Did I mention that I hate everyone?

Here’s Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York, complaining about Donald Trump’s attempt to nix the congestion-pricing plan she has implemented in New York City:

“I’m here to say New York hasn’t labored under a king for 250 years,” Hochul said. “I don’t care if you love congestion pricing or you hate it, this is an attack on our sovereign identity, our independence from Washington.”

So . . . I mean, yeah. I concur. The states do share sovereignty. They do enjoy a great amount of independence from Washington. And that sovereignty and independence are in no way contingent on those states’ doing things that I personally happen to like. But really? Really? REALLY? Democrats in New York are against conditions on federal funding now? They’re big champions of federalism now? They’re worried about bureaucratic overreach now? Come on. Come ON. It is, I agree, absolutely preposterous that the federal government has any say over this whatsoever. But it cannot be preposterous only in this instance, under this president, with this policy at stake. The enumerated powers doctrine is not some contingent political argument. It’s literally how the country is set up. It is extremely, unfathomably, indescribably, infuriatingly annoying to me that we hear this sort of rhetoric in America only when Democrats dislike the outcome being generated by the Leviathan that they adore. Is there anyone who doubts that, if Kathy Hochul were in the U.S. Senate, she’d vote for bills that granted this power to the executive branch, for judges that thought it constitutional, and for appointees who hoped to micromanage the states and cities in precisely the manner that she is now pretending to disdain?

The New York Times suggests that there may be statutory problems with Trump’s rescission. This seems entirely possible. If so, New York must prevail. But that wasn’t Hochul’s argument, was it? Hochul’s argument — Hochul’s correct argument — was that Trump is not “a king,” and that the federal government’s involvement in what is very obviously a local concern represents an “attack” on its “sovereign identity” and on its “independence from Washington.” Great. So when do we get to hear about the rest of the stuff that the federal government does that self-evidently oversteps its bounds? I have a list of a hundred other powers that fit Hochul’s description. Can I get an amen?

Why am I upset about this? After all, Hochul agrees with me in this instance. Well, I’ll tell you: Because I want change. Because I want a restoration of federalism, a reduction in the power of the civil service, and a renaissance of the powers of Congress. And this attitude isn’t helping us get one iota closer to those goals. Her appeal to federalism is not an example of structural reform; it’s an example of a president who doesn’t care about the system fighting with a governor who doesn’t care about the system. Kathy Hochul is no more interested in federalism than Donald Trump is. You’ll never hear her complain about the abuse of the commerce clause, or about Washington’s hoarding of land in the mountain states, or about water policy in California, or about the national regulation of purely intrastate conduct, or about the constitutionality of about half of the things that the national government does. She’s a fraud, and, in her total lack of thought, principle, or sincerity, she is behaving like the two-faced members of Congress who, when Joe Biden was president, insisted that the president ought to spend half a trillion dollars on student-loan bailouts that Congress had never authorized, but, when Donald Trump is president, are suddenly profoundly worried about the degree to which the legislature has delegated authority over $40 billion in foreign aid.

If we are going to do this work as a country — if, that is, we are going to reduce the power of the president, and of the federal government writ large — then we have to do it in a serious and neutral manner. If, as seems to be the case at the moment, legislative supremacy and federalism are ideas that are only ever brought up by the party out of power — and solely at moments when those aims coincide with their policy preferences — then nothing is ever going to change. Every day, I read in the newspapers and glossy magazines that Donald Trump is a threat to the system. Okay, so why not try to do something about it? Why not introduce a bill that nixes almost every “the Secretary shall” or “in the judgment of the president” from federal law? Why not start writing laws whose terms are explicit rather than vague? Why not repeal any federal statute that claims authority that the federal government has not been given? Why not start praising James Madison’s system, instead of pretending that those who believe in it want to bring back Jim Crow? I’ll tell you why: Because, while they are indeed worried about Donald Trump, the Democrats are far more worried about the prospect of their next president being hamstrung. So we’ll get this garbage — which is nothing more and nothing less than raw cynicism masquerading as democratic concern.