National Policies

          Alex King

          National policy influences every aspect of life within the United States.  New laws affect our freedoms and give us directives of what we can and cannot do.  Along with addressing new issues the national government attempts to protect us from ourselves.  There are other instances where the sluggishness of the national legislative body prevents helpful legislation from coming about.  It seems that the only way for innovative legislation to come about is through the routs of state or local government. 

          Our nation is fairly large.  With a population of almost 300 million people it is difficult for everyone to agree on a single issue.  It is even difficult to get a majority of people to agree on any issue.  Just look at the 2000 presidential election.  On a national level it is almost impossible to make all of the citizens happy with any form of legislation.  The nation is just too diverse and encompasses too many opinions to allow for a consensus on any issue.  Even the patriot bill was opposed by one or two senators and later on a couple of people within the country decided that it was not a good idea.  Opinions on a national level can never be a true consensus or even begin to agree on almost anything.  Even if there is strong support for an issue by a majority of people there will be some better funded lobbying group that will bribe senators to vote against the issue at stake.  The best way to affect your daily life is not by attempting to influence national politics.  For the average person, national politics are out of reach and just too expensive to dabble in.  However the local political system is much easier to change and often times does not require large amounts of funding.  This is why state politics can offer a wider variety of change when compared to national politics. 

          The local level of politics can tailor itself to its citizens in ways that the national government cannot compare to.  For example the national government is currently in the middle of a war on drugs.  In some cases a majority of people want certain drugs to be legal.  In Missoula an initiative recently passed de-prioritizing the enforcement of marijuana law violations.  This works on a local level where citizens can get together and decide on what laws they wish to have govern them.  Since citizens on a local level seem to have more homogenous views on politics it is simpler for them to make policy decisions that make them happy.  Issues can be debated and made to cater specifically to the town or region that the citizens live in.  In the case of Bellingham Washington for example you are not allowed to whistle on the streets because it might scare a horse. In Oklahoma it is illegal to hunt whales and in Gary Indiana it is illegal to eat garlic within four hours of attending the theatre.   These sorts of policies are important for localities to develop because they are regionally specific.  Some local areas may not have a problem with horses being scared by whistling so there is no need for such legislation.   Other communities may not have the acute sense of smell that would warrant the discrimination of garlic.  And most states just don’t care as much about their whales as Oklahoma does.  Introducing this type of legislature allows the local or state government to show its citizens that it is thinking about them and that it truly cares about the whales. 

          Occasionally this sort of local legislation is necessary for the safety of its citizens.  In Fairbanks Alaska it is illegal to feed a moose alcoholic beverages.  This stems back to a tavern owner who would get a specific moose drunk on a daily basis. He would then proceed to let moose wander around the town.  This scared some of the local inhabitants and the local legislature decided to make a law to prevent the local man from continuing this action.  Some laws are specific to the regions that they are made in.  In Whitehall, MT it is illegal to operate a vehicle with ice picks attached to the wheels.  Laws like these are not needed at a national level because most people in the nation have enough common sense to not get a moose drunk or to not improvise their own snow tires.  However when an areas inhabitants lack the ability to protect themselves the governing body can step in to make their lives a little better. 

The national level is incapable of this level of customization of policy.  It can only make broad sweeping decisions that will affect everyone in a nation equally.  This power lacks the ability to specifically meet the needs of local towns.  The innovations make by state and local governments allow the national level to take a look at experiments that have been done at smaller level.  At the level of national government it is not wise to try out experiments where the outcome is a mystery.  These uncertain policies should be implemented at the state level and watched to see how they perform.  Policies that are working will be adopted by other local and state governments as solutions to common problems.  After a few areas have experimented with a specific policy there will be adequate data to start working on national policy.  However it will take some time to initiate national policy.  Considering that the average life expectancy of a moose is eight years Fairbanks, AK could have had to wait for the moose to die before trying to get a national law prohibiting a certain moose from overindulging. 

Another way that localities can tailor the law to their citizens is by choosing to what extent certain laws are enforced.  Most states have certain levels of enforcement when it comes to drug laws.  In Missoula it is now a larger priority for police to enforce jaywalking than it is marijuana possession.  This is due to a number of voters in the town agreeing that they are more concerned about jaywalkers than they are pot smokers.  Since the town funds the police department it is understood that the police should listen to what the citizens are asking for.  Some states allow the civil union of homosexuals.  Others do not.  On a national level there is no way that there could be a consensus one way or the other on this topic because there is just too much debate over whether a persons rights as a citizen should apply to everyone.  At the state level it is much simpler to make these decisions.  And it is demographically shaped on what policies will be made.  For example it would probably be unwise to propose the legalization of gay marriage in Arkansas.  The demographic of the people living there would probably not care for this sort of legislation. 

However it is a fine line to walk when deciding what laws should be enforced and to what level.  During the 1960’s there was much debate on how to enforce the civil rights acts.  Many states did not want to take the initiative to enforce these laws and saw them as a low priority.  In a system where state rights are crucial at what level should they be able to decide what laws to enforce.   The poor enforcement of laws dealing with the rights of minorities was the decision of specific states and communities.  Just like the decision to deprioritize the enforcement of marijuana.  But when does the selective enforcement of laws become socially unacceptable.  Or when does it become dangerous to the nation. 

In some areas of the United State there are probably a majority of people who would vote for deprioritizing the enforcement of certain laws.  There is however a need to set a standard of enforcement for all laws within the nation.  If certain areas are allowed to choose which laws they enforce and to what measure they enforce them a can of worms will be opened.  Many areas may choose to deprioritize the enforcement of civil rights.  This has happened before and resulted in the National Guard stepping in to ensure that things such as voting rights are made accessible to all people.  Granted that this was a national precedent aimed at discouraging such actions as the denying of voting rights to African Americans but it does bring the question of what laws can the state choose to enforce.  If there are open boundaries on how areas choose to enforce laws then inconsistencies can arise and people can become confused.  People may be able to give beer to a moose in Montana but will be breaking the law if they share their beverage in Alaska.  Or people who smoke pot in Missoula can be targeted in other parts of the country as high priority criminals. 

Even if states choose to enforce laws universally there is still the question of what the punishments will be.  In the state of Montana there was a lack of punishment for speeding on highways.  There was a policy in place where violators of the speed limit were fined five dollars and no points were put on the driver’s record.  Numerous states have instituted the death penalty while others steer clear of capital punishment.  It is a way of tailoring the rules and regulations to the population but there does need to be consistency in the enforcement of laws throughout the nation.  The debate comes from how far the states should have power over the enforcement and punishments for their laws.  It must be assumed that the individual governments will choose the most logical and fair actions that are available.  However the south has proved us wrong in the battle for civil rights.  Another question arises on how far the federal government should go to ensure that legislation is taking effect and being implemented properly.

There should be some federal mandates of how far laws should be enforced and to what priority the laws are enforced.  To what degree the federal government should mandate that legislation is enforced would be a question for our form of federalism to answer.  Whether states should be allowed to be inconsistent with the laws and the enforcement of them or if the federal government should take away the states rights to customize their government to suit their inhabitants is a question best left alone.  If we tamper with it too much we might have to stop feeding beer to moose here in Montana.