Sanctuary Movement Is A Sign Of Stress

This week’s Courier Herald column:

America is a country that was founded on concepts of personal freedoms and limits on government intervention.   Our Constitution enumerates specific powers given to the federal government.  The remaining powers lie to the states, or to the people.

The Constitution has set the guiding principles of our Government for 232 years. Over time the American people have adapted it via amendments, court rulings, and general customs and practices.

The trend over the past couple of decades has been one that seems to have nationalized all of our politics.  Campaign consultants and the candidates who hire them feast on red meat issues designed to appeal to a political base, regardless of the duties of the office. 

It’s not uncommon to see county tax commissioners run on a pro-life platform, or those running for city councils tout their support or opposition to Obamacare.  It’s easy to blame the candidates, but who we elect are a reflection of we the people. 

As an aggregate, it appears we have little time or patience to delve into the proper roles of each level of government, and then discern who at each level and for each office is best qualified to execute the duties of that specific office.  With a large and growing segment of voters having only the capacity for one or two bumper sticker slogans to guide them, fewer and fewer among us are winning arguments that question if the proposed government action is coming from the proper level of government, or if it is even a proper function of government at all.

Instead, we’ve basically nationalized all elections.  We have two partisan teams.  There is a disorganized but growing supply of unaffiliated voters who have not yet figured out how to coalesce their own power to reign in the march toward extremes in the major parties.

When the movement to nationalize all issues combines with hyper-partisanship, gridlock ensues.  Even issues that have broad consensus on solutions can become mired in political gridlock.  Washington seems to pull out “infrastructure week” on a monthly basis, but electoral votes these days seem to come from stoking divides rather than consensus and compromise.

Gridlock can’t last forever.  Leaders will eventually solve the problems, be replaced by those who will, or the system will implode when cynicism overrides loyalty to civics as we know them.

We have a warning sign developing that our civic structure is under stress, and it is approaching us under the usually benign slogan of “local control”.  Local control is a great concept…until it isn’t. 

The concept of “sanctuary” cities and counties are rooted in the concept of local control.  In reality, they are a direct challenge to the laws set by federal and state governments. 

The concept has long been embraced by the political left as a way to sidestep federal immigration laws.  A growing movement from the political right has adopted the same practices and rhetoric over gun rights.

There will be no attempt to solve either of those issues here.  The point of both is that a growing national divide combined with a march toward partisan extremes has created a gulf, where our nation’s ability to govern itself and enforce its own laws hang in the balance.

It’s important to remember the first decade of this country’s history, when we were governed not by the Constitution, but Articles of Confederation.  They were born out of huge distrust for a powerful centralized government.  They failed, because they were unable to provide the mechanisms to tie the states into one nation.

This month we celebrated Presidents Day, a holiday that was originally two honoring a President that led the Continental Army to independence, and another that held the Nation together during a time of civil war.  Through those polar opposites of national unity, America has managed to stand united as one people.

There is nothing wrong with the belief that decisions must be decided at the most local level possible.  If we are to have a nation, we must also understand that some decisions must be made at state and national levels when those decisions have great impact on us all. 

4
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
2 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
Trey A.chefdavidbethebalance Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
bethebalance
bethebalance

One could also argue that one of the beautiful things about a federalist system is that it allows for possibilities of power-sharing, cost-sharing, and hybrid models of regulation and enforcement. From time to time, one level of government must accept the power of another. Often, though, the fighting is at the margins. My understanding of programs like 287g is that it sets up a collaborative model. I wouldn’t consider that a direct challenge to laws, even where sanctuary laws forbid cooperation, because if my assumption is correct, federal law enforcement can still do their job under Constitutional authorities, even if… Read more »

Trey A.
Trey A.

Good points, bethebalance

chefdavid
chefdavid

How many of these same politicians are going to embrace the 4th amendment as they have the 2nd and ban or block, auto tag readers? Or are we to become a nation like China with facial recognition cameras everywhere?

Trey A.
Trey A.

The 4th amendment, as interpreted by the courts, offers far less protection to people in their automobiles than to people in their homes. I don’t expect that to change any time soon.