(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



A Historian's Perspective: Could States' Rights be the Answer to Trump's Chilling Power Grab? [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2025-02-02

The last week has been alarming, if not downright terrifying, as Donald Trump has claimed nearly unchecked power over all aspects of the Federal Government. Without controlling any node of power, is there any way the political left can fight back against his authoritarian power-grab? The answer may be surprising for a political party and movement that has in many ways aligned itself with the power of government to make positive changes in people’s lives over the last 50- 60 years: States’ Rights. States’ Rights, for the purposes of this essay also known as Federalism, is a concept that says the Federal Government has certain powers within its purview, and the states have certain other powers within their purview. For instance, there are no national laws against murder- the prosecution of murder is a power left up to the individual states. The national government does not establish schools; instead every state’s constitution provides for the establishment of public schools.

States’ Rights has a long history in the United States dating back to the original debates over ratification of the Constitution. It has often been viewed as a reactionary ideology seeking to restrain attempts at greater social and political progress for minorities and groups outside the primary power structures. States’ Rights as a rallying cry held special salience during the Civil War, and has been a common trope of those defending the Confederacy, or at least promoting its continued cultural relevance today. States’ Rights was a frequent argument levied against federal civil rights legislation in the 1960’s. Throughout American history, States’ Rights has often been the go-to legal argument for reactionary policies, and is one the modern-day Republican Party has frequently used. For instance, the idea that the issue of abortion should be returned to the individual states to decide on a more local level was one of the primary rhetorical arguments surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

So what am I, an avowed political progressive doing arguing that the Democratic Party and the Progressive Movement in the United States should adopt the argument of States’ Rights and Federalism as both a rhetorical and legal strategy, and even as a cornerstone of their platform moving forward in the Age of Trump, when it has been used so consistently to support conservative and republican political positions over the decades and even centuries? Really, it’s simply an act of political expediency. Democrats do not control a single aspect of the Federal Government. I live in a dark blue state that overwhelmingly voted against Trump and the Republicans on November 5- why should Trump’s radical and disruptive policies be forced on the residents of my state who clearly do not want them? States’ Rights is one of the few legal and political arguments available to us in 2025. And frankly, given the salience that this position has held with so many voices on the political right and especially the right-wing judiciary over the years, it is one that may hold rhetorical and legal sway. When Trump and the Republicans try to ban any teaching of slavery or the Civil Rights movement in ALL schools nationwide— it’s coming, my friends— what legal strategies do we use? When they attempt to institute a national abortion ban— and they will— how do we argue against it in the courts? States’ Rights and Federalism is a powerful legal position with a large body of precedent behind it.

For those who may feel that Democrats and Progressives would betray their core principles by adopting increased Federalism as a policy position, it is important to note that Federalism and States’ Rights have often been more of a rhetorical strategy than an end in and of itself throughout American history. Indeed, it has often been more of a means to an end. Take the career arc of one of the most famous national political figures of the antebellum period, John C. Calhoun, as an example. Early in Calhoun’s political career, he was an ardent supporter of what was known as “Internal Improvements,” namely roads, canals, railroads, lighthouses, and other infrastructure paid for and established by the Federal Government. He argued forcefully for the need of an active, vigorous Federal Government to build this infrastructure that he believed would greatly benefit American commerce, communication, and expansion. However, Calhoun was also a slave-owner from South Carolina. As momentum built for the Federal Government to curtail the slave trade and the expansion of slave states, Calhoun adopted a States’ Rights position that individual states should determine the legality of slavery, not the Federal Government. In order to continue to defend the institution of slavery, he began to argue that there were only a handful of issues the Federal Government should have purview over. For if the Federal Government could build a road, the saying went, it could free a slave. And this brought about a change in his attitude toward Internal Improvements and an active Federal Government. For Calhoun and countless politicians after him, States’ Rights and Federalism was less an actual firm policy belief, but rather a rhetorical strategy used to defend or promote other policies.

In order to preserve many of the rights and policies we hold dear as Democrats and Progressives, Federalism and States’ Rights may be a rhetorical and legal strategy we need to adopt as well, at least for as long as it serves our interests. Whatever it takes to slow Trump’s momentum; whatever it takes to protect our vulnerable neighbors. The political left should embrace States’ Rights as a means to an end in this chilling new world we find ourselves in. For this is the real legacy of States’ Rights— just look at how fast it has been abandoned by the GOP once they gained power over the entire Federal Government.

--Peter Porcupine

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/2/2/2300929/-A-Historian-s-Perspective-Could-States-Rights-be-the-Answer-to-Trump-s-Chilling-Power-Grab?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.