Localism And The Establishment

     Among the things the late Clarence Carson deplored in his masterwork The American Tradition was the erosion of our traditional localism as the federal government has expanded into ever more areas of American life. Garet Garrett expressed a consistent view in The People’s Pottage. He quotes a governor of Kansas to this effect:

     “Federal agencies are all around us. There is scarcely a problem presented to the county officials of today which is not either directly or indirectly involved with implications and issues related occasionally to state, but more often to Federal, regulation. There are Federal offices in the basement and in the corridors on the second floor. Except during the regular term of court there are extra employees of some Federal agency in the court room. A couple of Federal auditors or investigators are usually using the jury room. The whole warp and woof of local government is enmeshed in the coils of bureaucratic control and regulation.
     […]
     “In 1874 the western part of Kansas suffered a very severe calamity in the form of a horde of grasshoppers. Our state was young, only thirteen years old. The ravages of the grasshopper threatened the livelihood of many of the settlers. Upon that occasion the Governor called a special session of the legislature. It met, considered the problem and enacted proper legislation for relief and aid . . . and a disaster was averted.
     “If that same situation should occur today we all know what would happen. It would take practically a photo finish to determine which would land first—the grasshoppers or a horde of Federal agents. The state and the county would have absolutely and exactly nothing to say about it. The policy and the means and the method of dealing with the problem would all be determined in Washington, D.C. The benefits, all from the Federal Treasury, in such manner and such form as Washington should dictate, would come to the farmers without their scarcely knowing what it was about—and we take it for granted.”

     What Carson and Garrett called localism, the Catholic Church calls subsidiarity. The words mean essentially the same thing: that local situations are properly the province and responsibility of persons in the affected locales. Intrusions by “authorities” from far away are unlikely to improve on matters. Indeed, they may do actual harm: a fear that has been borne out on several occasions.

     There are innumerable things that I could say about this subject, but the recent devastation of North Carolina and Tennessee by the unusually powerful Hurricane Helene makes it unnecessary. The examples of harm by federal “helpers” are too recent and too vivid. Nor did the state governments cover themselves with glory.

     That governor of Kansas quoted above said nothing about the motives of the federal bureaucrats and agents to whom he referred. He merely expressed his resentment of their intrusion upon local matters. But motives are important. They tell us what to expect henceforward.

     The astute analyst reasons backward: from the tactics of those he hopes to understand, to their objectives, and thence to their motives. What can the tactics of the federal busybodies observed in North Carolina tell us about their motives?

     Have at it, Gentle Readers. You’re too bright to need me to lead you by the hand.

***

     Establishments are always self-protective above all other things. They tolerate no infringements of their dominions. They allow no reduction of their perquisites. They follow Orwell’s rule: “The aim of the High is to remain where they are.” If an Establishment cannot expand its demesne, at the very least it can defend its borders against interlopers – and it will, ruthlessly.

     FEMA, the “Federal Emergency Management Agency” that seems incapable of contributing anything but confusion and delay to operations in the Helene-stricken zones, is as much an Establishment as any other sector of the federal Leviathan. From its ground tactics, we must infer that its objective was to prevent non-federal agencies and private operatives from intruding on what FEMA deems its sole authority. The rationales it offered are absurd and of no moment. It asserted its primacy over the stricken districts to protect its domain, no other reason.

     What followed was a huge black eye for FEMA in particular, and for the federal government in general. Seldom has any component of the federal edifice looked worse. Strangely, much of what federal agents did to impede relief and recovery activities was done in the plain sight of the whole nation. One could easily conclude that those agents did not care what anyone might think of their interference. Maintaining sole authority over “disaster relief” was all that mattered to them.

     That is the way of the tyrant. “What does it matter,” he says to his confidants, “what the little people think of us, as long as they obey? Oderint dum metuant!” A tyrant unsure of his grip on power might speak more circumspectly, but one confident that he cannot be toppled wouldn’t feel a need to restrain himself.

     Washington D.C. is filled with confident tyrants.

***

     This is actually a hopeful tirade.

     That black eye has disturbed a great many Americans. It’s damaged their assumptions about the priorities of those in power. That’s a very good thing. A popular rejection of the powers that be must start from the realization that those who wield power over us do not wish us well.

     But there’s a corollary: If we reject the centralism of our time, where seemingly everything must defer to federal authority, we must reanimate our earlier localism in its full effect:

  • Charity must once again be local and personal.
  • Law and lawmaking must be local and tightly restricted.
  • Private citizens must become the front-line defenders of local standards.

     And of course, federal and – to some extent – state intrusions on local matters must be resisted with all necessary force. The nullification of laws and regulations in no way authorized by state constitutions or the Constitution of the United States must become explicit. Local law enforcement must refuse its assistance to state and federal myrmidons who seek to enforce such laws.

     You say you want a downsizing of government? A reduction of its exactions and usurpations? Boy oh boy, am I ever with you on that. But there’s work involved. Either put your shoulder to the wheel or accept what’s been done to you. No other course is available.

     (See also this Baseline Essay.)

1 comment

    • Doug Piranha on October 16, 2024 at 9:10 AM

    There has been a bit of this in action in the town where I live. During covid, many people moved up from the city (cringe) and one of them was an attorney/restauranteur. She purchased a failing restaurant and completely revamped it, it isn’t open yet, but it promises to be something a bit more upscale from what we have now.
    About a mile from where her restaurant is, there is a property that one of the locals has been trying to sell for a while. The owner of this property decided at one point to try and off load it to the state so they could turn it into section 8 housing. The attorney said “Oh no you don’t!” And she buried the guy in paperwork and order to show causes. After three months of court battles, the other guy lost and gave up, sparing our town of another blight. Sometimes a newcomer can be a blessing in disguise.

Comments have been disabled.