Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On the Necessity of Federal Lands
DT had a chat with Field and Stream. Twitchy:
The GOP front-runner came out against letting states control public lands now run by the federal government saying, “I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do.”
Absolutely right. America cannot be Great if its constituent elements do something doubleplus ungreat. But there’s more to consider here. Imagine for a moment that “lands” was replaced by some other concept. Schools. Gun laws. Welfare reform. It really does remind you how important the federal government is, how necessary it is, how it’s really the backstop that protects us all no matter where we reside. You don’t know what the state is going to do. Is that an uncertainty you’re willing to bear?
Published in General
My point is that it doesn’t really matter who controls it.
This seems to me like a profound argument for, well, all sorts of things.
After all, never mind the states. What about private property? You don’t know what people are going to do. Far more true than bureaucracies, which are pretty easy to predict.
But let’s move beyond land. Let’s think about choosing a president. Obviously, we don’t want Donald Trump. We don’t know what he’ll do.
Is there anything at all Trump can say that will dissuade your sympathy for him? Is it not enough that he, during a debate, argued against the First Amendment and free speech by criticizing the Citizens United decision? Is it not enough that he has extolled the virtues of unconstitutionally using the power of eminent domain to effect a forced government transfer of private property from one owner to another, government-preferred owner? How much freedom can Trump oppose before conservatives say enough is enough and call him out for what he is, an egomaniacal, unserious, chaos candidate tapping into unsatisfied anger at the current administration’s intransigence?
To a lot of Westerners, I think there is a clear benefit.
In principle, too, I recoil from the idea of Federal management of most everything. Federal agencies are completely unaccountable to residents of the individual States. They know it, and act accordingly. At the lower levels, people have a chance. And they will move if conditions are better elsewhere. Companies do it all the time, and so do individuals.
States are better situated to react to the needs of their own citizens, and they should be allowed to do so.
This is pretty small, stupid, and childish. But go on, convince people to take conservatives seriously on big issues.
It Does Not Matter What He Says. That much should be obvious by now.
The Federal government is remote and it is not accountable. We moved things from the states to the Feds because there was local corruption and special interests seemed to thwart other organized interests and individuals and it served ideological and political interests. The Fed’s developed the same problems but are less fixable. It was a mistake to move so much power to the Feds. Federal welfare is a disaster as is education and almost everything they do. The States will make mistakes but being closer to voters and if those state voters are also paying the taxes, they are more likely to figure things out. Some states won’t and they will suffer, just like the entire country suffers because the Feds have so much power and are becoming less and less accountable and more corrupt. However the BLM, Forest Service and Park service do a good job, it isn’t broken and to the extent they screw things up it tends to be when Washington’s political class gets involved.
That is a pickle of modern conservatives. We no longer hope to “conserve” the status quo, but rather revert to an earlier state of affairs worthy of conservation.
As Dr Horrible put it: “It’s about destroying the status quo, because the status is not quo!”
Someone argued recently that “conservative” might not be the most accurate term anymore.
Seawriter I love the sentiment, but as long as Joe Strauss is running the House, we are going to struggle.
As part of Texas coming into the union, we were allowed to keep state ownership of our own lands. It’s worked out great here, and the rest of y’all should start campaigning for more state and local control.
That being said, part of “it’s worked out great” probably (and I’m loathe to admit this) comes from some federal oversight, especially with regards to endangered species. Also, big chunks of uninterrupted wilderness are much better for preserving species & environments than small separate chunks, and for wilderness areas that go between states, it’s probably easier to coordinate from one federal bureaucracy than two state ones.
But that last paragraph is all at the theoretical level. Anyone got concrete examples of big multi-state wilderness preserves? And more obviously, anyone wanna share examples of a distant DC bureaucracy messing up what should be local decisions?
Yeah for all you non-Texas, it’s not that we have the model of conservative government here. We don’t. We’re just lucky to have a part-time legislature that only meets for a few months every other year. We also pay them <$10k, so they have real jobs in the meantime. Our lovely state of affairs comes more from politicians not having enough time to ruin things, than from having particularly enlightened leaders.
In the ideal of “limited, local government” locality is crucial because it seeks to improve not only interaction between citizens and officials but also leverage of citizens over officials.
A distant stranger in Washington wants only my very occasional, very generally stated vote and perhaps a campaign contribution. But an official who is also my neighbor must face me throughout the year and is sanctioned by more than the mere threat of withholding my vote. A local politician must please his constituents enough to be able to live among them.
Of course, a Houstonian is unlikely to ever encounter his mayor, let alone his senator or governor. That just demonstrates the improbability of sustaining limited government in a nation as gigantic as ours. As Steyn has pointed out, though America the people is still young, America the government is comparatively old… and it shows.
Anyway, the mere existence of the 2nd Amendment demonstrates our founders’ appreciation for citizens’ need of leverage over officials, far beyond the power to vote.
Struggle is the human condition. Paradise is promised in the next world, not this one. Besides, when I say the adults are in charge, I do not mean the legislature. I mean the people of the state.
Seawriter
If we can’t get the articles of secession through Texas this year perhaps we can finally get the typographical error in the Constitution corrected.
As LM and Seawriter opine the Texas legislature presently meets for 140 days every 2 years. Clearly that was a mistake in our Constitution and the numbers were reversed. I am confident we will all be better off when the correction is made and the legislature meets for 2 days every 140 years.
The Federal government needs land to do what the federal government is required to do. As someone who works at such a location (the Savannah River Site in South Carolina), I can honestly say I would not trust my state – conservative as it is – to do the right thing given our missions.
OTOH, I have mixed feelings when it comes to land use, say for our national forests. If the Feds turned over management of our national forests to the states, there were would be some states that would manage the resources wisely (allowing timber to be harvested and replanted, prescribed burns for undergrowth management and fire prevention, wildlife management for sustained hunting and fishing, even control over areas that harbor threatened or endangered species). However, there are states that would outright ban any use of the resources, and would mismanage the forests using trendy, unproven theories instead of proven, traditional methods.
Then there is the military. States with an anti-military bias might kick the military out of their state entirely, were it not for the Federal government’s ownership of the land.
Just taking the argument on its merits. I think the sarcasm was pretty clear.
The Clinton Crime Family is not a choice in the Republican primary. And in that race, there are others who are.
Texas legislators have real jobs. What a concept.
So how can we replicate that model in the rest of the country, including DC? That would solve so many problems.
I start from the premise that the federal government exists to do those things that require uniformity or that impinge on other states. Otherwise, the states should be in control. The federal government should own its military bases. It should have something to say about areas and issues that cross state lines, if interstate pacts won’t suffice.
Of course a state might mismanage its lands. But if the feds do it, it is more likely to be harmful by orders of magnitude. Only the feds can create fire hazards, for example, in all 50 states through forest mismanagement, an issue previously mentioned.
I don’t think anyone (on Ricochet) is pushing for increased federal ownership or control of land, so it stands to reason that reduced ownership and control should at least be on the table. It would be unlikely that the current situation is optimal.
Some states and smaller governmental units do a terrible job of running their schools. Does that imply the solution is more federal control? Federal ownership? Would that make the schools great?
Pass a law to schedule the legislature meets for 120 days every other year, with the ability to schedule 60 day special sessions if emergencies come up. If you need to, write that into the state or federal constitution.
Texas politicians are no more virtuous than those of the rest of the country, and as likely to cause mischief. With the short sessions, they lack time to do much besides enacting the budget, and a very few really critical items. The saying about idle hands being the Devil’s playthings is dead on.
Seawriter
But that’s not what the quote says:“I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do.”
DT is saying that he does NOT trust the States. Nothing in there about “improving” the lands or the management.
I don’t think there is much chance. We are much better off on our own even with our uniquely Texas establishment issues.
Texas would be better off if the Texas model of governance was emulated elsewhere in the US simply because the places which adapted it (including the Federal government, if only, by some miracle) would be less likely to get into Texas’s business. This would be independent of whether Texas stays in the US or becomes the Republic of Texas again.
Seawriter
I did take a small amount of license, but I think if pressed on hte issue you would get blah blah better management blah blah negotiations.
Wouldn’t work in Illinois. The thieves would just have to steal faster.
Post and replies are very sad in two respects.
First, there is more intelligent debate about federalism and experience with land management expressed in the thread than amongst Trump’s advisers.
Second, on a purely vote-getting political scorecard, Trump’s response is very good. None of the Jebbering. None of Rubio’s increasingly frantic Clinton bashing. None of Cruz’s condescending lectures whenever a constitutional question is raised.
The germaphobe billionaire in the $5000 suit has the common touch. Maybe Rubio should start dressing like a grown-up too. He looks like a figure skating coach.
I am not sure if there is a federalism issue here. I think we have relatively straight forward political questions on the allocation of resources and whether the amount of land owned and the manner in which it is administered is fundamentally wise.
Moreover, you never know what individuals might do with their own lives, so we’d better not let them, either.
Ha! That made me laugh out loud. Several of them could use some sartorial guidance. Cruz’s collars always seem nestled just under his earlobes, and his sleeves are way too long. I have lots of opinions on Rand Paul’s trousers, too, but since he has no chance, I won’t bore ya’ll.
Some of y’all will just not be happy unless the candidate looks like John Wayne. Well…me, too.