Why we care about what happens in Kentucky

Last week Kentucky was devastated by an outbreak of tornadoes. Some communities were flattened, and many people died. President Joe Biden approved an emergency declaration authorizing the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide immediate relief, and he pledged that the federal government would fund 100% of the recovery costs in Kentucky for the next 30 days.

Citizens of Texas or Montana certainly feel sym- pathy for Kentuckians. But what principle relieves Kentuckians of the obligation to fend for themselves and shifts the fiscal burdens of recovery onto taxpayers in states hundreds of miles away?

Back to Kentucky in a moment.

The founders thought of our nation as a confederation of independent states whose mutual obligations were limited. America’s subsequent political history is the story of the tension between citizens who prefer a strong central government and those who want more power — and responsibility for citizen welfare — to reside in the states.

This started early. John Adams, our second president, generally favored a strong central government. His successor, Thomas Jefferson, wanted more power at the state level.

The histories of other countries reflect this same tug-of-war between a central government and its subcomponents, but in the United States the tension is best understood in the context of race. Adams was from Massachusetts, which abolished slavery in 1781; Jefferson was from Virginia, which had a deep commitment to maintaining slavery until abolition was forced on it in 1865.

The struggle between the slave states and free states simmered, and sometimes boiled over, for 70 years before the Civil War settled the question in favor of union, abolition and the central government.

But the tension between the federal government and state governments never disappeared. Unfortunately, however, state governments do not have a good record in both exercising their power and in self-reliance.

In fact, the application of state power is often reactionary and often driven by race. Current efforts in mostly red states to make voting more difficult reflect growing Republican fears of a national demographic that is shifting power away from white people. This red-state disenfranchisement will be stopped only by national legislation, which makes it imperative that Democrats and right-thinking Republicans enact laws that protect voting rights.

In fact, there are many things that only the federal government can do: end slavery, end Jim Crow, win World War II, build an interstate highway system, go to the moon, fight a pandemic, resist climate change.

And provide relief to states that are hit by disasters. Which brings us back to Kentucky.

We are a nation rather than a collection of states. Every citizen has an interest in the well-being of the rest of us. Relief should flow to Kentucky just as it did to Texas after Hurricane Harvey.

The same principle applies to our rights: speech, religion, race, LGBTQ, abortion and — above all — voting. Our rights are safe only if everyone’s are. In our current climate, only the federal government is in a position to protect these rights. It must do so.