How the South Will One Day Save America

Lost among the shuffle of political ranting about tearing down Confederate statues is a legitimate debate over states' rights. Anyone arguing is favor of states' rights is quickly dismissed by the media as being in favor of slavery and racism.

The situation is pretty intense right now, and I in no way mean to make light of racism. In fact, I want to solve it. But removing statues will not remove racism.

In an ironic twist of fate, the South may hold the solution.

Although slavery was by far the primary reason for the existence of the Confederate States of America, states' rights was an honorable secondary reason that may actually be a redeeming quality to it's troubled legacy. Just as Abraham Lincoln quoted Thomas Jefferson (a known slave holder) to remind the nation "that all men are created equal" when he declared the Gettysburg Address, so too does the legacy of the South have an ironic pearl of wisdom to share with us today.

Many Progressives have championed the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage, but fail to recognize how states' rights helped to advance those agendas. State's rights should not be inextricably tied to slavery or racism. I will even go so far to contend that states' rights can help end racism, and here is how that can happen:

In my last post, I described how racism in America is definitely on the rise. But the cause is derived from the fact that post-industrial urban centers in America were hit harder in the Great Recession than in other places, leading to higher poverty rates, greater income inequality, and a rise gang-related violence in these areas. This unfairly and disproportionately affected minorities who call these urban centers home. Feel free to read the previous post here:
https://steemit.com/racism/@zoroaster/why-is-racism-on-the-rise-in-america

Far too many communities, across the nation, are being forgotten due to an overly bureaucratic nightmare known as Washington D.C. The Federal government is neither responsive to the needs of all its people, nor is it ever accountable for its mistakes. Whenever local governments need money, they must send representation to Washington where all the money goes into a giant pot for Congress to fight over how it is spent on the national stage. Solutions that are seen as too liberal or too conservative are either scrapped or watered down. Additionally, in order to keep things from getting unruly, Congress spends a lot of time cutting corrupt back room deals, leading to market inefficiencies and a whole lot of pork barrel spending on frivolous pet projects. This is a process known as "bringing home the bacon" and it inevitably leads to the need for more Federal revenue. But since all of the money from tax revenue ultimately comes from people and businesses within States, why not cut out the middle man (Washington D.C.) and simply keep the money at the local level, allowing towns, counties, and states to decide the most effective ways to raise and spend money in order to solve the local issues they face?

Under this approach, if States get into a jam, they can simply borrow money from states that run a surplus. States that continuously mismanage taxpayer money will be forced to become accountable, since there will no longer be an "endless supply of cash from Washington." Every state must learn to carry it's own burden.

This will also allow for States to compete against one another for business and citizens to a greater degree. Remember, competition is good for consumers. If States are forced to compete as "Laboratories of Democracy" for our allegiance, they will have to do a better job of meeting the needs of its people.

Seriously, does Congress really know what it's like to be poor when all of its members are millionaires? Having them decide what is best for EVERY community in a America is like thinking a one-size fits all pair of pants will fit everyone. A Federal after-school program to keep kids off the streets may be necessary for some urban areas, but may be a complete waste of money for places like East Hampton, New York. Likewise, a Federal Project to restore old buildings in affluent communities to attract business may not benefit families who cannot afford groceries in Detroit, Michigan. By keeping issues local, there is a greater sense of responsibility, responsiveness, transparency, and accountability. It also brings more new ideas to the table to be tried and tested. If the ideas are good, other communities and states will naturally follow those examples and learn from past mistakes.

If the water in a particular city is bad, don't blame Washington; blame the Mayor. And if the current local government in a particular community fails, have a referendum or vote of no confidence to kick out the current establishment. It's easier to do these things locally, than nationally.

Maybe if we start thinking this way, we can finally get closer to solving the biggest issue that breads racism: poverty. Ultimately, a better nation starts at the local level, where the individual has a louder voice.