"today’s Republican right betrays a mind-set that hearkens back to the secessionists who fired on Fort Sumter. Shutting down the government isn’t comparable to shooting it down, of course, but the South’s war on egalitarian government and labor standards threatens again to diminish our country." Meyerson
-------------------------
"A love so strong it could not let us go..." This is an old joke among Southerners. It concerns the sentiment that caused the North to fight so hard for so long to retain the seceded states within the Union. Meyerson does not seem to feel such a strong love, at least not for white Southerners. The 150 year anniversary of the beginning of the WBS is stimulating a renewal of political warfare by analogy over the issues federalism, popular sovereignty, the right of secession inherent in the present Constitution, and the "rightness" or "wrongness" of opinion or of historical outcomes, etc.
A lot of the writing on this seems harmless, but Meyerson very specifically identifies the South with the political right and with evil intent and wrongdoing. This is not harmless. He seems to assume that the opinions of the left are the repositories of the values of the victorious Union armies and navies. Conversely, he appears to believe that the values of the right were vanquished at Appomattox and that those who hold those values should understand that they live in the US by the sufference of the righteous.
Meyerson has missed something. This country is not a centralized state in the sense that France or even many of the supposedly "federal" countries are. It is, in fact, a federal republic in which the states, federal government and the citizens are the three actors in an ongoing drama seeking to establish the balance of power as a dynamic process. Power flowed towards the federal government for many years in the 20th century chiefly through a doubtful interpretation of the "commerce clause." As a result, many people came to assume that the balance of power was settled as being effectively consolidated in the hands of Washington.
That assumption is now challenged in a powerful way by the phenomenon roughly described as the "TEA Party" movement. In spite of the vapidity of some of its supposed "leaders," that movement represents a strong sentiment for more limited federal government, greater local sovereignty and reduced government expenditures.
To assert, as Meyerson does, that such a movement lacks legitimacy because it represents a resurgence of rebellion is arrogant self-righteousness. It is also self defeating because this assertion drives the very people whom he despises toward the tendency that he fears. pl
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/150-years-later-were-still-fighting-the-civil-war/2011/04/12/AFFLFeSD_story.html
Recent Comments