, “limited government” means giving the institutions of government
the most minimal power necessary to achieve a societal objective, which also
will determine the appropriate level of government to pursue the objective. On
an issue-by-issue basis, this can vary considerably.
For example, in matters of defense conservatism
would argue that the federal government must be given an extraordinarily large
latitude of powers, for only this level can achieve adequate protection and it
must have often very intrusive powers to do so, i.e. instituting a military draft.
By contrast, conservatives rightly maintain that a function such as education
rests in the domain of states, and with a lesser degree of intrusiveness; for
example, a state may compel education up to a certain age, but that the form of
this should employ as much choice as possible that does not mandate attendance
at a government school. Generally to conservatives, the more limited the power,
the farther down the hierarchy of governance the power should reside.
Thus, to achieve limited government, conservatives
wish governance to occur as close to the people as possible, as the people, all
things equal, best know their own preferences and best act in their own best
interests. This preference equates to the “principle
of subsidiarity” (a uniquely American invention actually borrowed from
Roman Catholicism – although these days a number of Catholics seem to ignore
it, if not flout it in their rhetoric concerning political issues). Thus, least
preferred in placing authority to do something is in the federal government,
followed by states, then local governments, and finally by direct rule.
But, of course, things are not equal. The vast
majority of issues in governance do not lend themselves to popular governance,
as almost every member of the public does not want to involve themselves in
these out of time constraints and lack of interest. This decision-making
environment on these kinds of issues likely would lead to poor choices to
achieving societal objectives; thus, a division of labor is created where a
very small set of volunteers who pledge to devote the time and effort to make
these decisions offer themselves for election to rule indirectly on behalf of
everybody else, who then offer supervision through occasional elections.
So, conservatives argue a polity must make two
basic decisions, all on a principle of subsidiarity, for any given issue: whether
direct rule should occur, but if indirect rule would produce wiser
policy-making then which level of government should make policy and which
should implement it. Like any issue, military object disposition lends itself
to such analysis.
To remind, direct rule likely produces good policy
when the issue in question is something over which the typical person has the
willingness to understand its nuances, which largely is a function of his level
of interest in the issue at hand. Whether to bring down a monument readily fits
the bill: with very little effort someone can figure out what the object
conveys and very likely the imputed meaning (which may differ from person to
person) is something formulated long ago in the person’s mind. It is entirely
reasonable to expect the typical person can make an informed decision about
keeping or junking a monument.
Therefore, to a conservative it’s entirely
consistent to think that, on issues like this where appropriate, optimal
governance occurs through plebiscite. Since we govern optimally where the
appropriate level of decision-making occurs, HB 71 improves governance since it
places properly the locus of monumental decision-making, in the hands of the
people in proximity to the objects. There’s absolutely nothing hypocritical
about it for conservatives.
“Limited government” does not refer to an
automatic preference of not letting a first-order government tell a
second-order government how to conduct a decision-making process. It’s built
upon placing the appropriate amount of decision-making power at the appropriate
decision-making level. HB 71 unambiguously does the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment