Replies

Those types are reminiscent of another Republican named Larson, first name Arthur, i.e. the man who wrote A Republican Looks At His Party, which is the ultimate treatise on statist RINOism. I first learned of this book after reading The Conscience of a Conservative and the quotes therein were troubling.

The “underlying philosophy” of the New Republicanism, said Mr. Larson, is that “if a job has to be done to meet the needs of the people, and no one else can do it, then it is the proper function of the federal government.” — P. 15 […]

Mr. Larson devotes a good deal of space to the question of States’ Rights. He contends that while there is “a general presumption” in favor of States’ Rights, thanks to the Tenth Amendment, this presumption must give way whenever it appears to the federal authorities that the States are not responding satisfactorily to “the needs of the people.” This is a paraphrase of his position but not, I think, an unjust one. And if this approach appears to be a high-handed way of dealing with an explicit constitutional provision, Mr. Larson justifies the argument by summoning the concept that “for every right there is a corresponding duty.” “When we speak of States’ Rights,” he writes, “we should never forget to add that there go with those rights the corresponding States’ responsibilities.” Therefore, he concludes, if the States fail to do their duty, they have only themselves to blame when the federal government intervenes. — P. 28 …

So that kind of thinking was entrenched in the GOP certainly going back six decades.