Has the “states’ rights” argument become a progressive argument?

As a Democrat, I have always adhered to the notion that progressive causes in this country are better addressed at the federal level.  Especially issues that are important to me, like marriage and employment equality, universal health care, and so on.  The republicans were always the party of “states’ rights”.  Growing up in the south that was code for the state’s right to discriminate.  The “Dixiecrats” used the states’ rights argument to justify Jim Crow laws and other bigoted policies.  Even in recent times, it has been used to support such policies as banning gay marriage and employment discrimination.  But recently there seems to be more progressive reforms happening on the state level as opposed to the federal level.  It probably doesn’t hurt that we have one of the most regressive administrations in our history on the federal level.  And if Obama is elected, despite his protestations of Change, I expect things to pretty much remain status quo.

The first example we have of progressive state leadership comes in the form of gay marriage.  Massachusetts led the way when its Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages in 2004.  Then last month New York, while not outright legalizing gay marriage, said that the state must recognize such unions performed in other states.  And yesterday California became the second state to give full marriage rights to same-sex couples.  In 2006, after a barrage of state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage, Arizona became the first state to reject enshrining bigotry in their state constitution.  One of the many reasons I support Hillary Clinton for president is that she has recognized this trend, and wanted to keep the federal government from impeding states from pursuing progressive agendas.  In an earlier post I argued that this position made Hillary a much greater, and practical ally for the gay community. 

The second area where states have shown themselves to be progressive is on the health care front.  We all watched as George Bush vetoed the expansion of the S-CHIP program, effectively denying medical health coverage for hundreds of thousands of children.  States did their best to respond but unfortunately were once again blocked by the federal government.  

Today’s release of the seventh annual 50-state survey of eligibility rules, enrollment and renewal procedures, and cost-sharing practices in Medicaid and SCHIP for children and families, shows that nearly two-thirds (32) of states expanded access to their Medicaid and SCHIP programs between July 2006 and January 2008 (see Figure 1).  However, without the reauthorization of the SCHIP program and with a new federal directive restricting states from using SCHIP to cover children in families earning more than 250 percent of the federal poverty level, these state efforts could be compromised.  Twenty-three states could be affected by the directive, including 14 which have already implemented their plans and another ten which have authorized the plans into law, but not yet implemented them.  (Washington state is counted in both categories, see Figure 2 on previous page).  Three states have already cut back on their coverage.  States also continue to report that the Medicaid citizenship documentation rule is hampering efforts to simplify enrollment and resulting in delays and denials of coverage.

Despite the fact that Hillary promised universal health care for all Americans, I think her promise to allow states to pursue (and encourage the federal government to help fund) progressive agendas would also have allowed states to expand their coverage of children as opposed to the Bush administration’s attempts to stymie states efforts as well as block any federal funding.  As usual Obama’s position is vague at best.  I doubt he has the integrity, much less the experience to lead on this issue on the federal level, so at the very least I would hope he wouldn’t stand in the way of individual states who wish to insure children.   And our “dear leaders” in congress deserves as much derision for the state of affairs on this issue as Bush himself.  Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the Democratic leadership that now backs Obama did not stand up for Americans on Iraq or health care for children.  They should have just kept sending the SCHIP bill to Bush’s desk over and over and over again, even if he did veto it every time. At least they would have shown the public they have a spine.  But then again, this is the same leadership that said impeachment was “off the table”.  Not to go off on a tangent, but I think that is another reason to be depressed about an Obama candidacy, he just represents more of the same ineffective leadership the Dems have shown since retaking both houses in 2006.   His message of change is incompatible with his Dem crony’s inability (or unwillingness) to pass any meaningful progressive legislation. 

On a third (quite unexpected) front it seems that states are beginning to take action on protecting fundamental human rights.  In fact an article I saw today was the impetus for writing this post.  North Carolina is pondering the banning of torture:

RALEIGH, N.C. — A House judiciary committee is scheduled to consider a ban on torture and forced disappearances.

The plan to be discussed Tuesday would make torture a felony punishable by up to more than six years in prison.

The proposed law defines torture as both the mental or physical suffering inflicted on a person to obtain information or coerce them.

It also would make the abduction or inappropriate detention of someone a felony.

The bill’s sponsors have said they introduced the measure after hearing allegations that a Smithfield-based company helped the CIA transport suspected terrorists to secret overseas prisons.

Along with the abductions mentioned in the story, NC is also the home of the notorious Blackwater.  If the federal government is not going to stand up for human rights, I’m glad to see that members of my state government are stepping up to the plate.  I doubt that this will actually pass the full legislature, but it is more than the feds are doing.  And if a conservative state like NC can consider such a ban, I’m sure other states have or will as well. 

Despite the protestations of the “sweeties”, I think we can thrive under a McCain administration.  As I noted yesterday, CA legalized gay marriage despite having a Republican governator.  Obama’s ruthless centralization of all that he surveys is not a good omen for these progressive trends to continue.  And I don’t trust him to do the right thing on any of theses issues, not even Supreme Court Justice appointments.  Why should I expect anything more than the outright cronyism that has been a hallmark of his campaign?  So, although I know that some of you can’t stomach the thought of voting for McCain, I propose that even with a Republican president, progressive agendas can continue to grow on a state by state basis.