By overreaching the last eight years through the growth of the federal government’s power and size, liberals have accidentally painted themselves into a corner, policy-wise. They have forced same-sex marriage, climate change, common core, and LGBT special rights down America’s throats so much, because New York and California liberals want it. And now that they’re losing the White House as well as Congress, they plan to fight.
How will they fight? By having states like California resist.
It may not be “Calexit” — the name of a decidedly quixotic campaign for California to withdraw from the union — but it is turning into what is, for all intents and purposes, a slow-motion secession.
California is becoming to Mr. Trump what Texas — which is as Republican as California is Democratic — was to President Obama: a sea of defiance and a potential source of unending legal and legislative challenges. Texas sued the federal government more than 40 times in recent years, moving to block an influx of Syrian refugees and to stymie air pollution regulations and Mr. Obama’s health care plan. Earlier this month, Democrats in the California state legislature hired Eric H. Holder, the former attorney general, in anticipation of a run of legal battles with the Trump White House.
Here’s the difference between Texas Republicans and California Democrats:
Texas Republicans (and Republicans in general) are happy if California resists federal encroachments on the will of the people and of the individual states. California Democrats are happy to have the federal government force their preferred policies down the throats of the entire country, and only resist when the federal government doesn’t go along with them.
I say, good. Let California do what they want. Let them make climate change the law of the state. Let them make their state a liberal’s social paradise. Let New York and any other states that believe in the policies of the left make their states be whatever they want to be. And when people who agree more with conservative principles leave those states for greener pastures, then the liberals can celebrate with less tax revenue and lower property values.
If California wants a CalExit, fine, but they don’t get to keep all the federal benefits and spending they get while they set up sanctuary cities. They won’t be able to flaunt federal law where the current administration ignored enforcement on immigration while they collect federal tax dollars. California received $52.5 billion in defense spending in 2014, second only to Virginia.
Now, after years of building the federal government into the social leviathan it is, liberals have retreated behind federalism and states’ rights to fight President Trump.
But remember, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If California can set its own policies, then Texas can too, without constantly suing the federal government. If California can take advantage of Roe v. Wade to force crisis pregnancy centers to advocate for abortion, then Texas can force abortion providers to meet minimum medical standards.
If the left wants to shield its policies with the 10th Amendment and the federalism they rejected over the past half-century, then they should accept the outcome. I say let California do what they want, as long as they know what will happen when they do it.
Federalism is good for America, and anything liberals do to shrink the power of the federal government is a benefit. But they won’t accept that answer. They just want to temporarily use federalism and states rights until they get back into power.
To liberals, it’s bad for anyone to want to live differently from them. Because tolerance.