As a devotee of James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” I have long thought that one of our country’s chief ills is our neglect — almost abandonment — of the broad architectural structure he gave our government.   It is called Federalism.   By Federalism Madison meant that the national government, the one residing in Washington, D.C., is responsible for all issues national in scope — foreign policy, national defense, issuance of a national currency — while state and local governments are responsible for state and local issues — education, public works, the safety of their indigenous populations.

Today, of course, the national government has encroached upon so many of the state’s responsibilities, and powers, as to render Federalism virtually meaningless.  And since it is impossible for a national government located in one remote corner of the country to understand, much less effectively address, the concerns of the many different people in the 50 states and the thousands of different localities within those states, the national government usually does a bad job of it.

To my concerns, add those of National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, who recently wrote a column on Yale professor Heather Gerken, whose paper in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas notes that the turn away from Federalism has badly eroded the power of minorities.  Gerken argues from a liberal viewpoint; her emphasis is on racial minorities, but her complaint is valid — that although minorities have a voice in the national democratic debate, by definition that voice will always be drowned out by majorities.   “Racial minorities are thus destined to be the junior partner or dissenting gadfly in the democratic process,” she writes.

Her solution.  A return to Federalism, in which power devolves back to states and localities where minorities can turn into majorities and institute policies that best suit their principles and beliefs — and not just racial minorities, but all minorities.  This is, after all, a nation in which we can “vote with our feet.”  We can move to places that best reflect our values.  Thus, as Goldberg notes, while Mormons are not a majority in America, they are in Utah and Salt Lake City, and their environs reflect that.  Ditto Hispanics in parts of Miami.  For that matter, ditto gays and lesbians in San Francisco.

As majorities in states and localities, why shouldn’t they have more power to fashion a civic life that best reflects their principles and beliefs?  (And those minorities that object can always vote with their feet.)   Better them than the national government.  Or as Goldberg nicely puts it, “I think much of what passes for wise policy in San Francisco is idiotic, but it bothers me less than it would if Nancy Pelosi succeeded in making all of America like San Francisco.”

Thanks to America’s technological superiority and the ingenuity of the American farmer, early in the 1960s America’s ability to produce food exceeded her ability to consume it and even export it, which led to the classic supply-and-demand problem of over production depressing prices. As a result, many farmers actually lost money on their livestock and crops, which, quite naturally, led to complaints to Congress.  In its infinite wisdom, Congress — also quite naturally — passed laws paying farmers not to grow crops, or raise livestock, in the hopes of bringing supply and demand more into balance.  This “agricultural welfare” generated lots of criticism, which took many forms.  One of the more humorous was a letter written to Texas Congressman Ed Foreman, this week (March 20) in 1963. This comes from a wonderful collection of American correspondence titled Letters of a Nation, edited by Andrew Carroll.

Dear Sir:

My friend over in Terebone Parish received a $1,000 check from the government this year for not raising hogs.  So I am going into the not-raising-hogs business next year.   What I want to know is, in your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to raise hogs on and the best kind of hogs not to raise?  I would prefer not to raise Razorbacks, but if that is not a good breed not to raise, I will just as gladly not raise Berkshires or Durocs.

The hardest work in this business is going to be in keeping an inventory of how many hogs I haven’t raised.

My friend is very joyful about the future of his business.  He has been raising hogs for more than 20 years and the best he ever made was $400 until this year when he got $1,000 for not raising hogs.

If I can get $1,000 for not raising 50 hogs, then will I get $2,000 for not raising 100 hogs?  I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to not raising 4,000 hogs, which means I will have $80,000 coming from the federal government.

Now another thing: these hogs I will not raise will not eat 100,000 bushels of corn. I understand that you also pay farmers for not raising corn.  So will you pay me anything for not raising 100,000 bushels of corn not to feed the hogs I am not raising?  I wanted to get started as soon as possible as this seems to be a good time of year for not raising hogs.

One thing more, can I raise 10 or 20 hogs on the side while I am in the not-raising-hogs business, just enough to get a few sides of bacon to eat?

Very truly yours, J.B. Lee, Jr.