I fundamentally disagree with the notion that centralization leads to greater social justice (an assumption shared by many progressives, twentieth century liberals, a preponderance of academics, and those more generally influenced by Marxist political theory).

I do realize that the centralization of governments has, in many respects, been the result of industrialization, industrial wars, and a long process of citizen activism on behalf of social justice. Many thoughtful citizens of the United States and Western Europe believed that an activist central government, under the proper guidance, could be used to create conditions conducive to social justice. We see this process - the expansion of federal authority in relation to the states and local governments - in the history of the United States with abolitionist agitation for the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The trend of greater federal activism can also be seen in the Progressive Era, the New Deal Era, the Civil Rights Era, the culture wars of the 1990s, and more recently with the bailouts of the banking and insurance sectors, and the push for a more inclusive health care system.

However, there is an unfortunate side to centralization that is often neglected by scholars. The federal court system reinterpreted the 14th amendment in way that classified corporations as individuals, thus granting them the rights enjoyed by citizens, but with the immunities of limited liability. While the Progressives and the New Dealers may have had the interests of the downtrodden urban poor and the "forgotten man" in mind, the precedent they set for paternalistic rule by experts set the stage for corporatist governance in the late-1920s and the 1950s (and beyond).

By taking such a position against a romanticized view of centralization, it is sometimes assumed that I do not support the goals of these reformers. Let me summarize my point. While I share the sentiments of these reformers, - social justice - I think it is also important to recognize that centralization has also led, in many instances, to the use of newly created federal authority to promote the agenda of unbridled capitalism - i.e. the pursuit of profits without regard to the human cost. As I see it, centralization leads to the creation of mechanisms of greater social control by a central authority. While that machinery can be used for good purposes, it exponentially multiplies the potential for abuse. My reading of twentieth century history leads me to be very distrustful of such a concentration of power. This philosophical position is in line with the founders, however flawed, that I admire the most (Madison and Jefferson).

JH