Blog Post 1.2 "Local Govts & Devolution"

Both the right and left wings of American politics call for different actions regarding sanctuary cities, with those being getting rid of them in the name of the law and preserving them as a protest against Trumpian policy, respectively. What the two ideological camps do seem to agree with, however, is that the federal government should decisively do something about them, such as showing tolerance, changing the law, bringing in more officials, or enforcing penalties.

Distributism is an alternative to this idea of government interference, where very local governments carry out political and economic decisions, supplemented by nationalism and a distrust for big business and empires.

More left-leaning Americans tend to feel that states' rights will interfere with progressive policies and even dispossess certain groups, while right-leaning Americans may feel that states' rights need protection. Despite this, liberals have come to see devolution in a positive light when it allows cities to have tolerant policies towards their ideals that are otherwise prohibited or obstructed by federal law. In a more universal sense, the need for minorities to fight for their own position on abortion in order to have favorable national policies has fed political polarization as people vote or abstain according to this single issue and ignore the other positions of a candidate.

The main opponent of federalism is in fact bipartisan. Both liberals and conservatives want nationwide adherence to their views, so they push issues into national consideration rather than letting states choose what to do. Democrats, for example, might fear that conservative states will cut back on social programs. However, since conservative states tend to have a high proportion of their population collecting welfare and may also have businesses that depend on existing social programs, changes will not be so drastic.

Despite this, people are in fact quite mobile and most can leave a state with unfavorable policies for a state better suited for them. When there is a place for them to go, they will end up in places where they are happier while allowing those with no objections to live in peace. This movement will lead to balance and reduce controversy. Since delegating more powers to cities would be a necessary step in delegating them to the people (and thereby creating the distributist society envisioned by Chesterton), cities must also be allowed some sovereignty.

Federalism can be painful when it means that those living near you are allowed to enforce policies that seem blasphemous or distasteful to you. For this reason, there must also be a balance between unitary and federal distributions of power in order to keep localities from engaging in miniature versions of current political warfare.

Blog Post 1.1 "Interest Groups - ACLU"

The ACLU is an organization dedicated to preserving the rights outlined in United States law. Nowadays it is a nonpartisan organization that tries to step in when it thinks something is obstructing the rights of someone in the United States. The right that the ACLU most visibly defends is freedom of speech.

The ACLU is providing legal support for the case of a white supremacist rally organizer whose protest permit was revoked. The ACLU is doing this because it appears that the speech of the rally has caused the revocation. Since there is no law explicitly prohibiting white nationalism, this may be considered an act of discrimination as well.

Because of the organizations states that it will work to keep Trump's administration within the jurisdiction of court, liberals have supported them more in recent months, perhaps believing that the ACLU would threaten Trump or allow others to do so.

Since governments are susceptible to a diverse number of ideologies, the speech that the government may want prohibited changes as well. While current local governments may oppose something that seems morally reprehensible, the ACLU believes that setting limits on speech would give later governments the ability to repress other beliefs as well. Limits on free speech can silent everyone equally. For this reason. the ACLU argued in a similar case for the National Socialist Party of America in the 1970s after the village tried to deny the party the right to march.

Some believe that allowing supremacist groups to gain media attention and parade in the streets legitimizes their beliefs, causing some to think that such viewpoints are acceptable.

The ACLU's defense of Yiannopoulos has aroused controversy for the same reasons as the white nationalists in Charlottesville. A large number of people dislike his remarks on the inequality of men and women as well as race. On this matter, however, I think the American Civil Liberties Union would be better off protecting the rights of American citizens than a temporary worker on a visa.