Question for the Conservatives

As a lifelong Independent that usually leans center/left, I am wondering about one of the tenets of Conservatism that I don't understand. I often hear Conservatives (and the Tea Partiers as well) say that they're against Federal government (or maybe perceived Big Federal government), but are ok with State government. State's rights and all that, for example. Another example, the comments that Health Care should be a State government issue, not handled at the Federal level.

So my question is (and seriously, I'm not being a smart ass here), isn't it all still Government - in other words, elected officials still making legislative decisions for (ideally) their constituents? If you're against what you see as governmental interference, wouldn't you be against both? Would some of you that believe that please clarify for me why you think they're different and why State is better or less offensive to you than Federal?

Thanks!

I can't speak for anyone else but for me....I prefer small government at every level. I don't want the feds telling me what to do. I especially don't want them telling my state what to do. I don't want the state telling me what to do.
I want both levels of government to run more like a business and provide only the service truly necessary to help those who REALLY can't help themselves.

Thanks, Becky. What do you see as the difference between the two - is it just size or are there also differences in what services they should provide?

My HOA interferes in my life more than the Feds. You can't get much more local than that

I'm for states because they directly represent me. If I don't like how the state govt. of Colorado is run, I can move to a neighboring state where the govt. understands the free market, or whatever I am looking for.

Also, the federal govt. is also a massive bloated bureaucracy, and does nothing well. State govt. is much more lean, partially because most states must balance their budgets.

I too prefer smaller government at every level. The fact is that we Americans really don't need anywhere near the size of government we have now - both at the state and federal level.

At least if issues like health care were addressed at the state level - it would be a better representation of what we need here in Colorado. By the way - that's not a good example (health care) because I don't think that government should be involved in it at all - at any level.

We would have more influence at the state level - to shape government more toward our local area and issues. The best situation is when government is limited both in scope and funding.

JMC's example of the HOA causing more problems is probably a problem of that government entity (HOA) that has more power (and money) than it needs. It was probably formed to address a few limited possible problems - and then ran amok.

If the residents really thought about it - they could probably do without it all together. My property is not in a HOA - and I make all the decisions regarding those issues that an HOA usually butts it's ugly head into. I'm doing just fine on my own - so are my neighbors.

IMNTBHO, it comes down to the formation of the nation and the foundation upon which it was built.

I ask you why do you think that we are the United States of America instead of simply the Republic of America? Each of the 50 states in the union of states are sovereign unto themselves - a miniature nation. The federal government was created to ensure the safety of those independent states by pledging mutual aid from each state to each state. To keep the peace between them, to make sure that trade between them was equitable and fair (to regulate meant to keep regular at the time the Constitution was written). That the monetary unit was consistent so that one state couldn't punish another state via a currency exchange rate. That Pennsylvania didn't enter into a treaty with the sworn enemy of another nation that New York entered into a treaty with and thereby create a conflict between the two states.

Our Constitution limited the national Congress to 18 (or 19) very specific areas of responsibility and authority. The authors of that Constitution also gave us a means to add to those areas if the states and the people agreed that they should be added to. Why do you think it took a Constitutional amendment before women were allowed to vote? Because the federal government lacked the authority to proclaim by itself that they could. If that doesn't tell you that the federal government is, and was intended to be, limited in scope and power, I don't know what else I can point to that would. It is the clearest example I can think of that the federal government is responsible for taking care of the union of the states, not the individual people living in the states. Did you know that at the adoption of the Constitution some of the original 13 states had a state religion? That the prohibition of this stated in the 1st Amendment was strictly a prohibition against the federal government doing this and not a prohibition that a state was restricted by?

Look closely at our Constitution. It is a document that clearly defines the limits being placed on the federal government. When the preamble speaks of forming "a more perfect union", it is referencing the original constitution of the nation, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Have you ever read that first constitution or the debates about its shortcomings that resulted in the Philadelphia Convention and our Constitution? The people of the nation at that time had just fought a long and bloody war to escape the clutches of a powerful central government - it was the last thing any of them wanted for their new government. They recognized that there must be some form of central government responsible for defense, for trade agreements and treaties with other nations and other things, but they wanted local control - state control, not federal control, over the other aspects of their governance.

What we had originally was the ability to vote with our feet - to leave one state for another if we disagreed with how it was being governed. If you don't like that Massachusetts has established a state mandate to purchase health insurance, you can move to Colorado where no such mandate exists. If you think the taxes in New York are too high, you can move to Texas, or Alaska where they are lower.

Bottom line, for me anyway, is that the Union of States, the United States of America, was established to protect the sovereignty and welfare of the states and the people who lived in them, not to provide for the welfare of the individual citizens. Article I, Section 8 says ".....provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;", not provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the citizens of the United States. Our federal government was created to protect the sovereignty of the individual states, that was the purpose for which it was created. It was never intended to be a powerful central government that had dominion over all the people in all the states in all matters.

JMC wrote: My HOA interferes in my life more than the Feds. You can't get much more local than that

You are a lucky man!

It really is picking and choosing about what the Right wants the states to do and the Feds to do. For example guns. If the Federal law is more restrictive, we want to go by the state laws. If the Federal law provides more freedom, like Heller Vs. Washington DC, demand the Feds run things.

Same way with the Left, gay marriage in Massachussets, so it should be a Federal right and extend to all states.

JMC, you freakin' kill me. I snorted coffee out my nose.

PrintSmith, thank you very much for a very thoughtful and thought-provoking response. I really do appreciate it. I have to confess I haven't actually "studied" the Constitution since my school years (very, very, very long ago). I would have to think there would have been provisions or intent to allow for "changing times." In the examples of women's rights to vote, abolishing slavery, civil rights, etc., while the federal government can't simply "proclaim" a change to the Constitution it is still only the federal government that can create or repeal an amendment.

I suddenly have an urge to do some homework.

RivendaleFarms wrote: As a lifelong Independent that usually leans center/left, I am wondering about one of the tenets of Conservatism that I don't understand. I often hear Conservatives (and the Tea Partiers as well) say that they're against Federal government (or maybe perceived Big Federal government), but are ok with State government. State's rights and all that, for example. Another example, the comments that Health Care should be a State government issue, not handled at the Federal level.

So my question is (and seriously, I'm not being a smart ass here), isn't it all still Government - in other words, elected officials still making legislative decisions for (ideally) their constituents? If you're against what you see as governmental interference, wouldn't you be against both? Would some of you that believe that please clarify for me why you think they're different and why State is better or less offensive to you than Federal?

Thanks!

That's an excellent question!

From my perspective, I see the federal government everywhere and everything, unlike the state government. Also, I feel that we can keep our state government somewhat constrain as they have to live with us. We can go to the State capitol. We can go to our local representatives. We can actually call our representatives and get return calls back. Washington, on the other hand, is a big black hole.