Encroaching Political Consolidation: The Weakening of the U.S. Federal System

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?

1. Rick Perry, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington (New York: Little and Brown, 2010). A critique of Perry's book interpretation of federalism can be found in American and European Federalism, available at Amazon.

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. 

Monti and Papadernos in the E.U.: Leadership in Technical Expertise or Democratic Deficit?

“The moment of truth has come.”[1] This was said by the head of state of the E.U.’s third largest state, Italy, in a televised address just after Berlusconi had resigned as the prime minister. Although the statement could be interpreted as referring to the need to reign in the Italian profligate system of public-sector patronage (which includes private contractors), Giorgio Napolitano could also have been referring to the credibility of his state at the E.U. level. “We need to restore confidence with investors and European institutions,” he continued before turning to the more tangible point that the state would need to refinance nearly 200 billion euros in government bonds before May, 2012.[2]

 Monti and Barroso (Thys/Agence France-Presse/Getty)

The full essay is at "Essays on the E.U. Political Economy," available at Amazon.

1. Alessandra Galloni and Christopher Emsden, “Italy’s Monti to Form New Government,” The Wall Street Journal, November 14, 2011.
2. Stephen Castle and Liz Alderman, “Under a New Prime Minister, Italy’s Star May Rise at the European Union,” The New York Times, November 23, 2011.

Presiding over a Debt Precipice: President Obama of the U.S.

In the context of a rapidly approaching deadline on increasing the ceiling on U.S. Government debt, Barak Obama found himself rebuffing pressure from anti-tax “Tea Party” Republicans in the U.S. House while needing enough non-partisan credibility for his warning of an impending economic catastrophe to be believed by the citizenry and Congress. That is to say, Obama’s failure to stand back as the Democrats and Republicans in Congress duked it out on spending cuts and tax increases mitigated his stature or credibility as Presider in Chief. An editorial in the New York Times refers to this role of the president as "the utimate guardian of the constitutional order."[1] To preside is to be oriented to the viability of the whole. This means stepping in when the system itself is at risk. Partisan involvement compromises the ability to function in a failsafe capacity, as the "ultimate guardian."

Concretely, as the deadline on raising the debt-ceiling approached, someone with credibility was needed to stand up and get the attention of the partisans to say: We are running out of time. You need to come to an agreement. Taking and advancing one of the sides of the dispute detracted from Barak Obama’s ability to act as the party oriented to the deadline itself. It left the deadline itself vulnerable because the role designed to protect it was also interested in advancing a certain agreement (and killing another). I contend, therefore, that Obama’s priorities were at odds with that of how his office is designed to function in the system. The system itself is left vulnerable.

By analogy, a fire inspector is hired to sit in a crowded theatre to keep an eye on the building in case one of the special effects of the play causes a fire. Keeping an eye on the theatre itself, including backstage and the balcony, is less interesting than watching the plot unfold on stage. Taking the side of the protagonist, the inspector is diverted from noticing the smoke at the back of the balcony. The theatre, and its occupants, are at risk because the inspector does not reach the stage in time. To be sure, watching a play is more interesting, but the inspector role is designed to look out for the people as a whole—indeed, the theatre itself. Now, say the theatre is host to a debate, and that the inspector steps on stage to take part in it. Not only is he or she distracted from keeping an eye out for sabotage, people in the audience favoring the other side on the debate might not believe the inspector’s eventual announcement that they must leave the building.

In 2010, Barak Obama had remarked to the press after a partisan meeting with Congressional leaders, “Being bipartisan cannot mean that Democrats give up everything they believe in, find the handful of things that Republicans have been advocating for, and we do those things, and then we have bipartisanship.”[2] Even as his statement sounds fair, to make it from a partisan position from the presidential podium undercuts the presiding nature of the Presidency. How might Republicans have reacted to the President had he then announced an emergency and indicated what needed to be done to avert disaster? While his detractors would probably not doubt his veracity, in the face of an impending disaster every bit of credibility that the Presidency itself is capable of is necessary.

In the context of the debt-ceiling showdown in July 2011, the president’s pushback against the House Republicans compromised his warning that “we are now in the eleventh hour; we don’t have time for smoke and mirrors.”[3] Whereas the warning is oriented to the deadline, the pushback was partisan in nature. What would prevent Republicans from assuming that the “smoke and mirrors” comment was just as partisan (and thus could be safely relegated or dismissed)? The president would have been better advised to let the Democrats in the U.S. Senate fight the partisan battle with the Republicans in the House while he, the presider in chief, saved his political and reputational capital to act as an alarm clock, for there is no other than the president. In effect, wanting it both ways (pushing one of two sides and sounding the alarm) is like putting a pillow over the clock. In the case of the debt ceiling, America could not afford sleeping in. In allowing our presidents to be so partisan, We the People rack up tremendous systemic risk without realizing it. It is as though we have forgotten the old question, Who is watching the store? We simply assume the status quo, wherein the store's very existence is not in question.

1, Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule, "Obama Should Raise the Debt Ceiling on His Own," New York Times (July 22, 2011). 
2. Helene Cooper and Carl Hulse, “Two Parties Join Together, Then Resume Divided Ways,” New York Times, February 9, 2010. 
3. Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule, "Obama Should Raise the Debt Ceiling on His Own," New York Times (July 22, 2011). 

President Obama's Role in Budget Negotiations: Undercutting His Role in Presiding

On April 5, 2011, President Obama observed, “We’re going to have some very tough negotiations. And there are going to be, I think, very sharply contrasting visions in terms of where we should move the country. That’s a legitimate debate to have.” (1) He sounded very presidential in making the statement because he was taking the perspective of the nation as a whole. Furthermore, he used that vantage-point to try to keep negotiations from falling off the track. “If they can’t sort it out,” he said, “then I want them back here tomorrow.” (2) In short, he was presiding, rather than being partisan in taking a side, as he framed the situation facing the union. 

                                             Doug Mills, The New York Times                 

However, even as the president was referring to the two sides sorting the budget out as “they,” he himself was on one of the sides. That is, even though he “sought to position himself above the nitty-gritty haggling going on in Congress, which . . . limited his influence on the process” yet distanced him from any blame, his taking a side in the dispute subtly worked against his attempt to preside to hold the process as a whole together. (3) 

The full essay is at The Essence of Leadership, which is available at Amazon in print and as an ebook.

1.   Gregory Korte, “Meeting Fails to End Impasse on Federal Budget,” USA Today, April 6, 2011, 2A.

2.  Naftali Bendavid, Jonathan Weisman, and Carol E. Lee, "Budget Talks Head to Brink,” Wall Street Journal, April 6, 2011, pp. A6.

3. Ibid.