Wrong On States’ Rights

Geitner Simmons nails E.J. Dionne’s uncharacteristically silly column today that brands Republicans as neo-Dixiecrats because they, like the Dixiecrats, are committed to states rights,

This column is so wrongheaded that it’s hard to know where to begin. How about with the fact that Republicans are not uniformly or consistently committed to states rights at all. They can shovel pork (pardon the mixed metaphor) and override local preferences as well as the liberals when it suits them. Nor are Democrats principled opponents of states rights. Well, maybe most are, but they never let the principle get in the way of standing up for states’ rights when it suits them. Anyone recall the Democratic criticisms of the recent case coming out of Florida having to do with who gets the final word in counting votes in federal elections?

Scratch a states’ rights defender, an old professor of mine once said, and right under the skin of principled argument you’ll find someone in the minority.

On the other hand, it is true that many conservatives are principled advocates of federalism, which is to say — as, for example, Justice Scalia wrote in First Things about abortion — that they recognize the prerogative of states to make a decision with which they might profoundly disagree. It is also true that there are not very many similarly principled opponents of federalism.

But perhaps I’m wrong. If so, I would be happy to be shown examples of liberals objecting to a state’s right to make a decision with which they strongly agree in deference to a national rule or regulation with which they strongly disagree.

Say What?