Customer Reviews

Freedom and Federalism

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

An excellent survey of Federalism, exploring its origin and development in the United States, as well as the prospects for Federalism around the world. Morley discusses the evils of centralized democracy, and how democracy is controlled by Federalist principles, in the interest of individual rights. He then goes on to explain the effects of the Fourteenth and Sixteenth Ammendments, and the policies of FDR. Factors to restore Federalism in the U.S. are also discussed. Highly educational, and its 1960 copyright makes it more interesting for younger readers, offering a window into the cold war outlook of the 1950's

~Freedom and Federalism~ is an intriguging perspective of federalism than and now... Felix Morley was a prominent conservative journalist and editor for Human Events. Freedom and Federalism was first published in 1950's and offers an honest assessment of federalism since the inception of the American Republic in 1787. "Federalism," affirms Morley, "is a distinctively American contribution to political art," which makes the reconciliation of liberty and order possible. He also critiques 'democracy' and 'democratism' with a brutally honest and prudent wisdom, which makes Morley a brilliant citizen-statesmen in the spirit of the founding fathers.

"In Morley's eyes," the cover notes, "a government of free men is like a strong-standing arch. The solid stones of which it is built is called freedom. Neither the building blocks of individual liberty nor the arch of freedom will stand secure without the keystone of federalism. It is federalism that holds up the arch. It is federalism that makes possible the preservation of both liberty and freedom. And the name of the arch is Republic-not Democracy." This book affirms that America was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy. Edmund Randolph avows, "The general object," of the constitutional convention, was "to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbelence and follies of democracy." "The U.S. was conceived and framed as a constitutionally limited federal republic with limits not only on the powers of government but on that of majority rule. Succinctly stated, the fundamental purpose of government was to protect life, liberty and property. The founders were weary of unchecked democracy, majoritarian tyranny and the redistributive threat that democracy posed to property rights. In an absolute democracy, everything is potentially up for a vote, including your God-given natural rights. Under republican government, the rule of law is supreme and the rights of the individual are paramount. Thus, as Morley recognizes, the founders made few concessions to democracy and sought to localize it. Even Thomas Jeffesron, purported to be the most 'democratic' of the founders recognizes that "A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town."

Morley analyzes Rousseau's concept of the "general will," which is a pretense for legitimizing majoritarian tyranny under the auspices of 'totalitarian democracy.' He points out how the design of federalism thwarts a general will. Morley also has no delusions of grandeur about federalism today. (Note that this book was written in the 1950's.) He rightly recognizes a steady erosion of original intent and the principles of federalism has led to centralization and a precariously unconstitutional balance of power between the federal government and states. It is little wonder that the word 'federal' has taken on a pejorative context while exemplifying centralization and bureaucracy. The word 'Federal' was derived from the Latin 'Foedus,' which translates to 'covenant' and thus 'Federalism' and 'Constitutionalism' goes hand in hand.

The culmination of big government machinations such as the Civil War, Reconstruction, New Deal, and the Great Society has usurped the constitutional order and has in many cases reduced the states to mere creatures of the federal government. Morley offers insights on historical developments such as the the Civil War, the problems presented by the 14th Amendment for jurisprudence, the nationalizing effects of commercialization, war preparation, empire building which began after the Civil War and went full circle under Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Although published in 1959, Felix Morley's FREEDOM AND FEDERALISM remains an invaluable book from which to learn about what might broadly be called "the American system of government."

The American system rested on two pillars: individual freedom and decentralized government. Americans today often look to the Supreme Court to defend individual liberty; the founders, however, believe that freedom was best protected by strong local government, which would serve as a check on the power of the federal government. To a certain extent, a belief in states rights survives even today. While we may hear an occasional call for the elimination of the Electoral College, I've never heard anyone demand that Senate seats be divided based on population, so that California will have greater representation than Rhode Island.

Morley focuses on changes in the United States, often from the day-to-day political perspective. However, he doesn't leave out philosophical concerns. Like many conservatives, Morley sees Rousseau as a chief villain. His concept of the general will provide the philosophical foundation for transferring unlimited power to the central government. Morely also shows how centralized government has the tendency to absorb the functions of state government and limit individual freedom.

The most significant change took place as the result of the Civil War, which dramatically increased the power of the federal government. The fourteenth amendment resulted in a transfer of authority from the states to the federal government. Curiously, Morley seems to accept the claim that the fourteenth amendment "incorporates" the Bill of Rights, thus vesting jurisdiction over just about everything in the hands of the Supreme Court. Although I haven't made up my mind on this issue, the late Raoul Berger made a compelling case that the scope of the fourteenth amendment was much more limited. (See the work of Michael Kent Curtis for a different perspective.)