Why Did The Left Fail to Employ Federalism Against Trump?

[cpwill]

Nothing personal at all, my friend. I disagree with your assertions.

That is good to hear. I had thought that this:

this is structured as a troll thread Intended to engender exactly the kind of reactive posts it has​

Was an attack on my intent. Apparently you meant something else.

Moreover, the "separation of powers" within the government is not federalism - by definition (you know I'm a sticklerfor definitions). It is, however the plan of the Constitution. So I get your point. Indeed, the legislative branch is outlined in Article I for a reason

Indeed it is - and I would argue against the "Co-Equal" position for that and other reasons.

However, the separation of powers is indeed part of our Federalist structure (or, at least, the on we are supposed to have )

I happen to agree that Congress, as a body, has over several administrations, failed to wrest its authority back from the Executive, and that this has been detrimental to the functioning of government.

I would agree with this

I think it important to note, however, and contrary to your premise, that this is best done by the members of the same party. Then it is a point of governing, not politics. It is, I think, disingenuous, to suggest that this is the fault of the opposition - regardless of party affiliation. This is matter of governmental structure.

But less so with this - that is, in fact, how our system of government is supposed to operate - opposition of faction checking faction. The system is built so that each actor pursuing their own partisan interest is supposed to serve the general interest of maintaining the system.

Indeed, I think that we could have gone a great deal toward your goal if the party of the Executive had seriously considered the articles of impeachment, or the results of the Mueller investigation, when those were first at issue. Moreover, the proper approach to the January 6 events would have been to move forward with bipartisan support with the Commission that was proposed. It was right there, and it is hard to argue against fact-finding on the subject when Congress itself was the object of the attack. Again, party politics won out over principle.

I agree with the thrust of your complaints, but I think the effort to tar "the left" with the failure is inappropriate.

You'll get no argument from me that Republicans should have supported Impeachment of Trump - I did, both times.

However, it is faction pursuing its' self-interest that is supposed to provide the most reliable check against faction, and, I am disappointed that, in this case, they failed to do so as fully as they could have, in the means that would have served this country best .

 

[NWRatCon]

Indeed it is - and I would argue against the "Co-Equal" position for that and other reasons.

As would I. The term was an invention of Franklin Roosevelt - to bolster Executive authority. The Framers, and most commentators up to that point, used the term "coordinate" branches - meaning each branch had its purpose and they interacted within their sphere with the other branches, not that they were of equivalent purpose.

However, the separation of powers is indeed part of our Federalist structure (or, at least, the on we are supposed to have )

I would agree that separation of powers is part of our Constitutional structure, but the "federalism" part of it is strictly fed-State, not between the branches.

But less so with this - that is, in fact, how our system of government is supposed to operate - opposition of faction checking faction. The system is built so that each actor pursuing their own partisan interest is supposed to serve the general interest of maintaining the system.

I don't think the framers viewed it through the lens of faction, actually. They were, in the main, opposed to it. But, they were also cognizant of the attraction of factionalism and tried to build counterbalances to it in the structure of the government. Those counterbalances have not proved sufficient.

You'll get no argument from me that Republicans should have supported Impeachment of Trump - I did, both times.

For which I honor you. I think of you as a legitimate, principled conservative (if somewhat misguided ), not a partisan in the extreme sense.

However, it is faction pursuing its' self-interest that is supposed to provide the most reliable check against faction, and, I am disappointed that, in this case, they failed to do so as fully as they could have, in the means that would have served this country best .

I think you and I would disagree, however, in what "would have served this country best".

For example, I think that the States' laws on firearm regulation are well within their inherent (and explicit) constitutional authority. Similarly, I think State standards on environmental regulations are well within their purview. You did mention the "single payer" systems, which I would agree would also be something that they could implement - although most States would not have the wherewithal to support it. One of the defects of our federal system, in fact, is the disparity in financial resources: something that I think is the responsibility of the federal government to compensate for. That, for example, would include education and other social programs. We are all citizens of the same country and the prosperity we achieve together should be shared together (the General Welfare and Common Defense). Mississippi, for example, does not have the same financial resources as Texas, or California, or New York, and that lack of resources hurts its residents disproportionately. The Constitution actually addresses that in several different provisions, the idea being that the impacts and benefits of the taxing and spending authorities be uniformly applied and equitably distributed.

 

[cpwill]

From MSNBC:

...The alternative sounds awful: Just let people be? Bednar proposed that a renewed commitment to federalism, which would entail a degree of tolerance for highly intolerable state policies, might allow polarized frustrations an outlet. The anger needs to go somewhere.​

​

Whether we should do this is immaterial; it’s happening. Texas has all but banned abortions; Florida’s Covid-19 policies are designed to benefit a potential Republican presidential candidate’s aspirations; the specter of teaching students proper history is deemed “critical race theory” by half a dozen states, whether the label is properly applied or not.​

​

And yes, a renewed federalism would have to work in the other direction, too. It would ask of the anti-media right a degree of tolerance about linguistic evolution and police violence and transgender rights that it seems congenitally incapable of mustering. I don’t see Americans feeling that charitable....​

While I am not exactly on board with the characterizations (nor am I nearly so apprehensive at the outright horror of "letting people be"), I am in favor of the direction

The underling Bednar paper the author is referencing.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Now that the Trump Administration is over, I'm periodically (It's tough to think for any length of time when you have kids ) reflecting back on what my expectations had been v what actually occurred. Trump was a bit more destructive to our Constitutional order than I thought, and, long term, has done significant damage to the GOP as I feared. His Judges were far better (from a Conservative point of view) than I had initially feared, and at least he didn't try to hike taxes.

One thing that I had hoped for didn't happen: although the Left was incensed by his rise and bitterly opposed to everything he did, they never leaned on Federalism to stop him. I had hoped that Democrats would use this opportunity to seize power back from the Executive for the Legislature in a major way.... but they seemed (looking back) not to have done so. I had hoped that Democrats would use this opportunity to reinvigorate the power of the States they controlled to set their own policy, seeking to prove (though I would have personally been unlikely to agree) that Democratic policies were superior by enacting what they couldn't get at the Federal Level at the State Level.... but they didn't, really. We never got a Single Payer System in California. New York never experimented with 90% tax rates (and, the one time the Trump administration effectively did raise tax rates on upper income folks, Democrats in New York got very upset about it; repealing that decision is now a priority of Nancy Pelosi's).

Progressives had a tool, written right into the Constitution and immediately available, to reduce the impact of Trump and Republicans on their lives, and, individual states and localities may have made their own decisions, but, I didn't see the appeals to our Federalist structure that I expected once they realized that would have been a far more effective means of #resisting.

Why?

Because Federalists, especially those in office, despise anyone who isn't to the political Right so much that they wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
You're arguing that the tools of federalism are at their disposal, I argue that even knocking on that door yields a volley of political shotgun blasts that send the message:
Go to Hell

Where would they apply federalism? In the courts? SCOTUS is not about to even listen to anything Dems have to say much less rule on anything that might help them.
They're gleefully fulfilling Trump and Bannon's wet dream of rewinding and undoing anything that remotely resembles progress.
Voting rights? Forget it...if you can walk to the polling place and stand for hours without food or water, you get to vote. If there isn't a polling place anymore within 20 miles, tough beans.
Discrimination, bribery, second class citizenship, all now a reality thanks to nine people or the majority of them anyway.

Federalism can only be applied if Congress agrees to use that tool, and if a Dem thought of it, no matter what it is, it's getting filibustered and it dies on the floor.
Shall we wait and see if a sympathetic bunch of Republicans agree to help Dems use Federalism and apply it?
Rotsa ruck with that.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

We never got a Single Payer System in California.

That's because three times in a row, the legislation sent to the Governor's desk has been shit.
Governor Brown made a point of explaining that he thought the first bill, written mostly by the California Nurses Association, was so badly put together that he was unable to even come up with a cocktail napkin estimate of costs. And it's been the same with the next one or two stabs at it.

If anyone ever does come up with well written policy I suspect California will support it and the Governor will sign it into law.
It has to be so damn good that it drowns out the lobbies AND proves workable for Californians.

Oh yeah sorry...the very FIRST** single payer actually got sent to Arnold, not Brown. He just flat out vetoed it.
I do not remember why.
Brown vetoed the CN Association's "second attempt".
I do not remember who came up with the first one to Der Guvernator.

We have something like four or five million MORE residents than all of Canada so that should teach us that it is indeed POSSIBLE to make this sausage somehow, because Canada made it work for 33 million, and we have nearly FORTY million.

 

[cpwill]

Because Federalists, especially those in office, despise anyone who isn't to the political Right so much that they wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
You're arguing that the tools of federalism are at their disposal, I argue that even knocking on that door yields a volley of political shotgun blasts that send the message:
Go to Hell

Where would they apply federalism? In the courts? SCOTUS is not about to even listen to anything Dems have to say much less rule on anything that might help them.
They're gleefully fulfilling Trump and Bannon's wet dream of rewinding and undoing anything that remotely resembles progress.
Voting rights? Forget it...if you can walk to the polling place and stand for hours without food or water, you get to vote. If there isn't a polling place anymore within 20 miles, tough beans.
Discrimination, bribery, second class citizenship, all now a reality thanks to nine people or the majority of them anyway.

Federalism can only be applied if Congress agrees to use that tool, and if a Dem thought of it, no matter what it is, it's getting filibustered and it dies on the floor.
Shall we wait and see if a sympathetic bunch of Republicans agree to help Dems use Federalism and apply it?
Rotsa ruck with that.

.... You know this is disconnected from reality, right?

 

[cpwill]

That's because three times in a row, the legislation sent to the Governor's desk has been shit.
Governor Brown made a point of explaining that he thought the first bill, written mostly by the California Nurses Association, was so badly put together that he was unable to even come up with a cocktail napkin estimate of costs. And it's been the same with the next one or two stabs at it.

If anyone ever does come up with well written policy I suspect California will support it and the Governor will sign it into law.
It has to be so damn good that it drowns out the lobbies AND proves workable for Californians.

Oh yeah sorry...the very FIRST** single payer actually got sent to Arnold, not Brown. He just flat out vetoed it.
I do not remember why.
Brown vetoed the CN Association's "second attempt".
I do not remember who came up with the first one to Der Guvernator.

We have something like four or five million MORE residents than all of Canada so that should teach us that it is indeed POSSIBLE to make this sausage somehow, because Canada made it work for 33 million, and we have nearly FORTY million.

Yeah. Odd how they can't seem to make it work.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Yeah. Odd how they can't seem to make it work.

Not odd, they can't seem to write legislation well enough to make it workable.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised either, it's not like anyone here has much experience in how to do so. (sarcasm)
VA is pure socialized healthcare so we can't just carbon copy VA, it's not single payer.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Now that the Trump Administration is over, I'm periodically (It's tough to think for any length of time when you have kids ) reflecting back on what my expectations had been v what actually occurred. Trump was a bit more destructive to our Constitutional order than I thought,

How so?

and, long term, has done significant damage to the GOP as I feared.

Again, how so? Seems to me he created a strong and active base worth 75 million votes despite all the MSM efforts to smear him, and the Bureacratic Administrative Swamp to undermine him from within. Meanwhile, the current political trend of government controlled by committee under a puppet those same forces convinced 84 million to vote for has shown how much better things were under Trump.

His Judges were far better (from a Conservative point of view) than I had initially feared, and at least he didn't try to hike taxes.

Good points.

One thing that I had hoped for didn't happen: although the Left was incensed by his rise and bitterly opposed to everything he did, they never leaned on Federalism to stop him. I had hoped that Democrats would use this opportunity to seize power back from the Executive for the Legislature in a major way....

Once the Democrats gained control of the House in 2018 they did everything they could to "seize back power." By blocking everything he tried to do. They sought to impeach him twice and if Mueller had actually found real evidence of either "collusion" (which we now know never occurred) or "obstruction" (which people keep asserting occurred) they would have impeached him for that too.

but they seemed (looking back) not to have done so. I had hoped that Democrats would use this opportunity to reinvigorate the power of the States they controlled to set their own policy, seeking to prove (though I would have personally been unlikely to agree) that Democratic policies were superior by enacting what they couldn't get at the Federal Level at the State Level.... but they didn't, really. We never got a Single Payer System in California. New York never experimented with 90% tax rates (and, the one time the Trump administration effectively did raise tax rates on upper income folks, Democrats in New York got very upset about it; repealing that decision is now a priority of Nancy Pelosi's).

They had no intention of doing any of that. They WANT centralized power in the Federal government as long as they are in control of it, so they can compel all the States to comply with their political goals.

Progressives had a tool, written right into the Constitution and immediately available, to reduce the impact of Trump and Republicans on their lives, and, individual states and localities may have made their own decisions, but, I didn't see the appeals to our Federalist structure that I expected once they realized that would have been a far more effective means of #resisting.

Which "tool" was that?

Why?

Can't offer an answer because I don't know what you are speaking of.

 

[NWRatCon]

.... You know this is disconnected from reality, right?

Not even remotely.

 

[Channe79]

Trump's legacy will be his judges and the impact they leave behind.
Trump also gave us four years of relative peace and a strong economy.
Domestic issues were from BLM/antifa which were democrat supported.
All in all, Trump was one of the best we've had in decades.

 

[mrjurrs]

Now that the Trump Administration is over, I'm periodically (It's tough to think for any length of time when you have kids ) reflecting back on what my expectations had been v what actually occurred. Trump was a bit more destructive to our Constitutional order than I thought, and, long term, has done significant damage to the GOP as I feared. His Judges were far better (from a Conservative point of view) than I had initially feared, and at least he didn't try to hike taxes.

One thing that I had hoped for didn't happen: although the Left was incensed by his rise and bitterly opposed to everything he did, they never leaned on Federalism to stop him. I had hoped that Democrats would use this opportunity to seize power back from the Executive for the Legislature in a major way.... but they seemed (looking back) not to have done so. I had hoped that Democrats would use this opportunity to reinvigorate the power of the States they controlled to set their own policy, seeking to prove (though I would have personally been unlikely to agree) that Democratic policies were superior by enacting what they couldn't get at the Federal Level at the State Level.... but they didn't, really. We never got a Single Payer System in California. New York never experimented with 90% tax rates (and, the one time the Trump administration effectively did raise tax rates on upper income folks, Democrats in New York got very upset about it; repealing that decision is now a priority of Nancy Pelosi's).

Progressives had a tool, written right into the Constitution and immediately available, to reduce the impact of Trump and Republicans on their lives, and, individual states and localities may have made their own decisions, but, I didn't see the appeals to our Federalist structure that I expected once they realized that would have been a far more effective means of #resisting.

Why?

The filibuster.
Trumps tax cuts didn't target upper income for increases, it targeted blue states (SALT limits).
I think covid put a crimp on the states actions.

 

[cpwill]

Not even remotely.

It's an emotional rant of loud noises, disconnected from it's subject.

 

[cpwill]

The filibuster.
Trumps tax cuts didn't target upper income for increases, it targeted blue states (SALT limits).
I think covid put a crimp on the states actions.

COVID has resulted in the States getting a crap ton of money from the federal government, and we saw that they were the primary decision-maker on day-to-day living when it came to COVID restrictions.

The Filibuster is an internal-to-the-Senate rule.

The question, though, was why Democrats didn't respond by pursuing progressive projects at the State level, instead of spending all their time focusing on how they couldn't at the Federal level.

 

[Nickyjo]

Because the left wants political power to be centralized as much as possible, and they value that even more than they hated Trump.

As if Trump wasn’t after extreme centralized executive power.

 

[Donatello]

Because the left wants political power to be centralized as much as possible, and they value that even more than they hated Trump.

How is the "Left" wanting "centralized political power" different from the Right wanting centralized political power? Or are saying the Right wants decentralized political power? If so, I'd really like to hear that argument.

 

[cpwill]

How so?

Well, the famous example is his attempt to overturn our system of self-government and peaceful transfer of power, however, I would point to his attempts to weaponize foreign policy against domestic opponents, and other

Again, how so? Seems to me he created a strong and active base worth 75 million votes despite all the MSM efforts to smear him, and the Bureacratic Administrative Swamp to undermine him from within. Meanwhile, the current political trend of government controlled by committee under a puppet those same forces convinced 84 million to vote for has shown how much better things were under Trump.

I would disagree. He caused the GOP to somewhat swap it's base, trading in middle-class parents in the suburbs (who show up, reliably, year after year, and in the off-years, for elections) for less-married less-job-market-attached blue collar types (who don't), and lost because, at the end of the day, he couldn't convince Republican voters to vote for him.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, if you look at the Generic Ballot, the GOP maintained it's ~2.5 point edge over the Democrats all through the Dobbs decision. it wasn't until Trump got put back in the news that they started losing ground, because it reminded independent voters of how much they dislike him, and how much that transfers to dislike of a GOP who was publicly loyal to, and enabling of him.

Trump never got as much of the popular vote as Mitt Romney did. He led Republicans to a loss in the 2018 mid terms, a loss in 2020, and then further loss of the Senate in 2021. He's a toxic personality and a loser who got - very - lucky in 2016.

The one argument Biden has for remaining in office is that, if Trump runs again, he beats Trump. As ineffective, doddering, and controlled by the interns as he is, the American people would still prefer him over a toxic, destructive, narcissist with the impulse control of a toddler.

Good points.

Indeed. Kudos to Mitch McConnell and the Federalist Society.

Once the Democrats gained control of the House in 2018 they did everything they could to "seize back power." By blocking everything he tried to do. They sought to impeach him twice

They did impeach him twice - and he deserved it both times. He produced the first incident of Senators from a President's party voting guilty.

and if Mueller had actually found real evidence of either "collusion" (which we now know never occurred) or "obstruction" (which people keep asserting occurred) they would have impeached him for that too.

Which is what they should do. What we now know about "collusion" is that it never occurred mostly because the Trump campaign wasn't competent, rather than a lack of willingness. A messy middle that satisfies no partisan, on either side.

They had no intention of doing any of that. They WANT centralized power in the Federal government as long as they are in control of it, so they can compel all the States to comply with their political goals.

That is unfortunately, apparently, broadly, true - I had hoped they would abandon that in order to still pursue policy victories that wouldn't require cooperation with the Trump administration.

I also regret that the Right has given into the same, nationalizing impulse.

Which "tool" was that?

Federalism.

 

[mrjurrs]

COVID has resulted in the States getting a crap ton of money from the federal government, and we saw that they were the primary decision-maker on day-to-day living when it came to COVID restrictions.

The Filibuster is an internal-to-the-Senate rule.

The question, though, was why Democrats didn't respond by pursuing progressive projects at the State level, instead of spending all their time focusing on how they couldn't at the Federal level.

The crap ton of money means a lot less when the crap ton of expenses associated with it is unknown.
The filibuster stops D's from moving federal legislation.

 

[NWRatCon]

COVID has resulted in the States getting a crap ton of money from the federal government, and we saw that they were the primary decision-maker on day-to-day living when it came to COVID restrictions.

The Filibuster is an internal-to-the-Senate rule.

The question, though, was why Democrats didn't respond by pursuing progressive projects at the State level, instead of spending all their time focusing on how they couldn't at the Federal level.

It was a stupid question based on a stupid premise that yielded an accurate and thorough response you happen to disagree with. That's really all your kvetching amounts to. I'm sorry you aren't getting the response you hoped for.

 

[aociswundumho]

How is the "Left" wanting "centralized political power" different from the Right wanting centralized political power? Or are saying the Right wants decentralized political power? If so, I'd really like to hear that argument.

The right wants everything decentralized, but Republicans in general ... not so much.