I had a history professor who once said, matter-of-factly, “No one really believes in states rights — they just use it as a soft way of making an argument.” (I’m paraphrasing; it was like eight years ago.) In other words, if you’re a racist and you want to argue against integration without sounding like a racist, you say that integration should be left up to the states.

In my opinion, many issues should be decided at the federal level. Some things are so morally reprehensible — like slavery and Jim Crow laws — that the federal government is obligated to step in. They can do things that states can’t — like fight a war or set fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles sold in the U.S.

There are some issues that effect various places differently. Two that have been in the news lately come to mind.

Take gun control. The right to own a gun has a completely different effect depending on where you live. If you’re in the wilderness, for example, you’d be much more likely to encounter a bear rummaging through your garbage than if you lived in Brooklyn. To be honest, I’ve lived in a city all my life. I don’t feel qualified to vote on whether or not they should have handguns, or even semi-automatic weapons, in some places. Is life in a border town really like it was in No Country for Old Men? If so, maybe I’d want to be packing heat if I ever had to live there.

I do feel qualified to vote on having handguns in the city I live in. I’m against it — I don’t think private gun ownership deters crime, and I don’t think it provides significant personal protection. But the point is, as an economist would say, the externalities of handgun ownership are different depending on where you live.

(The U.S. Supreme Court has, of course, made the opposite decision, albeit by their now-familiar 5-4 margin: They ruled that Washington D.C., in enacting the toughest gun control laws in the country, had gone too far.)

The other issue is oil drilling. As a resident of Los Angeles, I don’t want anyone drilling for oil next to my apartment. Nor do I want them drilling for oil off the coast of Malibu. I’m not sure I care whether or not they drill off the coast of Florida. Isn’t that for Floridians to decide? Shouldn’t it be up to them to weigh the pros and cons — consider if what it does to stimulate other parts of their economy is worth the impact it would have on tourism?

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (or ANWR as people tend to call it) is a slightly different issue, as it is federally owned land. After all, if Wyoming wanted to drill for oil in Yellowstone, the rest of the country would want to weigh in on that since Yellowstone is considered a place where people from all over the country go.

I’m not sure this argument applies to ANWR. After all, how many Americans are planning a family vacation to ANWR this summer? The ANWR debate seems like another instance of people from all over the country telling one state how to behave.

Drilling for oil in ANWR isn’t likely to lower oil prices all that much, just as banning handguns in cities probably won’t impact gun violence. But isn’t that like saying we shouldn’t do anything if it doesn’t completely solve the problem? The fact is, we need to find a way of powering society that doesn’t involve oil — in the long term. In the short term, gas is damn expensive, and if the government is going to pressure Saudi Arabia into upping their oil production, maybe we should try practicing what we preach.

Barack Obama has, of late, been inching toward the center on certain issues, which has the left-wing blogosphere in a tizzy. I don’t hold that against him because I want him to win. But I wonder if the best way of playing to independents is to make the states rights argument. That way, what you say about oil drilling can help you in Michigan without hurting you in Florida. What you say about guns could help you in North Dakota without hurting you in Massachusetts. Not only could it be a smart move politically, but it just might be the right argument.

–Hillel Aron