Obama vs. Arizona: It Begins

Actually, it has already begun but so far without clear resolution.  I am referring to a definitive showdown between the central government and the states.  Conflict between the states and the federal government has been escalating for some time in the form of de facto nullification on the part of some states and the rapidly increasing evidence of contempt for constitutional limitations on the part of the federal government.
Perhaps the best-known current examples of nullification center around the refusal of states to enforce laws pertaining to immigration (sanctuary cities) and to state legalization of medical marijuana -- both in direct conflict with federal law.  Those issues have been before federal courts and found some legal resolution, generally favoring central government.  But federal court rulings against the states have had virtually no effect, and the liberal Washington political class has not evinced enthusiasm for enforcement of laws (especially immigration) when violations coincide with its political ambitions. (1) 

My title is meant to suggest that I believe the contest between Obama, Inc. and Arizona has already evoked a very different government response because the left is existentially invested in the outcome as it has not been in the earlier cases.  When I say 'it begins' I mean an open and public contest of wills in which the federal government will use the full measure of its legal and coercive powers against the state of Arizona.  A contest in which the government's desire to win -- to consolidate its power by ending, once and for all, any form of organized dissent at the state level -- may carry with it a high tolerance for unhappy consequences. 


How will all this settle out?  Impossible to predict.  On the one hand the federal government has virtually unlimited resources that it can bring to bear against the states.  On the other hand the states (more properly, the people) are increasingly empowered by the constitutional sentiment that animates the Tea Party movement.  Tenth Amendment initiatives in a growing number of states are taken seriously in their legislatures.  Indeed the broad-based constitutional movement blurs traditional differences across the political spectrum.  I think the great power of the Tea Party phenomenon lies in the fact that informed respect for the principles of the Constitution (in the face of big government's disregard of them) minimize divisions over lesser concerns. (2)  So ultimately, it seems to me, the outcome in Obama vs. Arizona (3) depends on whether popular views on limited government and the willingness of the states (the people) to make a stand can overcome the statists' determination to expand, consolidate and hold the powers of the general government.

Legal Powers
Central government is a master in the use of "lawfare" -- the relentless use of federal lawyers and federal courts to gain favorable outcomes.  If the government fails in one suit, it can bring another.  And another.  It can shop its own venues, and it can bring a bewildering array of charges in serial lawsuits that will eventually overwhelm state resources. 

Coercive Powers
The federal government has police powers that can be extended to Arizona's own National Guard.  It has the use of long-cultivated non-governmental proxy groups -- unions, organized activist groups prone to intimidation and violence.  It has the loyalty of legacy media and academe -- both useful in demonizing opposition.  Finally it has the power to withhold federal monies.

I think the administration's decision to file suit against Arizona's immigration law betrays a deep concern that constitutional populism, reflected in the growing number of states adopting Tenth Amendment resolutions, presents a near-existential threat to the power and ambitions of the statist left to control the people in defiance of their expressed will.  The contest is much larger than the US vs. Arizona; it is a battle between the centralized power of the federal government and the distributed power of its citizens.  On a larger scale much is at stake.  I would argue that it is (or will be) seen as a symbolic contest between government control and citizen liberty worldwide.

The statist administration, the congressional majority and the mostly-liberal bureaucracies clearly understand the threat to their power if any state -- let alone several -- escalates opposition to the central government from a legal contretemps in the courtroom to outright nullification.  Once the constitutional principle of the states' sovereignty is revived in the public mind, (4) the arbitrary exercise of federal power will become more difficult for governing elitists, who will not welcome constraint and limitations.

Government Strategy
It would naive to imagine that the general government is unaware of growing popular opposition to its policies and that it has not formulated plans to put down civil disobedience.  Drawing on historical precedent one finds that when their power is challenged statists tend to respond predictably.  In the beginning they will deny the legitimacy of all opposition; this by media campaigns that feature government representatives and spokesmen from various political proxy groups.  From denying legitimacy they move to demonization.  Next they move to intimidation, deliberate provocation and finally to main force, carefully staged for compliant media to make it appear that demented and unstable government antagonists are responsible.  At this point state and federal police power can -- with seeming justification -- be brought in.

In the case of Arizona the media campaign and lawfare initiatives are already well underway.  Opponents of illegal immigration (particularly the Tea Party faction) are characterized as bigots, racists, nativists, xenophobes -- all stock labels suitable to most occasions.

The issue of immigration enforcement in Arizona is, in itself, a minor one in my view.  But what it symbolizes is not.  It is simply the locus -- a focal point -- of popular resentment against heavy-handed, bullying legislation from bailouts, stimulus, and fiscal madness that includes healthcare, cap and trade and overall expansion of government.  Unemployment, tax increases and the general mismanagement of the economy figure prominently in the mix.  In short the conflict is one between a national plurality of people who love liberty and who are capable, prudential, practical and naturally independent on the one hand and a meddling, spendthrift, incompetent, ideological and feckless government that holds in contempt the will of the people, the Constitution, the rule of law and the Western Tradition on the other.  A government openly hostile to everything that is quintessentially American.


What puzzles (and worries) me is what appears to be a reckless abandonment of caution by the administration; if, as I have asserted, the central government is threatened by the potential consequences of nullification by the states, why is it so aggressively and defiantly imposing its will in Arizona (and elsewhere)?  Wouldn't that increase the likelihood of a unified push-back by Arizona (and other states) that have signed Tenth Amendment declarations?  Does the administration plan to provoke a serious and potentially violent conflict in Arizona so as to quash it with overwhelming force?  Set an example that would intimidate and discourage opposition in other states?  Is it prepared simultaneously or sequentially to take similar action in other states that nullify the enforcement of federal law?  Fort Sumter redux?


Many readers will see my remarks as conservative paranoia (itself a strawman), and if things are peacefully resolved in Arizona and other recalcitrant states, I will gladly accept the characterization.  Still, when a central government -- clearly bent on consolidating its power in open defiance of the will of its citizens -- arrogantly imposes its will on the states -- it is worrisome.  Historical templates are not wanting. (5)

____________
1. Amnesty, a goal never far from the minds of statist politicians, is expected greatly to expand the liberals' loyal dependent voting base.
When prosecutors -- either state or federal -- make enforcement decisions on the basis of politics the rule of law is compromised.
2.  By this I mean that constitutional issues have become so important to so many people that the traditional divisions of identity politics evaporate, at least in ad hoc ways.  In fact, it seems to me that those divisions are coming to be recognized for what they are -- exploitive creations of a cynical government that sees popular unity as a threat to its rule.
3.  Arizona, in my mind, is symbolic of the growing number of states that are preparing to confront the federal government on a number of issues such as (most prominently) healthcare reform, gun control and, joining with Arizona, immigration policy and enforcement.  For readers who are interested in the number of states legislating in preparation for nullification and the driving issues details can be found here.
5.  Despite the usual nasty labeling efforts of the left, what animates the Tea Party movement -- its reason for being -- is an enthusiastic revival of interest in and appreciation for the founding principles as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  In reaction to governmental excesses (usurpation) the focus is largely on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, or the division of powers between the general government and the states, or people.
4.  In a general way, according to my observations, the true divide between right and left centers on the regard for civil society.  Stripped to its essentials civil society is the voluntary association of persons in the pursuit of common purposes.  Its behavioral norms are based upon -- well, civility.  Civility entails the mutual respect of persons, and it provides for the resolution of differences by way eliciting facts in public debate aimed at -- if not reconciling differences, at least understanding them.
It seems to me that the left generally is unwilling to entertain debate, and worse, to extend respect to those who differ with them.  The right continues to presume good faith on the part of the left; the left seldom reciprocates, exhibiting a "politics-as-war" mindset.  When one side is at war with the other, and the other fails recognize the fact (why do they hate us?), the other is in imminent danger.
The point of this footnote is to suggest that the current government eschews civil debate in favor of the exercise of raw power.