Two "distributist" solutions

There seem to be differences between "distributist localists" and "distributist statists", the latter group admitting to some extent that relocalization is the ideal, but would nonetheless use the nation-state and seek to implement solutions at the national level. For some it is more because it is necessary pragmatically. What solution is more probable or more likely to be brought about, and how? For others it is because they actually believe the nation-state is the ideal, and the National Government is the true locus of all authority. Some are confused, denying that the nation-state is the ideal, but still seeing the National Government as being empowered with all authority, and all other governments being subordinate to it, even though this is not how it is envisioned under the Constitution. (I should be more clear, those who would be separated into these 3 categories may not all see themselves as distributists, but they do regards themselves to be proponents of Catholic Social Teaching and of "subsidiarity.")

But what if such a statist solution is neither sustainable and just? And will worsen the situation but making it even more difficult for us to seek a localist solution? For example, the reform of health care may add a burden to the people by its National Government that will lead to economic ruin.

Should we be making predictions about what is more likely to be brought about? Or should we be acting as advocates, who are seeking solutions. We are not politicians or legislators, and we do not need to be so concerned with what is possible. Rather, we should be trying to change "hearts and minds" as much as we can--to persuade others and to consolidate power at the local level.

As we advocate, we do recognize that there are many obstacles, most notably the National Government, which needs to lay off in certain ways, repealing past legislation or admitting error, or at the very least not enforcing it. And with respect to other goods, drafting new legislation so that efforts at relocalization are protected from those who have a stake in the status quo may be necessary. If national solutions hasten the demise of the system, which will lead to various evils in the future, should we not consider whether any possible benefits that come from such solutions are worth it? Shouldn't we be looking for a more sustainable approach, even at the national level?

It may turn out that in the future a single nation-state, with all of its political and economic centralization, cannot be maintained, and that local centers of power regain some measure of autonomy, even if this is not recognized legally or in name, but is what results in fact or in practice.

The "statists'' may say that we are more likely to persuade others of the necessity of a national solution, rather than convince them to work for relocalization. I would respond with several points: (1) Is "esoteric" discussion of Catholic Social Teaching and alternate economic systems that is mostly limited to the blogosphere likely to reach a wide audience? (2) Do we have good reason to believe that we can convince our politicians that they should be guided by Catholic Social Teaching and implement the sort of National legislation that we would like to see in place?

Mr. James Matthew Wilson reminds us that localists can appeal to the social nature of man to defend their vision of life, as he is "unconvinced of much of the apocalyptic language of Mother Nature correcting us and restoring virtue if we don’t do it first." But I do think that those who talk about sustainability have the facts on their side with regards to ecological damage, resource depletion, and Peak Oil, and these facts are usually neglected or ignored by the statists. If we can convince others that the data is accurate and the the negative consequences of perpetuating the status quo severe, there may be an increase for localist solutions. (And of course at the same time we would be disabusing others of the belief that a national solution is wise or can be maintained indefinitely.)

Perhaps "nationalist" is a better name than "statist" in some ways, though it is not without certain associations which may confuse.

*I note that Dr. Fleming begins his discussion of the principles of conservatism with subsidiarity.