Module 4

 WEEK FOUR

 

Sidlow, Chapter 17 State & Local Politics

 

I’m posting Module 4 a little early… hoping you haven’t experienced any disruptions to communication from the email upgrade IT did earlier this week, and wanting to give you a little extra time to get a head start on the coming week if you want to.

 

In week 4, we move on (and note that we are really moving on… to chapter 17!) to the organization of state and local politics, and how these interact with the Federal levels of government. There’s a lot to this topic. Some feel passionately that state and local governments are the natural authorities over most aspects of government. Others feel the Federal level of government should prevail. The so-called “states’ rights” advocates feel their freedom is infringed upon when decisions are made for them in Washington. Whether they know it or not, in doing so they are promoting the principal of “subsidiarity” which avers that the proper levelof government for any particular decision is always the level closest to the people whose lives will be impacted by the decision. 

 

That may seem abstract, so we will look at some examples this week. Abortion, for example. Are abortion rights a matter to be ruled on at the state level where regional attitudes can be reflected in the decision, or at the Federal level where national values can be applied to everyone? What about environmental policies? Access to health care? Gay marriage? Legalization of marijuana? The tension between states’ rights and national values plays out in many, many important issues that affect the daily lives of real people in fundamental ways.

 

What about the electoral college? There is much debate about whether it was created to promote states’ rights. Regardless of one’s position in that debate, the electoral college has in fact been a factor in preserving state identities and interests by incentivizing presidential candidates to pay attention to them. Would our national dialogue focus as much on the interests of rural and sparsely-populated, mid-country communities if those voters didn’t wield a few electors in the electoral college? We don’t know for sure, but I suspect the answer is no. In that case, for example, presidential candidates might skip right over the mid-country communities and pay the bulk of their attention to the more population-dense coastal regions. 

 

2) This week, please read the chapter on state and local politics, then do some research online on an issue that has relevance to the state-Federal question and resonates for all of us in the West Coast states right now: forest fires. Should wildfires be allowed to burn themselves out? Should people try to put them out? Should we allow deadfall to remain in place or should we actively clear it by removing it or by controlled burns? Who is allowed to use the forest? Who determines what people can do there? What levels of government currently determine the proper forestry practices and uses for particular forests? Are these the correct levels? Should the Federal government be in charge of policy-making for all forests across the country? Or should control of those forests be devolved to state or local authorities to manage as they see fit? What are the arguments on both sides? Which do you find most convincing? Post a blog entry reflecting on these questions. Your entry should reference the chapter and show evidence of having read it.