It is much easier to point out the sliver in the other person's
eye than the plank in one’s own. Regarding the gradual political consolidation
of power at the federal level in the U.S. at the expense of not only the
member-state governments, but also the federal system itself, it is easier for
a political party to dismiss its own contribution than to take a wider stance
including the continued viability of the federal system, or federalism,
itself. As a result, both of the major parties has contributed to the
increasing political consolidation at the expense of the check-and-balance
feature that a balanced federal system has.
Texas’s former governor, Rick Perry, wrote in his book, Fed Up!, “From
marriage to prayer, from zoning laws to tax policy, from our school systems to
health care, and everything in between, it is essential to our liberty that we
be allowed to live as we see fit through the democratic process at the local
and state level.”[1] If it is essential to
the liberty of the people that these policy domains be legislated and enforced
at the member-state level, then any backtracking
on any of
these areas would diminish freedom. Hence the considerable consolidation of
power by the U.S. Government since the war between the U.S.A. and C.S.A. from
1861-1865 has come at a cost.
For instance, U.S. Government can preempt state legislating on a
given domain even if no federal legislation is even attempted. The citizens of
Texas would be hamstrung should they want the Texas Government to legislate on
what is a serious problem in Texas. Preemption ignores that a given
societal problem can be worse in one of the member republics than in others.
The E.U.'s doctrine of subsidiarity, wherein the lowest level of government in
the federal system that can deal with a problem is preferred, gives the states
the preference over the federal government.
So too does the fact that the governors of the states sit on the
European Council, which is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Senate, where
senators can ignore their respective governments to vote in such a way that
makes reelection more likely.[2] The interests of the citizens of Texas are not
the same as the Texas Government. Given the change to popular election for
U.S. senators, the member-state governments had no power at the federal
level to stop the federalizing of health-insurance legislation (e.g.,
Obama's Affordable Care Act).[3]
American federalism can be repaired and strengthened. I'm not sure
how many people realize the extent to which the federalism has deteriorated.
Even people such as Perry who have emphasized a more balanced federal system
have advocated policies that would add to the encroaching
consolidation. “In one of his more well-publicized shifts, Mr. Perry
proclaimed that gay marriage was an issue for individual states to decide, but
backtracked in [August 2011 and said] he supports a federal amendment banning
gay marriage. He . . . also signaled support for various federal actions to
restrict abortion rather than leaving the issue to states.”[4] The governor of
a large U.S. state put an ideological agenda, even one that is popular with the
Texas electorate, before his own warnings of political consolidation. If
federalism is to be sabotaged even by its high-level advocates, the
problem has indeed become intractable.
More generally, if Republican office holders want to federalize
“social issues” and expand the military-industrial complex while Democratic
officials insist on federalizing health-insurance, housing, and food aid for
the poor while both parties federalize large portions of criminal law, then not
only is the federalism pushed further off from a federal-level/state-level
balance, but also the blame can be pushed to others such that no party takes on
the matter of fixing the federal system. Any given representative could
claim that his or her desired federalization would not break the camel’s back
(i.e., effectively keep the federal system from working given the consolidation). Don’t look at me; its
the other guy.
The truth may well be that no elected
official at the state or federal level is truly interested in the long-term
viability of the governance
system; the motivation is more a function of what is politically expedient at
the time. Each politician may authentically believe that his or her top issues
should be made to apply to all Americans—in every member state. In terms of an
enabling context, perhaps the American cultures had become too egoist and
short-sighted to support the difficult decisions needed to repair the American
federal system. In fact, the cultures may even have contributed to the problem
itself being one of America's blind-spots. The result is that everything
is federalized and the state governments can no longer operate as a check on
the federal level. As each official is busy imposing what
is most important to him or her on as many people as possible, the question
needing to be asked may therefore be, who, exactly, is
minding the store?
2. Since 1913, the American states have switched from their respective governments appointing U.S. senators to the popular election of them. If it still be claimed that the senators still represent their respective governments, then popular election sets up a conflict of interest. In my view, the U.S. Senate could strengthen the American federal system by having the governors represent their respective states, as is the case in the European Council. See Essays on Two Federal Empires: Comparing the E.U. and U.S., available at Amazon.
3. The U.S. Senate, like the E.U. Council would meet formally in summits and for occasional special purposes (e.g., confirmation hearings where necessary) rather than more often, given the workload of a chief executive and head of state. The Senate's staff, like its counterpart in the Council, and the respective staffs of the governors in the member-states would do much of the coordinating and other work.
4. Manny Fernandez and Emily Ramshaw, “As a States’ Rights Stalwart, Perry Draws Doubts,” New York Times, August 29, 2011.
