The idea of national political ideologies playing a role in shaping state and local policies has always been a big issue to me, personally. I find it interesting when conservatives, in particular, point to the rights of states to shape their own policies on social issues including healthcare, immigration and education (a position which I vehemently support) while criticizing candidates for national office for their performance at the state level, if that performance includes initiatives that they would not support at the national level. I do believe that there are some things that the federal government should not be involved in and that can, if the states should elect to do so, be tackled on a local, regional, and state level.
Take healthcare. During the debate over the Affordable Care Act in the summer of 2009, I wish I had a penny for every time I heard a conservative decry how the federal government was usurping power from the states by attempting to pass a one size fits all solution to healthcare nationwide. I can't say that I entirely disagreed with them. But for the hypocrisy.
"Up-and-coming" Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) recently criticized fellow Republican and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney for his role in shaping the Massachusetts health care reform act, which resulted in coverage for 98.1% of residents, saying, "It’s not that dissimilar to ObamaCare. And you probably know I’m not a big fan of ObamaCare.” Does it occur to Rep. Ryan that Romney would support something for his state government that he would not support for the federal government to undertake? Regardless of your position on the Affordable Care Act, it is rather idiotic to support state's rights in such issues while denouncing those state officials that have the gumption to undertake reform on the state level.
It has occurred to me that voters generally will support candidates for state office who appear to support their ideology at the national level. It has also occurred to me that this is entirely counterproductive and will, in many cases, lead to dysfunctional state houses. A recent article in the Arizona Republic noted the rise of the Tea Party influence in the Phoenix mayoral election.
"Arizona tea-party members are now looking to plant their philosophies of limited government, fiscal conservancy and free-market values in Phoenix City Hall."
Now, I'm not sure what upsets me more about this - that Phoenix Tea Party organizers are trying to apply the national platform to a city election or that the only way voters can recognize a viable candidate is based on the national platform with which they are familiar. Either way, it bothers me that time and time again, we attempt to make our local and state politics mirror the positions of national ideals.
Fiscal conservativism on a state level should not look identical to fiscal conservativism on a national level. State policies should not mirror national policies. To be fair, I am not certain that the state policies supported by Tea Party mayoral candidates reflect the national Tea Party platform, or whether that would be a bad thing. Though I think I'm realistic enough to believe that a Tea Party mayoral candidate would not support reform that would expand the city's or state's role in social issues, such as healthcare or education. (on that note, special report on the state of education in Arizona forthcoming in the near future)
So the question that remains in my mind is why local and state politicians run on platforms that mirror those of candidates for national office, when the role of local and state governments are not designed to be identical, nor should we want them to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment