Would you like to take a trip across the vast Nevada desert
at a forced 55 mph? Trust me, you wouldn’t.
In the late 1970s, President Jimmy Carter imposed a 55 mph
federal speed law across the country in the wake of rising oil prices. Our
family made a trip from California to Utah across Nevada’s vast stretches of
uninhabited terrain during this speed limit freeze. I remember, as my husband
and children slept, the frustration of crawling at 55 mph on a flawless road in
perfect weather when I could see not a single car on the divided freeway in
either direction for miles ahead.
Nevada did not need a 55 mph speed limit, and I did not need
a heavy-handed government to set speed laws. (As a side note, the anticipated
savings that drove this law were a disappointment, promised safety benefits
were questionable, and states largely ignored enforcement of a law they
considered out of line.) This was government interference with individual and
state rights. The right of states to set their own laws takes on new meaning
when you consider Nevada’s desert.
When Alexis de Toqueville visited America in the early
1830s, he studied the American personality. What made America “tick”? How could
her success, her strength, her national character be explained? He returned to
Europe to write the two volume work, Democracy
in America, a centuries old best seller. While his writing is Political
Thought 501 and requires a ready dictionary, it is instructive reading.
One of his thought-provoking ideas is this: individuals are
harder to control if they are not all alike. He says, “when the individual
disappears into the throng, and is easily lost in the midst of a common
obscurity…who shall say at what point the exigencies (requirements) of power
and the servility (slavery) of weakness will stop?” In modern language: make
men alike and it is easier to control them and take their rights away.
Toqueville makes the same point about states. While he was
talking about the provinces of European countries, is ideas are near prophetic
today. “When the…(states) formed so many different nations in the midst of
their common country, each of them had a will of its own, which was opposed to
the general spirit of subjection”. He continues, “now…having lost their immunities,
their customs, their prejudices, their traditions…(they) have become accustomed
to obey the same laws, (and) it is not more difficult to oppress them all
together than it was formerly to oppress one of them separately.” His point: states
that lose their individuality are also easier to control.
The Founders intended that states be different, unique,
independent—sovereign entities. The original Constitution made that a priority to
each state: emphasize individual customs and strengths, deal with your own
unique challenges, create your own laws. Rhode Island and Arizona should not
have the same policies and priorities. Each state was to experiment and find
solutions to its problems and share with the others, who would copy, adapt, or
ignore the innovations. Their union, which bound them firmly but loosely,
benefitted them all. Cooperation and overall harmony were the goal. There were
rules: each must remain democratic republic and would share a common mail
system, national navy, and universal laws about such things as bankruptcy,
patents, and extradition laws. Beyond those unifying factors, each state was
unique and independent.
Logically, then, a federal government bent on control,
rather than on rights and freedom, would impose federal standards on everything
from education to commerce to agriculture to transportation. As a nation, in
fact, we are being overwhelmed with government control. It makes sense that
people who want freedom would oppose these government controls and work to
change these policies. This begins with telling your elected representatives
that you want less control: more individual freedoms and state rights. Stay on
them and insist they comply. Study the issues and put your vote on the side of
individual rights and less government control. That’s a start.
