Most people have probably heard of the two basic classes of vision problems, far-sightedness and near-sightedness. For those who are not clear on the differences, far-sightedness is characterized by the eye being able to focus on objects at a distance while objects up close are blurry. Conversely, near-sightedness is characterized by the eye being able to focus on objects in close proximity while objects further away are unclear.
I have come to the conclusion that as a society we generally suffer from a political far-sightedness that I call federal-sightedness – that is, we focus on issues at a federal or national level while allowing local and state issues to become excessively fuzzy. Just as with personal vision problems that develop slowly and without our notice, our first reaction is to compensate in subtle ways. We step back from near issues and view them from a federal perspective. Rather than tackling problems close up we attempt to fix them from an arms-length away.
The problems associated with this perspective were illustrated to me from a recent comment stating that, “By definition you can’t have individual liberty while at the same enforcing your preferred level of societal morality.” This statement assumes a situation where there is a single layer to government and social order.
The comments were following a golf course analogy at the time so lets follow through with that imagery to show what I mean. If the governing body of golf were the only source of rules the statement would be true. The reality of the situation is that the governing authority should be promoting individual liberty by only mandating a minimal set of rules defining what makes an acceptable golf course. This would include basic rules regarding how the game of golf is played. It would include rules such as mandating that an official golf course must have 18 holes, that each hole must have a par rating between 3 and 5, that the entire course must have a par total between 69 and 73, and the rules for determining the par rating for a hole. On the other hand, the governing body should avoid making rules such as requiring that the third hole on each course must be a par-5 hole.
While the governing body lays out the general rules of golf the owners and operators of each golf course can determine the design of their own course, their hours of operation, their standards for membership etc. We need not conclude that the governing body is shirking its responsibility to promote individual liberty simply because some golf courses (or even a majority) have closed membership policies.
The antidote for federal-sightedness is local activism. Local activism helps us to focus on those things which are within our locus of control thus making for a much more functional society. This was brought to my attention with the news today of a group that stopped waiting for federal funds before fixing a bridge that had been destroyed in a flood. Although they had as much claim on federal disaster relief funds as New Orleans after Katrina or Minneapolis after the collapse of the I-35 bridge they changed their focus from waiting for help to making a difference with what they had. The end result, their bridge is fixed sooner and without costing $4 million.
I have seen much evidence of federal-sightedness among those who are politically active online – in fact I have suffered from this malady myself. Thankfully I am coming to my senses and trying to be more involved in finding solutions that are closer to home. It is a move that was recently demonstrated by Rob Miller as he decided to shift his political activity from the state party level to the county party level. Obviously we need people involved at all levels but I am left wondering how many of our federal problems would evaporate or whither away to manageable levels if we were more busy as a society focusing on the issues directly around us and spending less time waiting for help from a larger society.
Our propensity for federal-sightedness has been assisted by newspapers focusing on larger and larger issues at the expense of focusing locally. The newspapers are suffering from that ill-considered shift and so is society. Hopefully if we shift our focus back closer to home we will experience a social renaissance in which our problems become manageable – just as I noted that newspapers with a local focus are surviving better than national papers.
There is an opposite to federal-sightedness which is local-sightedness. This condition ignores the larger society and holds dangers of its own. Thankfully it is a much more rare condition today than federal-sightedness.
Many federal-sighted folks continually harp about lack of uniformity. They and their media helpers use terms like “patchwork” to negatively describe policy diversity. The push for uniformity is pursued with cultish slavishness.
This causes us to worry more about what our neighbors are doing and to try to tailor policies to be more like them. This happens at the national, state, county, and municipal level. It also causes higher levels of government to try to force uniformity on lower levels of government.
While uniformity is desirable in some cases, I think that it is highly overrated most of the time.
I am not particularly concerned with the uniformity that comes when my city or state (or family for that matter) chooses to copy someone else in policies that appear to work for us. On the other hand, I am concerned with uniformity that is imposed from the top down.
We need to remember that while an entire stew works together and the potatoes and carrots take a bit of each other’s flavor the carrots and the potatoes remain distinct from each other. In fact a casserole is still good eating and has some of the same flavor mixing even though there different ingredients may even be in distinct layers.
I’m getting hungry writing about food – it must be time for dinner.
David said:
“This problems associated with this perspective were illustrated to me from a recent comment stating that, ‘By definition you can’t have individual liberty while at the same enforcing your preferred level of societal morality.’ This statement assumes a situation where there is a single layer to government and social order.”
What on earth was there in the statement you quoted that lead you to believe that your (obviously brilliant) correspondent was concerned about only a single layer of government?
Would it be fair to sum up this post by saying that you are ok with local governments choosing to violate your individual liberties as long as the feds don’t get involved?
I admit that it’s possible to make the comment I quoted without consciously making the assumption that I ascribed to it, but I do believe that the federal government can promote a culture of individual liberty while allowing government at other levels to reflect their local cultures.
I don’t think that I could offer a clear rebuttal of your summation, but I would have summed it up differently – I would have said that I think it acceptable for smaller spheres of government to pass legislation in areas that larger spheres of government should avoid. For example, I’m much less concerned if my city passes an ordinance requiring me to pay for curbside recycling than I would be if the federal or state government were to pass such a law because I can choose not to move to this city (or to move out), or if I want to stay here I have a greater ability to influence elections and get that law reversed.
What I am arguing for is the liberty of individual areas around the nation to reflect the differing desires of their respective populations.
I am with you on that David!
What about county law that eliminates drug testing for County prisoners and then establishes TV/satellite/movie time for prisoners? Pretty sure our own county did that a few years ago. What is your take on that?
Well, as I don’t know the specifics of the bill I can only give a general answer but my first reaction to such a law is that it is ridiculous. There may be financial reasons for eliminating drug testing and they might be arguing that setting TV time is a replacement for previously unlimited TV time so I really need to know more to make a final opinion. Personally I see plenty of reasons for drug testing of inmates and no reason for inmates to have a “right” to watch TV.
Thank you David. I dont understand how our County could have past such a thing. Sort of off topic but thanks for answering it. I am out of state currently were you elected to office as you were running? If not will you be running again?
The election is this Saturday, but I have had to withdraw so that I can deal with what may yet prove to be a minor medical issue. I just could not get into office knowing that there was a possibility that I could not give it the attention that it deserved. I fully intend to run again – whether for the same position or not is TBD.