Brad Wardell pointed out in one his recent articles on the character of America, that the federal government is but a small part of governance compared to all that is done on state and local levels. This is not an isolated view among conservatives who still carry the vestige of rugged individualism in their hearts pumping through their veins governmental malnutrition as though the US were just any country advocating the law of power, rather than enlightened, constitutional law. That locals have much to do in keeping the community running smoothly is an obvious fact--as in an ant colony--owing to mandatory laws of the state, and far from redundant, in turn is guided by a national set of practices designed by a priori rules of laws to sustain a balance among states throughout the nation.


It is true as a young nation, many states forged ahead with its own directives for education, health, sanitation and general welfare, after all, the colonies did come first with its own dispositions; yet these customs had to coordinated and modified into a system of universal practices for educating its citizens, safeguarding health and nutrition, holding down crime, and a proactive sense of what is the general will of all the states, including commerce, for a nation to be united in its pursuit of democratization.


As the nation grew, the territories needed guidance in order to develop a common practice more in line with the established states. Obviously the central government played a principal role in developing templates for a new state’s constitutional governance and national language. The more the country expanded the greater the need for a nerve center to unify the growing aims of the nation and refining the rough edges of the newer states faced with lawlessness. In commerce, when it became apparent that business moguls lost sight of the common good, the feds had to begin a system of regulation to protect the paramount value of fairness in a sprawling land.


Nevertheless, in its adolescence the nation role was lukewarm oversight in the affairs of individual states unless there developed conflicts of interest. The primary role, having set up basic laws common to every state, the federal branch acted in foreign affairs of war and trade. Still, always present was central power to remind the home states of infractions against the law of the land.


The Civil War emphasized the necessity for a strong central government if the states were to be truly united, else the country would begin to reflect the ever conflicting nation-states of Europe. Forged was a greater sense of what it meant to be “American” as opposed to being a Virginian, New Yorker, or Italian Brooklynite and obviating the trend back to tribal, or old world cultural values.


Now as a superpower and global eyes upon us, more than ever there is a need for unity, not in the current hysteria of country right or wrong but in the forging of balance in taking on the affairs of other nations with respectful approaches, not unlike the central government in dealing with interstate issues. Yet undeniably there comes a time when as Lincoln had to save the Union, Truman had to prevent a projected million American casualties, Eisenhower had to save Arkansas from itself, Bush had to take down Afghanistan, an ensuing president will eventually find it necessary to engage in a cold or hot war against cultures whose values trigger violence against innocence beyond its borders.


Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: January 9, 2004.