Did California Just Declare Itself a Nation-State?
2020-04-17 · Guest: Frank Buckley (Senior editor at the American Spectator) · 51:55
American Secession and the Return to Federalism
Bob Zadek talks with author Frank Buckley about the concept of “American Secession” and the return to original federalism. They explore how states like California are increasingly acting independently of Washington, D.C., particularly in response to COVID-19, drug laws, and sanctuary policies, and why smaller governing units often lead to greater individual happiness.
Topics: Secession, Federalism, State Sovereignty, Gavin Newsom, COVID-19, Spending Power, Optimal Country Size, Tenth Amendment
Speakers: Bob Zadek, Frank Buckley
California as a “Nation-State” [00:00]
Bob Zadek: Hello everyone, welcome to the Bob Zadek Show, the longest-running live libertarian talk radio show in all of radio. Thank you so much for listening this Sunday morning. We are this morning, as always, the show of ideas, never once the show of attitude. And every Sunday we do our very best to give you an hour of pure, pure content—informative, relevant, timely, significant content with the best guests we can find.
And this morning is the perfect example of that. I’m happy to welcome back to the show Frank Buckley. Frank is a senior editor at the American Spectator, he is a regular columnist at the New York Post, and has written regularly for the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, US News, National Review, and the American Conservative, as well as many other media outlets. Frank has recently published American Secession, a timely book where he explores what would secession look and feel like in America today. Would it be something to be welcomed, feared, or—and this is me adding a little imprimatur—are we already experiencing American secession or are we about to experience it?
I raise the topic because, as I think most of us know, California Governor Gavin Newsom had a bit of a hissy fit publicly a while ago and was complaining about how President Trump and the federal government were handling the coronavirus control and shelter-in-place. And he complained he wasn’t getting his share of supplies, whatever that may mean, and he announced California would exercise its power as a—here are the words—“nation-state,” would acquire its own ventilators, its own testing kits, would use its massive bargaining power and buying power to somewhat economically separate itself from Washington. So Gavin Newsom clearly has listened to my earlier show and my earlier discussion with Frank when his book had just come out on American Secession, and perhaps Gavin Newsom’s speech was a mini Fort Sumter attack. We will find out this morning. Frank, welcome to the show this morning.
Frank Buckley: Bob, thank you for having me.
Bob Zadek: Well, what do you think, Frank? Gavin Newsom, “nation-state,” California. California is sure big enough in economic size, in population size, to stand proudly in the family of nations, whether it would gain admission to the UN, I don’t know, that’s another call. But let’s drill down a bit. Gavin Newsom used the phrase, which was attention-getting when he did it to be sure, of “nation-state.” Now, how does that concept—what do you imagine that concept might mean? Is California already a nation-state? And actually, Frank, how radical is the concept that California or any other state should consider itself, whatever that may mean, a nation-state?
Frank Buckley: Well, there’s no magic particularly about the word “nation” just by itself. I mean, you could imagine different nations within a single country very easily. Quebec says that it’s a nation; it’s part of the government of Canada. Scotland is a nation or something like that within Great Britain. But to couple “nation” with “state” suggests something more. It suggests a degree of independence. And, you know, Gavin Newsom was talking about something like that when he talked about California going its own way in its response to the coronavirus epidemic. And that’s, you know, that’s really benign. Indeed, that’s part of the Trump administration’s approach to all this—let different states compete and find their best way. That’s just what federalism was all about. So if what we’re talking about is nothing like the Civil War, but simply a return to the early federalism of the founders, that’s a good thing.
Divided Sovereignty and the Founders [05:40]
Bob Zadek: What’s interesting is you use the word “independence.” And I’d like to expand upon that a little bit because states are in many ways independent of each other and independent of Washington. The stay-at-home orders, the quarantine, the police power—states are today structurally quite independent of Washington in those ways. And indeed, all the headlines have talked about the action states and localities have been taking independent of Washington. And we saw recently how edicts from Washington, indeed the going back to work gradually, is now been expressed by Washington as a guidance, not as a mandate. So states are also in great ways independent now, as they always were. And Frank, you mentioned before, and I’d like you to expand upon this, the reference to the founders. Weren’t the states created in many ways as nation-states? That is, in many ways, going back to the founding, they were constitutionally independent of the federal government in many ways. So how much is Gavin Newsom’s yearning to be a nation-state a done deal because states always have been nation-states?
Frank Buckley: The idea of independence brings with it the concept of sovereignty. And, you know, when we were founded as a country, sovereignty was for the Brits a bit of a stumbling block. They couldn’t understand how you could have a British Empire within which there’d be sovereign entities. In other words, they couldn’t conceive that America or the individual colonies could be sovereign in any respect. There could be only one sovereign. And some people at the Framers’ Convention echoed that view; Alexander Hamilton did. But that wasn’t the document that came out of Philadelphia in 1787. Instead, we had an idea of divided sovereignty. So a state would be sovereign with respect to state powers, and the federal government would be sovereign with respect to its powers. So you could have divided sovereignty.
And, you know, that’s the original conception of America. And what’s happened since then is the line’s been blurred and state sovereignty became, you know, was in ill repute as a consequence of the way it was used by racists in Southern states. So, you know, so what we’re trying to do here, or what Gavin Newsom is trying to do, is I think recover the original understanding of American federalism in which states would be sovereign within their scope of competence. And that’s a good thing because, you know, not all wisdom emanates from Washington, D.C., you’d be surprised to learn. I mean, it’s good to see different states trying different things. It used to be called the “laboratory of the states.” So, you know, let’s see what Gavin Newsom and the state of California does. And, you know, maybe we’ll learn from it, or maybe they’ll learn from the rest of us that what they’re trying doesn’t work so well. But in any event, we’ll have competition between the states, and from competition, the best ideas emerge.
The Practicalities of Secession [10:20]
Bob Zadek: And what’s quite interesting is that it is the progressive states right now, perhaps because their guy is not, or their team is not, in control, at least totally in control of D.C. So maybe if you want to be—if you want to see this in a negative light, you would observe it’s simply a question that you don’t want Washington having excessive, whatever that may mean, control over the states because Washington is controlled by the other team. That’s the depressing view. I don’t choose to take that view. I think, and I’m hopeful that, the progressives—because it’s only been progressive states: Newsom in California and Cuomo in New York, also the governors of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Massachusetts a little bit as well—so it’s all been Democratic governors. But putting that aside, I hope that’s not significant. But it is so encouraging to me to find that something, Frank, you and I have yearned for, which is a return to original federalism, is now very much being discussed in, as we say, polite conversation.
And what do you think—assuming that now, let’s use our imagination a bit, Frank—assuming that this wave of not secession in the formal sense, in the political sense, but secession in the sense of the relationship between Washington and the states, assuming that continues to gain momentum, speak if you will, Frank, as to what the country might—what are the changes, the most significant changes you think the country would experience in that readjusting of that relationship?
Frank Buckley: Well, the relationship is always a difficult one. There’s an internal fragility to federalism because if you want power, which politicians do, which policy wonks do, right, rule from Washington means I’ve captured the castle. I rule 340 million people, right? Which beats, you know, ruling, you know, however the million people who live in the state of Wyoming, for example. So there’s always a tendency towards bigness, towards centralizing power, except when you get to the point where everybody realizes, wait a minute, this has gone too far. And I hope that’s where we are now.
So, you know, you invite me to think, you know, what happens if people realize not every decision should be made for 340 million people from Washington, D.C.? Right? The alternative is a return to federalism. And the initiative may come from people like Gavin Newsom and people who are openly advocating secession in California. The movement might start with simply a desire to assert state control over some contentious matter, say education, which is clearly a state matter. You know, were a state to declare itself independent or to make moves in that direction, I think what we’d quickly find is that an independence referendum would not really be binding. It would really only begin a process of negotiations. I’ll tell you why. You know, a vote for secession in California—let’s say California’s had it, they’re good and had it with Washington, Trump gets re-elected, they’ve had it—you know, that would be the kind of scenario we’re talking about. That would just begin a process of negotiations because you’d have to then start talking about how do you divide up federal debt? How do you divide up federal property?
And when it comes to that, the votes of people in other states matter too. I mean, the votes of people in California would matter, but the votes of the rest of the country would matter as well. So you start with a process of negotiations, and on the table would be things like free trade of goods and people, right? I mean, you don’t just want sovereignty, you don’t just want independence, you want to couple it with interdependence, with continued relations with the rest of the country. Indeed, with the rest of the world. So, you know, in the same way that we have treaties with countries like Mexico and Canada, California would not want to become an autarky and cut itself off from the rest of America. A large part of California’s wealth comes from the fact that it trades with the rest of the United States. So, you know, nobody wants that to disappear. And you don’t want a passport to, if you’re in California, to visit Las Vegas. Right? So all of these things would end up on the bargaining table, and the most likely consequence of the bargain would be a return to the federalism of 200 years back, the federalism of the founders.
De Facto Secession in Action [16:00]
Bob Zadek: And what’s interesting is, I would like to remind our listeners that we are not, you and I, Frank, are not talking about the very beginning of the process of the movement back to the future, back to the federalism of the founders. There are so many recent examples. Sanctuary cities are where localities, states, and cities are saying to Washington, “We reject your policy being imposed upon us. It is our business. We will go our own way.” Also, with respect to—and this is the most significant, Frank, is it not?—the drug war, the drug policy, where use of marijuana and other Schedule I controlled substances are illegal, it violates federal law, and yet Washington allows people to violate federal law so long as they are in compliance with state law. Indeed, Congress has not allowed Washington to spend even one red cent of federal money to enforce federal drug laws against somebody who is in compliance with state laws. So there has been under-reported and under-discussed, except by scholars like you, Frank, that we are already well on the way to, if not secession in words, the behavior as if a form of secession, that is rejecting one-size-fits-all. And it is—it should be giving all of us people who favor federalism goosebumps. And it’s almost as if the genie is out of the bottle and it’s on the way anyway. Drugs, sanctuary cities, and now the behavior of the states and localities to the COVID-19 virus. So it also, Frank, isn’t it well on the way and aren’t we gaining momentum?
Frank Buckley: Well, that sort of thing has been going on for some time. You know when it began? It actually began when Northern states refused to enforce federal fugitive slave laws. And the Supreme Court held that the feds could not enlist state employees, state police, to enforce federal laws. And that’s what’s going on in California right now. I mean, the feds cannot enlist state troopers to enforce federal drug laws, right? Or immigration laws. Okay. And that’s simply an example of federalism. I mean, you know, pot is illegal—that’ll come as a surprise to anybody who walks down the boardwalk in Venice—but it is, it’s illegal under federal law. It’s just that the feds can’t really enforce it. I mean, there are practical limits and legal limits to the feds’ ability to enforce federal law across the country. And so one thing we’ve discovered is that there’s been an expansion of federal criminal law, and that’s rubbing against local feelings that this kind of law we may not want, right? I mean, this is sort of an example of the perverse fragility of federalism, right? When you get a bunch of politicians in Washington debating whether to expand federal criminal law, right, the argument is, “Well, of course, are you in favor of this illegal activity?” So you’ll always tend to expand it in Washington. What you need is a kind of umpire that’s going to police that. For many years, the Supreme Court was not that umpire. Right? So, you know, maybe the Supreme Court—I mean, the Supreme Court is rediscovering federalism right now. But you also need a pushback from the states, from people like Gavin Newsom saying, “I’m sorry, we’re going to go our own way.”
Independence vs. National Identity [21:00]
Bob Zadek: And what’s so interesting is that libertarians and small-government folks ought to find what you have highlighted in your book, which is the movement of independence. Now, it’s not total independence, but relative independence, independence from what it’s been in the recent past, which you warmly embrace and you demystify in your book, Frank. That independence—a very interesting word—is independence simply means recovering the past. It is independence from the one-size-fits-all, not from the national identity concept. We will still be all Americans, but just as the founders were in 1788, they were citizens of the United States, but they were also proudly citizens of their state, and they had much more control over their lives. So, Frank, the secession that you highlight in your book is really yet again citizens insisting upon more control over their life. And that I find encouraging, one of the great areas of hope for the future of this country. It is healthy and it is strong. It is nothing other than when a young adult says, “I am free of my parents. I don’t need that guidance anymore. I am in control of my life.” Am I—should I not be as encouraged as I am, Frank, or do you share my hopefulness?
Frank Buckley: No, I think that you should. Let me mention that I’ve come across two different kinds of libertarians. One kind of libertarian concerns himself solely with the rights of the individual vis-à-vis the state, any state. And that kind of person is apt to tune out debates about federalism. “What does it matter?” he’ll say. “I mean, there’s still going to be a state.” There’s another kind of libertarian, however, who says, “Well, it’s also, you know, what is the state in question?” I mean, if California completely seceded from the Union, you’d entirely eliminate one level of government. And I have to think for a libertarian that that’s something they would applaud, right? You not only eliminate one level of government, but the more intrusive one at that. Okay.
So what does federalism mean in this context? It isn’t exactly the same thing as libertarianism because, you know, if every state was permitted to go its own way on a whole range of issues, you’d have a variety of different responses on things like abortion, for example. Some states would be more liberal than we are at present, although I don’t know if that’s possible, and some states would be less so. Right? So you could get people levering up rules binding individuals or levering down them. And so the libertarian who concerns himself solely with individual rights would say, “Well, I’m no better.” But the answer is, yeah, you are better because you get the option to sort yourself out and move to a jurisdiction which works for you. So, you know, you get to choose your level of laws by your location decisions. And we do that already. I mean, Californians are moving to Texas and maybe a little bit of vice versa. And in doing so, they’re opting for, you know, the level of laws they want. Some Californians find California’s laws oppressive and think Texan laws are less so, and so they’ll move.
Bigness vs. Happiness [25:40]
Bob Zadek: Now, Frank, in your book—we’re going to have to go to a very short break now—in your book, you point out how you make this interesting analysis, data-driven of course, as all your writing always is, about the concept of bigness in terms of size of government, size of the country, bigness and individual well-being, happiness if you will. And you point out with historical references as well as contemporary references how bigness mitigates against individual happiness. I’d like to explore that a bit when we come back, just to further point out how the concept of federalism, which means the instrument of government which controls us most directly, is now each instrument, each state, is now smaller, and whether that in and of itself will make us happier. This is Bob Zadek. We’re speaking with Frank Buckley this morning. Frank has authored the recently published and highly successful book American Secession. We are talking about secession, not as a concept splitting up the 50 states into 50 countries by no means, but we are exploring, highlighted by the events of the virus, we are exploring enthusiastically the potential for returning control over our lives closer to home by transferring and reseeding power from Washington to the state. There seems to be a movement supporting it. Is that good or bad and how do we further it? We’ll be back with Frank in about 30 really short seconds. Please stay tuned.
[Commercial Break]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show, the longest-running live libertarian talk radio show in all of radio, the show of ideas, never once the show of attitude. We strive, we do our gosh-darn best to give you an hour of pure objective content so you can better understand and follow the goings-on in your statehouses and in Washington, D.C. This morning we are speaking with Frank Buckley. Frank’s recent book, among many books—and I proudly say each time Frank writes a book, the day of publication or shortly thereafter, I cannot wait to have Frank as a guest on my show—his recent book American Secession explores what would life be like, what is the possibility of states seceding from the Union, the United States. But more specifically and more directly, he explores in great detail with lots of backup data the relationship between Washington and the states, where we are today, how we got here, and where we ought to be.
And this conversation is extraordinarily topical in light of the tension right now during the virus scare as to who controls the quarantine, who controls shelter-in-place. And we are discovering, wow, the states have lots of power in which Washington has little to say about it. That was kind of headline-grabbing news for many Americans who just naturally assumed all the power resides in Washington. And I dare say progressives as well as conservatives, libertarians also included, are discovering it kind of works. Local control kind of works. So it’s not Frank’s book per se, but Frank’s book on American Secession really encourages us to explore that concept.
Now, Frank, before the break, I made reference to a chapter in your book, a section of your book, where you explored the relationship between the size of the governing body, the size of your country or your state, on an individual citizen’s happiness. And you had some interesting observations in your book that I’d like you to share with us if you would.
Frank Buckley: Well, thank you, Bob. Yeah, the optimal size of a country, the question of bigness versus smallness, that was a big topic of debate when our country was created. The Framers at their convention in Philadelphia in 1787—and the winner of the debate was a group of small-state delegates who decided, who felt that smallness is goodness. Right? And, you know, the people who opposed them, the nationalists, people like Madison and Hamilton, were basically shot down. Right? You know, some of the delegates, George Mason said, “Look, we’ve got these Western states in the Ohio Valley who want to join the Union, and geez, we don’t want that. We want to stay small.” But, you know, inevitably the country moved across to the Pacific, to California. We have a lot of new states and we became big. We started with a country of 4 million people in 1776, and we ended up with a country now of 340 million people, one of the largest countries in the world. And I did some number crunching over this, and I discovered, I found that smaller countries are happier countries. They’re less corrupt, they’re freer. And, you know, the intuitive explanation is that when you’ve got a small country, the people are closer to the rulers, right? The voters are closer to their governor, and they can be disciplined, our leaders, if they’re not doing a good job. And it’s a lot harder when you have one country of 340 million people.
You know, in part, by the way, this gets into the debate about the Electoral College. The Electoral College was meant to preserve smallness in a way. Right? And so the people who are saying, “No, no, no, the winner of the popular vote should be the president,” I mean, that’s essentially an argument for bigness, and it chafes on people who, without thinking about it much, instinctively are in favor of smallness, of localness. Right?
Local Knowledge and Elitism [32:10]
Bob Zadek: And the concept, therefore, of putting aside the political concept of secession, but extending that to who has more day-to-day control over our lives, our state or our country, obviously by definition a state is smaller than the whole, the country. Therefore, your research would—is an argument, a strong argument, a data-driven argument in favor of: if you want to be happier, the way to be happier is to transfer more power over your day-to-day life from Washington to the states. And the concept is that who knows better than people who are closer to you what is good for you individually and collectively? The answer is obvious. And Frank, the concept of Washington, going back perhaps in more modern times to President Wilson, was that autocrats in Washington are elite, they are smarter, and they know better. And let’s get all this brainpower in Washington in one place and we’ll run the country ignoring the states because all of the brainpower will reside in Washington. And so the concept is this elitism is that somebody distant knows better simply because they are presumptively smarter. And if you were designing a concept as the founders did and as we are doing this morning, you would never design a concept to find a way to remove power as far away from the people as possible. It makes no sense, does it, as a political scientist, Frank?
Frank Buckley: No, it makes no sense at all. And much of our politics right now is a reaction against that kind of bigness. If you remember the Tea Party movement during the reign of Good King Obama, that was a revolt against—it wasn’t a violent revolt, it was an extraordinarily peaceful and neat revolt against government from Washington. And the people who on the left amongst progressives who are unhappy with President Trump right now, those kinds of demonstrations, those kinds of marches are basically the left’s version of the Tea Party. Right? And in both cases, what they object to is kind of a winner-take-all kind of politics. Right? I mean, it matters terribly who the president is because the administration wields so much power over our lives. And, you know, much of the heat and anger and nastiness of our politics would disappear if we could reduce the stakes, right? Make things matter less. And the way things matter—you know, one way you do that is to withdraw power from the federal government to the states. I mean, so the people right now who object to Trump are objecting to rule from Washington. And the same was true of the Tea Party. Right? It would matter less if the power of the federal government were less. Right? If what mattered more was who the governor of your state was. In those kinds of—if that were the case, then California wouldn’t be so worked up about President Trump, and a place like Texas or Mississippi wouldn’t be so worked up about President Obama.
Federalism and Civil Rights [36:10]
Bob Zadek: And what’s interesting is on the issue of, if you will, power to the states, which just means go back to the way it was designed, it isn’t clear. And what’s so interesting, Frank, and I really can’t nail it down as to why, it’s so interesting that depending upon the issue, progressives favor states’ rights—an ugly phrase with an ugly history going back to the Dixiecrats in 1948 and Strom Thurmond and that crowd—but states’ rights doesn’t mean that ugliness, it simply means federalism. But in many ways, progressives strongly support federalism, states’ rights—witness, as I said earlier, sanctuary cities, ignoring federal drug laws, California establishing its own emission standards for automobiles, which it’s only a state, but it’s a big state, so it has a lot to say about it. So there are so many instances where progressives embrace states’ rights. And similarly, there are many instances where conservatives and libertarians—and yes, they are different, conservatives and libertarians—favor states’ rights. So this seems to be the major political issue for which there seems to be agreement. And if there is, what’s preventing it from accelerating?
Frank Buckley: Well, if there is agreement, and there is, a big reason has to do with the success of the Civil Rights Revolution. It’s not 1948, and more power to states like Alabama and Mississippi would not mean that the Civil Rights Revolution would be undone in those states. I mean, for one thing, there are, you know, a large number of African American voters in those communities; nothing’s going to change in that respect.
Bob Zadek: We also have a Constitution. We also have a Constitution standing in the way of regression.
Frank Buckley: Well, I’m contemplating a kind of federalism which would lighten the hand of the Bill of Rights as well. I mean, I could see different states going different ways with respect to things like religious rights, for example. I mean, and that’s the case right now. You have cases going up before the Supreme Court with respect to the so-called Blaine Amendment, which bans aid to parochial schools—it was frankly an anti-Catholic movement in large part. You know, so different states may go different ways on different things concerning the Bill of Rights, and we could live with that. And the reason is because when all is said and done, we’re living in a liberal democracy where every state adheres to basic liberal values. I mean, there’ll be differences with respect to some issues, but in general, the Civil Rights Revolution has succeeded, and that has made federalism more attractive.
The Spending Power and Block Grants [39:40]
Bob Zadek: One of the areas that mitigate against the devolution of power back to the states is taxing power. When Washington is able to suck so much money out of the states through national taxes, once you have the money and you then return the money to the states, you, Washington, return it with conditions, which means, yeah, the states have some control, but the feds really control how the money is spent. So I think that in order for federalism to accelerate, what’s required is the halfway step would be Washington returning money to the states through block grants on some fair—a terrible word—on some fair basis so that states—the money is basically returned to the states to do with pretty much as they wish within very broad guidelines. And then once that is determined to be kind of silly, why have the money go to Washington to begin with? Then a reduction in federal taxes with reduction in federal power and an increase in state taxes, if they wish, and an increase in state power, if they wish. So I think in order to have a peaceful de facto secession in many ways, you have to readjust the money because that’s the elephant in the room.
Frank Buckley: Well, you’re talking about the federal government’s so-called “spending power,” its ability to suck up all the money and then to send it back to the states with strings attached. Right? And the way in which, because of the thickness of our regulatory state, the way in which basic decisions are run out of Washington would surprise a lot of people. I mean, a lot of highway decisions are basically made out of Washington. If you’ve got a small community where they’re putting in bike lanes, guess what? That has to do with federal mandates or federal spending powers. And there really is no reason for that. It’s not the case we get the best set of rules coming out of a small group of people in Washington.
The only fly in the ointment has to do with the fact that some states are rich and some are poor, and so there’s a net transfer from rich to poor states. Right? From the Californias, in other words, to the Mississippis. Which makes separation more politically attractive, I think, for a lot of Californians. I mean, the people who are running the “Yes California” campaign, who are out-and-out separatists, say, “Why are we getting less from Washington than we send to Washington? Why do we want to do that? We’re giving money to the deplorables, ultimately. And we don’t like them, and they don’t like us.” Right? So separatism is profitable for rich states.
Wealthy vs. Poor States [43:00]
Bob Zadek: I have an observation about rich states and poor states. And in response to that, I will observe on a national basis, as I said several years ago on my show, looking at countries, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan are countries or nation-states without much going for them in terms of inherent wealth. They have as a supreme natural resource free markets and personal freedom. And that has made them global powerhouses. So I would say as to states, you say poor states and wealthy states. I wonder if states are inherently poor or they are made poor by bad policies, in which case increase federalism so that we go back to the concept you alluded to earlier, which is Brandeis’s “laboratories of innovation.” Justice Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, “laboratories of innovation”—that’s what the states ought to be. That there need not be any poor states. States are made poor by bad policies. Because clearly, some states right now have fewer natural resources, worse weather, but they are not for that reason alone poor or not poor. So I wonder about that concept about poor states and whether or not more power to the states would allow them to become un-poor by their own political activity.
Frank Buckley: Yeah, let me here put in a plug to a book that many people have forgotten: George Gilder’s Wealth and Poverty, written in the mid-’70s. Gilder at that point—this was the middle of the oil crisis—was talking about the Saudis and so on, these are rich, oil-rich states. And Gilder said, “No, no, that’s not the source of wealth. It’s what you just said right now. It’s the ability of people within a country to do their own thing, to start a business, to have an infrastructure that supports all that.” And he said the Saudis are very poor in all of that respect. Right? The countries that are making a go of it are the Singapores and the Hong Kongs and so on. And America as well. Right? So that’s the true source of wealth. The true source of wealth is people and not something in the ground.
Bob Zadek: That’s correct. And California is described as a wealthy state, but California has more people living in poverty by federal standards than any other state as a percentage of the population. That has to be since California would by any measure be considered to be a wealthy state—great weather, natural resources, agriculture, and the like. So California is proof that there’s no such thing as an inherently rich or inherently poor states; they are made that way by their policies. And with the growth of federalism, which your book clearly promotes, would be to encourage states, if they want to be wealthy, it is within their power to be wealthy. And what could be more important to any citizen than to know it’s in your power to make your state—have your state be—have its citizens be wealthier?
COVID-19 and the Neutering of Federal Power [47:40]
Bob Zadek: Now, Frank, one more point on the virus which I’d like you to focus on because it’s so interesting is that nobody has complained—that is, there’s been no structural complaint about the fact that we’re in a pickle because Washington cannot enforce national stay-at-home laws or stay-at-home regulations. Nobody is complaining about that. People have been so willing to accept the neutering of federal power insofar as the virus is concerned. It’s interesting to me that in a country that has become so used to having all power reside in Washington, nobody is concerned that in this big deal, power doesn’t reside in Washington and people are content to leave it to their governors. Wouldn’t you have expected—
Frank Buckley: There’s a cynical explanation for that. In other words, the guys who ordinarily want to see more federal power realize that today that would mean more power in President Trump, which they don’t like. I think what’s been going on is a great argument for federalism. I mean, you had a bunch of states initially going their own way with respect to stay-at-home orders, and now you have states that are experimenting with relaxing those rules. And this area, this question is so complicated that it really matters to see how one state does it versus another. I mean, you’ve got extremes between Michigan on the one hand, very repressive, and Florida much less so. And we’re seeing pressure from people both ways. So, you know, I’m looking forward to seeing the governors experiment with loosening things up.
California’s Hypocrisy and Closing [49:40]
Bob Zadek: Before we wind down, Frank, I want to point out—I wonder if you’re aware of this, and I wonder if our listeners are—there’s an interesting—it’s anecdotal, but it’s so interesting as an indication of the utter hypocrisy in this case of the state of California, which is not necessarily a headline. But amid all of this, right in the middle of Gavin Newsom declaring nation-statehood for California—right in the middle of it, which means power to the states—President Obama, in a not necessarily headline-grabbing event, he backed down from the nutrition standards which schools must exhibit, must follow in school lunches, the standards that Michelle Obama through Washington imposed upon the states. And Trump rejected those and they were executive orders and he reversed them, I think I’m right procedurally. And as a result, Trump said, “The states can decide the nutritional balance and what should be in school lunches.” Seems like sensible to me. But California is now suing Washington demanding it reverse that. In other words, the very state that is declaring nation-statehood is suing Washington for seeding power to the states. How bizarre is that? My goodness, have they no shame?
Frank Buckley: That’s called California imperialism. That’s a case of California wanting to impose California standards on the rest of the country.
Bob Zadek: Now, Frank, we have only a minute left, Frank. Frank, how can our friends follow your thoughts? Because your thoughts are important to us all. How can they follow your thinking and your writing if they choose to keep abreast to what’s going on in your brain and in your scholarship?
Frank Buckley: Well, I write for the New York Post, but more importantly, just get onto Amazon and check out stuff I’ve done and you’ll make me and my publisher both very happy. And as they say, cheap at half the price.
Bob Zadek: Frank’s books—Frank has written The Republican Workers Party, he was on my show discussing that book. He has written The Republic of Virtue: How We Tried to Ban Corruption, Failed, and What We Can Do About It. And his first appearance on my show was when he wrote a fascinating book, The Once and Future King. Frank, thanks so much for sharing your time with us this Sunday morning. And to my friends out there, have a good Sunday. I’ll be back again next week. Stay healthy.
Frank Buckley: Bob, thank you for having me.
Bob Zadek: Thank you, Frank.