Category: Government & Politics

If it is perfectly permissible in a federalist system for Mitt Romney to say that RomneyCare was good for Massachusetts but not good for the entire United States, how should followers of Christ view the difference between a nationalist system and a federalist system?

The Scriptures, of course, simply tell believers to “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s” and they give no prescription for what sort of political system is the holiest. A believer’s kingdom is not of this world, so there is a sense in which earthly political forms are not our primary concern. It is possible for both an earthly dictatorship and an earthly republic to guard God-given freedoms.

On the other hand, we are to be stewards of the freedoms and liberties we enjoy simply by virtue of the fact that God providentially placed us here. Our political system affords us the right to vote, so vote we should, and we should vote while engaging our transformed mind (Romans 12:1-2) in applying biblical truth to the practical issues demanding our attention.

To illustrate the differences between nationalism and federalism, I’ll take a prominent political issue: abortion. The abortion issue was nationalized in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision from the Supreme Court. One rule was given for every State in the union regarding whether and how abortion could be restricted, and how it should be protected. A citizen could not, for instance, move from New Jersey to Tennessee to benefit from a State abortion law more consistent with his religious, moral and ethical beliefs.

Since the Supreme Court decision, States have been afforded a good bit of discretion to fashion their own abortion laws: some still preserve an almost unlimited right to abortion; others almost ban it, with a few even attempting to enact laws defining life as beginning at conception. The current state of the abortion issue is much more federalized than it was in 1973.

[Very few matters remain federal — preserving the State’s authority to act: licensing for professionals, disposal of waste, building codes. More and more issues are becoming increasingly national — limiting the State’s authority: public education, health care, regulation of industry.]

For the believer, issues such as abortion cut both ways: if we could obtain a national law banning abortion, who would not consider that a good thing? On the other hand, as we have seen first hand, when the opposing side obtains the national law or rule, we feel the effects of nationalism.

In one sense, changing a law for the entire country in a nationalist system is easier: work hard at convincing Congress, and you have prevailed. In the federalist system, advocates of a certain position must work to change opinion and political will in each State.

Even so, it would seem that the advantages of a federalist system outweigh those of a national system. In proposing a law on abortion, for example, advocates are attempting to persuade those people who live close to them and are most similar to them, rather than attempting to convince those with disparate views from the opposite coast. And, in the end, if all the States in a federal system agree on a matter, it is because each States’ citizens have been convinced of its wisdom, not because of national diktats from career politicians and faceless bureaucrats in Washington.

Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are both receiving fire over Massachusetts’ version of universal health care, commonly known as “RomneyCare”: Romney for being the political parent of the plan as Governor, Gingrich for having enthusiastically supported it at the time.

Having favored such a plan in light of the politically explosive national version — ObamaCare — is seen as a cause to suspect the candidates’ conservative  credentials.

Romney and Gingrich have given feeble responses to their critics on this issue, and have largely missed a prime opportunity to school the electorate in the United States’ system of federalism.

Despite what conventional wisdom would say, federalism is not a political plan that transfers all power and authority to the federal authorities. Federalism is simply the recognition that limited powers are granted to the national government, while all other powers are reserved to state governments. In other words, what is good at the state level is not necessarily good at the national level.

In the case of RomneyCare, Massachusetts citizens — through their elected representatives — pass a plan to pool resources and provide some measure of health care to all Massachusetts citizens. If a Massachusetts resident objects to the extent that he refuses to participate, he is able — under the federal system — to move to another State of the Union that does not have such a plan.

This was the intent and the superior wisdom of the framers of the Constitution. It was understood that the citizens of each state were better able to address their needs and desires than a centralized mass of bureaucrats who were far away, both geographically and philosophically.

Thus, the primary reason that ObamaCare is objectionable — as would be a national version of RomneyCare — is that is eliminates the federal option for citizens to vote with their feet. Under national healthcare — ObamaCare — if a citizen objects, moving to another State does not help him: he must move outside the jurisdiction of the national government. This sort of Hobson’s choice was what the Framers found to be an onerous burden on liberty, and is what they sought to avoid with the federalist system.

So RomneyCare is a perfectly legitimate expression of political will — for Massachusetts. The rest of us may debate the wisdom of the plan, and whether our respective States should explore similar plans, but not while under a threat that we, too, will all be subject to it; that decision is left to each State. ObamaCare is a perfect example of an illegitimate expression of political will because it subverts federalism and oppresses both State authority and individual liberty.

Like most things, the issue of extending the payroll tax cuts is used as a political football by both sides of the aisle in Washington. The strange scenario now foisted upon is that President Obama lauds the extension of the cuts, which forces him and the Democrat Party to acknowledge the benefit of tax relief for some while “paying for” the extensions with new taxes on the “rich” (euphemistically called “surcharges”).

We are subject to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”, but Christians and openness-loving people everywhere should take the opportunity to question the method of extracting taxes via payroll deductions itself.

It should be obvious to each citizen or family how much is being paid to Caesar (the national government). Payroll taxes obscure the fact by deducting a fraction of the yearly total from each paycheck. Sure, the amounts deducted are listed on the stubs, but no one really pays much attention to those things. Payroll tax deductions should be banned altogether, and each citizen should be required to write a check annually, semi-annually, or quarterly for the amounts previously deducted for FICA, Social Security and so forth.

If everyone had to write a check for their bill to the national government — as well all do to the power company, the cell phone company and the mortgage company or landlord — it is not difficult to imagine a much different sentiment about taxes in general and how much Caesar should take.

We should note, too, that suggestions to “pay for” payroll tax cut extensions by taking more from the “rich” presumes that tax relief is good for all but them, and that there is no other way to “pay for” diminished tax revenues filling government coffers, such as, say, reductions in spending.

By justice a king builds up the land, but he who exacts gifts tears it down.  Proverbs 29:4

Obviously the principle elucidated here does not apply only to kings, else we would be left considering this only with regard to figurehead royalty in Great Britain and Luxembourg. Anyone who governs or rules over others in public policy would ostensibly fall within the polarities expressed here.

Tyrants? Yes. Dictators? Yes. Parliaments? Yes. Trifurcated government branches in a constitutional republic? Absolutely.

In the U.S., critics of government frequently focus their ire on the president alone, but in our system, it is the President, Congress and the Supreme Court who together constitute the “king” who can either build up or tear down. And, lest we too readily distance ourselves from the waywardness of government officials, we should remember that in our day of town halls, incessant polling, and the vox populi, it might just be we who are either demanding justice or “exacting gifts”.

One problem is determining what constitutes “justice.” In a courtroom, justice is appropriate punishment for a crime committed, or restitution for a wrong suffered. In biblical terms, justice for a king means doing what is right for the nation, not necessarily individuals who comprise it. Favoring a part over the whole, whether favor is shown to individuals or groups of them, is not justice, for one man’s “justice” could very well be another’s injustice.

And we consider ourselves far removed from the ugly picture of open bribes, and thus safe from the danger of “exacting gifts.” But in an era of billion-dollar fundraising campaigns, political lobbyists, and uncritical party loyalty, can we truly say that those in power are not exacting gifts from the rest of us?

We tend to suppose that monarchies are inherently inferior to democracies or republics. But in our system, the people must keep track of a total of 545 constitutional government officials, rather than 1 king. And this doesn’t begin to consider the vast number of cabinet members, “czars”, bureaucrats, administrators, and other politicos who have all been granted some measure of power t0 either mete out “justice” or to “exact gifts.”

We are commanded to pray for those who rule over us (1 Timothy 2:1-2). Pray for our “kings” to do justice and build up.