Opinions

US Constitution, Harry Jaffa on Alaskans' side in land dispute

In Alaska Dispatch News on Feb. 5 my friend Professor Emeritus Steve Haycox invokes the justly famous Harry V. Jaffa -- my beloved teacher -- to buttress the claim that the federal government has the right to do what it has recently done with Alaskan lands. I had the privilege of discussing state-national relations with Harry for many years, and discussed the case of Alaska with him as recently as last October in his living room in California, on his 96th birthday. His mind was still as sharp as ever and his spirit was still firm.

I can say with confidence that were Harry alive today, this response would not have to come from me. His deep understanding and love for our nation's principles fueled a powerful dislike of error, and he never failed to correct anyone, even good friends, when he espied mistakes.

Steve believes that Alaska political leaders from both parties wrongly claim the right to "limit what the federal government can do here." This alleged right, he says, derives from the theories of John C. Calhoun, who deployed state sovereignty theory (not "compact theory") to defend racist slavery. It takes no great leap of logic to see that all of you who want a little more self-government in Alaska are being compared to the followers of that vile philosopher. But be confident, Alaskans, it is a false comparison. The Constitution and Harry Jaffa are on your side.

Our Constitution establishes a proper balance between state government and the national government. It is true that Calhoun successfully tilted the scales too far toward the states, and he was wrong, but he had self-serving strategic reasons for doing so -- to shield slavery and oligarchic government in the states from the reach of the national government. Now, the scales have tipped too far toward the national government, and those who have tipped the scales in that direction have an important strategic reasons for doing so -- because they believe, like Calhoun, in a different form of government than the one your founders established. That is why you feel your opponents' vehemence when you dare seek a restoration of state-national relations to their constitutional boundaries. Your opponents don't want those proper boundaries restored, because they embrace a different principle, a principle that approves of you being ruled without your consent.

A critic might say, "But doesn't our participation in the national government mean that we should obey its enactments?" Yes, indeed, obedience is mandatory and just if Congress respects its constitutional role and addresses national concerns and abstains from addressing concerns that are properly local. But what if the Congress, without a constitutional warrant, passes legislation that improperly governs our local concerns? What if Congress, without a constitutional warrant, passes legislation giving broad powers to the executive to govern us by edict? What if federal judges refuse to uphold the Constitution and let these edicts and legislation stand? Steve, citing such decisions, legislation and edicts, reminds you of the supremacy clause in order to insist on your submission to them. And indeed, if these decisions, legislation and edicts stand, the government of our state is in the hands of others. Our delegation of three out of 535 in Congress is impotent to restrain this unconstitutional governance. Our only political recourse is to beg, and to pay modern-day professional supplicants known as lobbyists to do our begging for us in Washington. This, unfortunately, is how provincials must learn to obtain the favor of royal courts in imperial cities. This should not happen in republics, but it is happening in our nation in plain defiance of the Constitution.

Some financially comfortable Alaskans might not mind if a mass of their fellow citizens are turned out of work due to decisions made by one administration in Washington. Some indifferent Alaskans might not mind if Alaska's environment is ravaged by excessive development due to decisions made by another administration. But regardless of what policy a national administration prefers in our state, none of us here should accept its encroachment on our right to self-government just because the imperial city prefers policies we support. The preservation of self-government is far more valuable than such ill-gained victories. Shall we resolve Alaska policy by out-competing our fellow Alaskans at the begging-game in Washington? Is that what kind of people we wish to become -- the courtly bootlickers found in monarchies? That should make your American blood boil.

Remember, imperial cities have a funny way of changing their mind. Kings and presidents are succeeded by others. It is entirely possible that our next president could have a very different view of ANWR. What will Steve feel then, when a new presidential administration, and not the people of Alaska, draws a new line between the environment and development, at a place he hates? Would not Steve agree that it is more consistent with American principle to let Alaskans have a fair debate and decide these questions ourselves? For some of us, our policy preferences will lose in a state contest, but we can take satisfaction that we had a fair chance to contend for our position on the campaign trail and at the ballot box in Alaska. Don't Alaskans, who have to live with the consequences of these decisions, have every motive and right to decide better than so-called "experts" 4,000 miles away from us? If you say no, then you have just denied the very basis of American self-government -- that the people themselves are capable of "good government from reflection and choice."

ADVERTISEMENT

But thank God, the cause of self-government has become a bipartisan issue in this state. If Alaskan leaders work together, our state can use this problem as a rare opportunity to accomplish something great. It is not too heady to believe that we can commence a counter-revolution that restores our brilliantly devised federal system back into balance. That, my fellow Alaskans, was one of the great achievements of Lincoln and the Union exactly 150 years ago. The task ahead of us may be difficult, but success will achieve even more for America than for Alaska, and the honor of that achievement shall be ours.

Dr. Forrest A. Nabors is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.

Forrest Nabors

Dr. Forrest A. Nabors is an assistant professor of political science at University of Alaska Anchorage.

ADVERTISEMENT