If Texas Gov. Rick Perry jumps into the presidential race this summer, his candidacy will deliver a resounding message to Washington’s power brokers: Don’t mess with the states. On Saturday, Perry gave a campaign-style speech to the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, further fueling speculation that he was ready to enter the Republican presidential field.
Perry would surely emphasize Texas’ strong economic performance relative to the rest of the nation in a presidential run, drawing a stark contrast between his polices and President Obama’s. But he would also focus on restoring a proper balance of power between Washington and the states.
“The framers of our constitution knew all to well what happens when distant, too powerful governments hold sway over a nation,” Perry declared during his RLC speech. “That’s why they decentralized power out of Washington, D.C., into the hands of the states.”
He later added, “Our goal is to displace the entrenched powers in Washington and to restore the rightful balance between state and federal government.”
In 2009, Perry made national news when he observed that the continued expansion of federal power could prompt Texans to consider secession. Though he did not endorse the idea then, he would be aggressively challenged on that statement should he seek the GOP nomination.
Perry fleshed out his federalist views in a 2010 book, “Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington.” (Ironically, Perry’s would-be presidential rival, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, wrote the forward.) The book explains why the Founders chose to disperse power among the states and documents how the nation has drifted away from these principles over time.
With Obama claiming unprecedented federal powers (such as the idea that Washington can force all Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance), the time is ripe for the national conversation about federalism that a Perry candidacy would likely provoke.
Placing power as close to the people as possible gives them better access to those who make the decisions that most affect their lives. It allows states to experiment with different ideas, compete among themselves for business, and govern in accordance with their local values.
It also gives citizens the ability to choose to live in places where they approve of the local government’s policies, and move elsewhere if they don’t. Population flight from places such as California and Michigan to Texas and other right-to-work states demonstrates the enduring appeal of states as the laboratories of democracy.
In his book, Perry quoted from Thomas Jefferson’s autobiography: “Were not this great country already divided into states, that division must be made, that each might do for itself what concerns itself directly, and what it can so much better do than a distant authority.”
It’s clear that the Founders themselves wanted power to be spread out. The Constitution specifies a limited number of powers that are granted to Congress that mostly pertain to national security and trade.
The 10th Amendment clarifies that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government, or otherwise prohibited, are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The very name of the country reflects the Founders’ vision. The nation isn’t called “America,” but “The United States of America.”
Advocates of bigger government often dismiss talk of original intent by arguing that the nation has gotten much bigger and more complex since the days of its founding. But if anything, that’s a stronger argument in favor of leaving more power in the hands of the states.
It’s much easier to see how a central government could oversee the 3.9 million people in 13 states that existed when the Constitution was ratified than to grasp how today’s Washington can competently manage the affairs of 309 million people in 50 states.
Perry traces the erosion of states’ rights to the 16th and 17th amendments, which gave the federal government income tax power and allowed for the direct election of U.S. senators.
Constitutional lawyers have argued that senators were more protective of state interests when they were chosen by state legislatures, but it’s an argument that politicians typically avoid making for fear of being seen as undemocratic.
It’s not clear how far Perry would get were he to seek the presidency. But one thing is certain and worthwhile: His candidacy would trigger a debate over restoring the rightful balance between the federal government and the states.
Philip Klein is senior editorial writer for The Examiner. He can be reached at [email protected].
