Laboratories of Liberalism:
Fred Thompson and the Inadequacies of Federalism

After surveying the entire field of Presidential candidates, I made the decision several months ago to give my tentative support to the campaign of Fred Thompson. I believed Thompson to be the most electable candidate whose views aligned most closely with my own.
Now I’m not so certain. His views of the federal marriage amendment, the Schiavo case, and his general position on federalism are troubling. For me, conservatism trumps federalism, while the position Thompson endorses seem to reverse that order.
Sadly, many conservatives–including it appears, Sen. Thompson–assume that federalism is an inherently conservative philosophy. It is not. In fact, federalism can be antithetical to conservatism when applied in the way that Thompson seems to champion. For instance, in an issue of the Fred Thompson Report, he wrote:

Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism — that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws.

Thompson’s use of the clichéd “laboratories of democracy” line is troubling. As federalism scholar Michael Greve notes, Justice Louis D. Brandeis’ “famous dictum had almost nothing to do with federalism and everything to do with his commitment to scientific socialism.”
Indeed, the problem with Thompson’s view of federalism is that it is more applicable for instituting socialism than for advancing conservative principles.
While some forms of federalism are defensible (Ramesh Ponnuru is one conservative that gets it right), I believe that it is ultimately inferior to other principles of governmental demarcation, such as subsidiarity or sphere sovereignty.
The principle of subsidiarity is an idea found in Catholic social thought that appeals to traditionalist conservatives. As the Acton Institute’s David A. Bosnich defines the term,

This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom.

A related idea from the Reformed tradition (and the one to which I subscribe) is the neo-Calvinist notion of sphere sovereignty. According to the Wikipedia entry:

Sphere sovereignty is the concept that each sphere (or sector) of life has its own distinct responsibilities and authority or competence, and stands equal to other spheres of life. …Sphere sovereignty implies that no one area of life or societal community is sovereign over another. Each sphere has its own created integrity. Neo-Calvinists hold that since God created everything “after its own kind,” diversity must be acknowledged and appreciated. For instance, the different God-given norms for family life and economic life should be recognized, such that a family does not properly function like a business. Similarly, neither faith-institutions (e.g. churches) nor an institution of civil justice (i.e. the state) should seek totalitarian control, or any regulation of human activity outside their limited competence, respectively.

Unlike Federalism, where there is a part-whole relationship between the States and the Federal branch, each societal sphere is a whole unto itself. As my friend Gregory Baus explains, “not only can the other societal spheres never properly be made parts of the state, but the state (or any other sphere) can never be what creates the boundaries of sovereignty between spheres.”
This view is exponentially more conservative than standard federalism. Under federalist principles the state of Massachusetts could become a socialist utopia (or dystopia) if the people of the state so choose. The state government could assume complete control all internal institutions, could even redefine all other societal spheres (marriage, schools, corporations) and refuse to recognize any institution that didn’t comply. For example, Massachusetts could redefine marriage to include only polygamous arrangements and refuse to recognize any other form. As long as the Massachusetts didn’t extraterritorialize their policy decisions on other states, they would be perfectly within the bounds of federalism.
Federalism is a neutral philosophical position; it is neither conservative nor liberal. As Robert Alt once wrote in NRO article that asks, “Is Federalism Conservative?:

“Contrary to our liberal friends’ assumption, federalism is not necessarily conservative. Rather, federalism is a series of constitutional rules, and as rules cut against both conservative and liberal positions alike. Yes, federalism will disappoint those who think that the only solution is a national one, but in terms of policy outcomes, federalism proves itself to be a neutral dealer.”

Federalism also can disappoint those who believe that justice trumps ideological concerns. One of the most disheartening and shameful scenes of the last decade was to see so-called conservatives claim that the Terri Schiavo case should have been left solely to the state of Florida. The charitable view is to assume that had they known that a woman was being killed by the state without due process of law, they would have sided with justice over judicially mandated involuntary euthanasia. The less generous opinion is that they simply haven’t considered how federalism relates to conservative principles.
For if conservatives are willing to give the state the power to kill an innocent woman, willing to let adherence to procedure trump our dedication to justice, willing to put the rights of the government ahead of the rights of the individual, then we have lost all sense of what it means to be conservatives.
Federalism can be useful in drawing legitimate lines of Constitutional authority. But when it is allowed to transfer power to the states from other societal spheres, the philosophy merely creates 50 separate laboratories of liberalism.
Update: I left this note in the comments section but I think it might be useful to put it here as a summary of the post. Some people seem to be misreading my intention as being completely against federalism. That is not the case. Rather I am for more checks and balances and limits on government. It says something about our movement when conservatives are defending limited government by advocating that the government (i.e., the states) be allowed an increase in unchecked power and illegitimate authority.
Here is the a brief summary of my argument:

1. Federalism is a system (at least in the US) that shares power between the federal government and state governments.
2. Federalism is neutral, it is neither liberal nor conservative.
3. However, federalism left to itself tends toward an authoritarian liberalism because it empowers government control.
4. Conservatives do not believe that the federal and state are the only institutions that have authority and/or legitimacy. We also recognize (or at least should recognize) that churches, schools, marriage, parenthood, business, etc., are legitimate societal spheres that are co-equal to the State.
5. Conservatives should recognize that appealing to federalism is insufficient since it tends to allow the State (whether the federal or the states) to wrest power away from other societal spheres.