What am I thinking about on this New Year’s Eve morning? I am thinking about Nikki Haley.

I keep thinking there must be a reasonable Republican alternative to Donald Trump, although in my heart of hearts I know that there isn’t. But, of the bunch, I say to myself, maybe Nikki Haley would be the best (understanding that my SC friends would disagree with this – and they know more than I know).

But no more. Nikki Haley’s comments about the Civil War are beyond my comprehension. For the first time, I agree with Ron DeSantis when he said that her comments were “word salad”. That’s exactly what they were.

Now, I can make reasonable arguments that the Civil War was not about slavery (my arguments may not be correct, but they would be reasonable). For example, I could argue that the Civil War was about the question that had existed from the beginning of our country, the question of how extensive the rights of the federal government are, as opposed to the rights of state government. This is an argument that is still ongoing today. I could argue that the existence of slavery was just one of many questions that either should be decided at the national or the state level, and that the big issue wasn’t slavery per se, but where the authority of the federal government ends.

I could also argue that the Civil War was about the individual right of states to secede from the United States. After all, until South Carolina seceded, and other states followed, there was no Civil War. We never had states of the United States fighting states of the United States; we had two countries at war. Or did we? That question can also be argued to be the cause of our Civil War. Clearly Lincoln’s goal was putting the country back together again.

But this is not what Haley said; nor did she put forth some other potential argument for the cause of the Civil War. She chose word salad –

Nikki Haley said that the Civil War resulted from how much freedom Americans had, that it was caused by arguments over the question of governmental power versus individual power. States did not seem to be part of her equation at all. Unless (and this is possible) she equated federal power with governmental power, and state power with individual power. And if she was making this (specious) distinction, she didn’t say it.

And if she was talking about individual power, what does that say about slavery? If an individual White slaveholder had the right to own a slave, shouldn’t an individual slave have the right to declare himself free? And if governmental power tells the enslaved person that he must remain enslaved, does it make a difference whether or not the governmental power is the power of the United States or the power of South Carolina?

Her whole word salad argument about the power of the individual versus the power of the federal government, from her own perspective, becomes totally hypocritical (as well as loopy) if you change the focus from slavery to abortion. On abortion, Haley has taken the position that she is firmly pro-life, that she agrees with the Dobbs decision, and that she thinks that the proper position is to keep reproductive rights in the hands of state governments. She is clearly against the rights of the individual. She is apparently against (at least so far) any thought of a nationwide ban on abortion, which puts her in a different position from many Republicans.

So, on abortion, Haley is not arguing for freedom vs. government, not arguing for individual rights. She is arguing in favor of state authority over federal authority. Because of this, it’s my guess that, in answer to the slavery question, she was thinking consistently – about states rights over federal rights, and not at all about individual rights.

But her language is about individual rights. Her language intimates that Democrats are in favor of governmental power and Republicans in favor of less government and more freedom. Her meaning, however, is inconsistent with her language (at least as far as one can tell). She, like the plantation owners of old, and like many politicians in states like South Carolina, are really in favor of state governmental rights over federal governmental rights, the individual be damned.

I have never understood the concept of states’ rights. I have never understood why a woman, or a Black, or anyone else should have different rights if they happen to live in Alabama or Oregon. Aren’t they all American? And shouldn’t all American be treated the same, particularly as today (as opposed to the 1780s) there is so much mobility between all of the states of the Union? Shouldn’t states be required to uphold the rights of individuals – and shouldn’t the federal government be empowered to ensure that they do so?

Tomorrow, I guess I will give my predictions for 2024. From now until then, I will try to think of positive changes I expect to see next year. I can’t promise, but I will try.