Well, it's official now, isn't it? Our Governor has announced that Massachusetts residents must Shelter-in-Place. So, stay at home we must. Except when we need to go the grocery store. Or pick up take out. Or go for a walk. Or go to work if we're essential employees. Or go to the doctor if we are sick. Other than that stay just where you are :)
In all seriousness though, my brother, who lives in Denmark told me a couple weeks ago that the only way we could contain and "conquer" the speed of this virus was for the states to go back to our federalist roots and for every state to take care of it's own people. This country is just too massive for the federal government to keep things in check. Denmark, which is geographically bigger than Massachusetts but smaller population wise, was able to shut its borders with relative ease. It's much harder for a country the size of the United States to do that. So,
"Go back to the country's federalist roots."
That's a great idea in theory but only works if the President lets it. Which our President doesn't seem inclined to do. Our President outbid Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker for necessary PPE after announcing in a press conference that the states must procure their own medical supplies. Wait. What? You tell the states they need to get their own supplies and then you outbid them for those same supplies?
Meanwhile, Florida (a red state, just sayin') puts in a request to the federal government for PPE and gets everything (or at least most of) they requested. I'm not saying there is favoritism or anything but, hmmmm.
So, how can the states take care of their own when the federal government is using its power to block their attempts?
This is a very good question.
I keep reading in the news that this country is at war with this virus. But, clearly there is another war brewing. Who will get good medical care and who won't? Is it about money? Politics?
How much favoritism will the states tolerate before they start fighting back? How ugly will it get?
I understand that these are charged questions, and could create significant debate, so feel free to challenge these words I have written.
I am quite sure we will see more favoritism brewing in the coming months and if we looked at a map, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this favoritism mimic electoral maps.
How will we deal with this? At the personal level? The community level? The state level?
That has yet to be seen.
But, Mr. President, don't underestimate Massachusetts. This is where this great country started and we pre-date the federalists. We were the ones who threw all the tea in the harbor when we had enough with being governed poorly. Yeah, taxation without representation. Remember that little debacle?
No. This is not a threat but we take care of ourselves in this state, and will continue to do so with or without your support.
It's happened before.
Great article, as always! Speaking of article, I do think we are seeing here the danger of over-reliance of our "federalist roots", a vestige of the Articles of Confederation. As clearly spelled out in the Federalist Papers (16, for example), Hamilton explicitly calls for a strong federal government, whose powers should serve the common good. And this is where the current administration has failed states like Massachusetts, and New York. If we cannot turn to and trust the federal government, we revert to a collection of individual states, and such confederacies, as Hamilton pointed out, rarely succeed.
ReplyDeleteNot a constitutional scholar by any means, but i think your arguements are valid!