Nation or Confederation?

Following the Revolution, our country faced a series of governmental crises.  The weak central government under the Articles of Confederation was unable to respond effectively.  A group of businessmen and landowners organized a convention to address the crises .  The Constitutional Convention met in secret for several months in 1787 and drafted a constitution that had a stronger national government.

Events in Europe relative to the Greek debt crisis mirror many of these issues.  Paul Krugman - as usual - has a precise reading on this issue here.  He writes:  "So Greece, although not without sin, is mainly in trouble thanks to the arrogance of European officials, mostly from richer countries, who convinced themselves that they could make a single currency work without a single government.." 

But here in the United States, the tension between a strong and weak federal government persists.  The Civil War - in part - was a struggle between different ideas about the appropriate role of the federal government.  The Great Depression also challenged our government's ability to respond to that economic crisis.  In both cases, we chose a strong federal government.

Now, generations later, people still argue about the proper role of the federal government.  Many Tea Party activists believe that states have the right to nullify federal laws - an argument which has been repeatedly rejected in this country.  Some radical legal scholars and so-called "free market" economists call into question the very basis for the modern nation-state.  Here is a good brief criticism of those concerns.

As one Daily Kos diarist recently wrote, the very stake of our national constitutional framework is at stake because of the precarious balance on the Supreme Court.  The radical Right have come to love judicial activism - if it furthers their goal to dismantle government in favor of so-called private enterprise.  Thus, "[t]he re-election of President Obama is the most important progressive project in this election year.  You don't have to love or even like what the president has accomplished in his first four year to understand this." 

I don't love or even like much of what the president has proposed for public education.  These "deforms" emphasize corporate solutions, competition, testing, and Teach for America.  But Governor Romney has promised even greater "deforms" along these lines which will only accelerate the division of our country between the rich and poor.

I believe in the American experiment:  E pluribus unum.  From many, one.  We cannot succeed as a people if our efforts are divided between different "markets" or if only some of the people prosper.  There are some enterprises, such as public education, which require public - and not private - action.  We need public education - not because it is profitable - but because it is necessary for a free people to remain free.