A New Federalism?

This map is making the rounds. I can certainly see the appeal. More seriously, but in a similar spirit, I’ve seen a few people not in comment threads elsewhere, as well as real-life mutterings, suggest that perhaps the time has come for a new commitment to federalism. We all know that the blue states support the red states financially. So let’s cut them loose; we’ll have our gay marriages and keep a bit more of our money, let them have their cultural conservatism codified into stupid law if that’s more important to them than sound governance and non-plutocratic economic policies, let them live with the choices they’ve made.

I can see why this is tempting, but let’s stop and think about this. First of all, noone should ever take any calls for federalism for its own sake seriously. Federalism is about supporting particular policy outcomes that have their best chance of success through a federal framework. This is equally true for proponents of gay marriage as it is for opponents of legal abortion–they both know a more federal structure will better advance their preferred policy outcome. And of course, the vast majority of states-rights speak is about avoiding the legal requirements of the post civil war amendments in the South. So let’s think long and hard about the adoption of this language and the dubious history that goes with it.

But even if we could strategically cut them loose so we can have our cherished liberal values, what is the point? Why do we support gay rights? Why do we support more and better education? Why do we support poverty relief and pollution abatement?

Lots of reasons, of course, but the most acute ones revolve around those who need the help most. And those people can’t be blamed for Tuesday’s outcome. So if you’ll excuse me while I channel Helen Lovejoy for a minute:

I support gay rights for all who are gay. But I’m alot less worried about the rights of a 35 year old computer programmer in San Francisco than I am about a teenager in rural redland. I want good teachers, good textbooks, and a sound, reality-based curriculum in all schools, but it’s a lot more important for children in the households of those with less education, who have precious few other ways to learn that the worldview of their parents and community isn’t the only option in the world. The malnutrition that accompanies extreme poverty is most damaging to children. The forms of pollution that would almost certainly return to redland have a much more substantial negative impact on the health of children.

In short, my liberal principles demand that I’m always thinking about more just outcomes for the next generation, and that commitment precludes supporting discriminating against that next generation on the basis of who their parents are and how they vote.