Consolidated power seems, at least in theory, to be contrary to American political culture. The financial consolidation even after the financial bailouts of 2008, can be deemed dangerous economically and even politically, given the unlimited campaign contributions made possible by the Citizens United case in 2010. Such consolidation complements the political consolidation at the federal level in the U.S. Is the consolidation, which has occurred since 1865, and especially from FDR's New Deal onward, natural or contrived? That is to say, will the E.U., when it is over 200 years old, suffer the same plight? If so, federalism itself, which I submit must include a balance of power, given the checks and balances feature, between the federal level and that of the states, may be a temporary system inherently.
For Europeans to reflect on these questions, it is first necessary to avoid the typical category mistake, which compares a state in the E.U. with the entire U.S., obviating the rather obvious point that states should be compared with states, and empire-level unions with other such unions.
Will the E.U. consolidate political power as has occurred in the U.S.? Lest it be assumed that the popularity of state-identification issuing out in "states' rights" checks on federal power will suffice as an enduring fortress, the same identifications were common in the early U.S. So the question is whether the consolidation of power can be expected (i.e., whether it is natural), and, if so, whether safeguards in the E.U.'s basic, or constitutional, law are sufficient. Unfortunately, parchment tends to pale against pressing political pressures of the day.
Not even democracy can be relied on, for majoritarian preferences may be for more federal-level power without any thought of the implications for the federal system. Even a constitutional court, such as the European Court of Justice and the U.S. Supreme Court, cannot be relied on, for turning back an onslaught of power that has already been transferred to the federal level can be deemed impractical. Imagine, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2018 that Social Security, which was enacted in the 1930s, must be turned over to the state governments without any federal-level funding or legislation. That court had not even ruled that the federal requirement to have health insurance was should be a matter for the states.
One problem of consolidating power for federalism is that the states cannot serve as a check on tyranny (or over-reaches) at the federal level if that level holds much more power. Another problem is that federal legislation in an empire-scale union tends to follow a "one size fits all" approach that ignores the ways the states differ. A healthy federal system allows for both overarching legislation for the good of the whole union and legislation that takes into account the distinctiveness of each state.
The lack of balance in the American federal system begs the question of whether governmental power naturally consolidates over time. I suspect it does, for historical examples of decentralized power enduring as such are sparse. The question is then whether the Europeans can create countervailing safeguards without counting on "nationalistic" sentiment of the day.
For more on this topic, see: Two Federal Empires and American and European Federalism
For more on this topic, see: Two Federal Empires and American and European Federalism
