Perhaps I'm being a bit wide-eyed and innocent here, but isn't there something pretty remarkable about a potential presidential candidate engaging in an in-depth debate about the meaning of federalism with a conservative pundit?
Yet, that's exactly what seems to be happening as Fred Thompson blogs, over at his "Fred Thompson Report" blog hosted by ABC Radio, in response to a column National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru did about Mr. Thompson's votes against tort reform.
Mr. Thompson's argument is that just because, say, medical malpractice awards have gotten out of control in some states does not mean that the federal government has a role to play in cleaning up the mess. One can debate the finer points of all of this, but "there's no federal role here" is perhaps my favorite possible response to any political question.
Not only does it show a nuanced understanding of how the Founders designed our federal government to work, it also shows a willingness to go against public opinion and tell people "no," despite the fact that that can have political costs. (Now, of course, there's a countervailing political calculation going on here: Looking like a smart, tough guy willing to say "no" enhances Mr. Thompson's image as, well, a tough talker. But — at least until he announces — let's just this once give Mr. Thompson the benefit of the doubt.)
It also seems like federalism is becoming something of a theme of Mr. Thompson's proto-campaign. See, for instance, this Fox News interview from back in March:
At roughly 1:20, Mr. Thompson talks about gay marriage and civil unions. He outright states his opposition to gay marriage, saying marriage is between a man and a woman (though he focuses mainly on the question of courts redefining marriage — increasingly, conservatives are going to have to start grappling with state legislatures doing this, quite possibly first right here in New York state).
On civil unions, however, Mr. Thompson says the issue should be left to the states. He also expresses his personal opinion that they're not a good idea; but, when states are busy passing civil-union laws — without any court intervention, such as in Connecticut and New Hampshire — Mr. Thompson's position is, as they say, objectively pro-civil-union.
So, it's a very interesting gambit on Mr. Thompson's part. If he's serious about his commitment to federalism (and Reason's Radley Balko has a pretty good litmus test), it would have to be seen as a major plus to the libertarian wing of the GOP. Consequently, however, it might present problems for conservatives who see Mr. Thompson as the social-conservative savior, in opposition to Messrs. McCain and Giuliani.
Now, I've long argued that social conservatives are well-served by federalism. But that's not how they've seen things for some time.
Print
Send
RSS
