leaves drift
into the gorge
I pick one to follow
autumn wind —
trying to keep myself
under my hat
soft earth
I might risk
a cartwheel
from Upstate Dim Sum (2005/I)
potluck
Eugene Volokh had a very good post yesterday on whether it is
“inconsistent” for Federalists to look to the federal government for solutions
on particular topics. He distinguishes between federalism (which says that
the central government has the authority to act in certain situations, and the
states in others) and localism (which wants all issues settled at the local level),
and notes:
“One can certainly argue that federalists are mistaken about where
the line should be drawn, or even inconsistent in drawing that line.
But one needs to do that by concretely explaining why the line should
be drawn in a particular place, or why two things must in any event be
on the same side of the line — one can’t just point to the federalist’s
supporting national solutions in some situations and state solutions
in others and say “Aha! Inconsistency!” Federalism is all about supporting
national solutions in some situations and state solutions in others. More
broadly, I suspect that good judgment, left, right, center, or libertarian is
all about supporting national solutions in some situations and state
solutions in others.
Prof. V also observes that “we need to be careful in allegations of inconsistency
(and especially of hypocrisy). Often the inconsistency is more illusory than real,
or at least demonstrating it requires a lot more argument than critics actually provide.”
(via Bainbridge) Personally, I don’t know what’s more disturbing: that so many people
are willing to brand opponents as inconsistent because they truly cannot think
through these issues, or that so many people know better but are willing to make the
charges simply to gain political advantage.
“traffic cop SF”