A renewed federalism is not a guarantee that a conservative, liberal, or any other particular policy will prevail at the national or state level. Many of the current controversies convulsing the federal government will simply move to multiple State venues, where the arguments will continue. Federalism states only that solutions to problems should be decided, funded, implemented and enforced at the lowest level of government that is required to make them effective. Federalism as a principle means more than the split in the US constitution between the national government and the State government, as illustrated by the enumeration of limited powers. It operates within the States as well, pushing democratic governance as low and as wide as possible.
The principle of federalism is that of empowered knowledgeable citizens acting at each level of social organization to make the decisions appropriate at that level. The more effectively decisions are pushed down to the lowest possible level; the broader is the participation of citizens in the political process and the more efficient is government.
Whether you are for or against high speed rail between, say, Portland and Seattle, is immaterial to the question of whether the decision and financing of such a project is more properly decided and undertaken by a State or regional entity encompassing these cities in the Pacific Northwest, rather than at a national government level by representatives of Maine and Louisiana. Similarly, the question of how to supply housing for those with low incomes, or whether to intervene at all, ought to be decided and financed within the confines of the economic unit whose boundaries match the wider housing market in which those people live - whether that be a town or a metropolis. But it is unlikely that the State or federal level is necessary to develop solutions to housing issues that sit economically and socially at a more local level.
It is true that federalism in the United States is subject to guilt by association, given the long history of ‘States Rights’ being championed by slave-owners, and their descendants - at first to enslave and later to terrorize blacks into acquiescence to apartheid. Other countries with a federal system, but without our racial history, have a broad based attachment, by all political parties, to the principle of decentralization – e.g. Switzerland or Germany. Even countries with strong centralized national governments are moving towards decentralization; for example, Great Britain has granted greater local control to Scotland.
By making the States of America self-sufficient and powerful, it will be possible to transfer a wide range of functions back to the States, or simply stop the duplication of efforts. Recent political rhetoric unfortunately mixes goals of federalism with specific policy objectives. Those who call for the elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the name of federalism are confined to the right of the political spectrum and they are doing so largely because they disagree with the goals and programs of that department. They use federalism as a ‘trojan horse’ argument against the existence of any such effort at subsidized housing. The Left feel obligated to defend a national program, not because of opposition to federalism, but because of their support for housing subsidies. However, the elimination of the federal HUD department does not necessarily mean California, for example, would or would not pursue the goals of current federal HUD programs. Prior to the creation and expansion of HUD, many States and cities had a variety of subsidized housing programs, New York City being a prime example. In this proposal for renewing federalism by redrawing boundaries and devolving activities back to the States, New York State would encompass all of the New York City metropolitan area. There is no question that such a State and city would have the capability and resources to implement any housing and urban development policy it could possibly imagine. Instead of paying taxes to the federal government which are then sent back to the State in the form of various grants in support of housing, New York would simply keep the money at home, and tax itself for the programs it deems valuable.
The process of devolution would not always be as simple as ‘shut down department X’. Some of the more recent contentious debates surrounding civil liberties do not cleanly fit into the logic of federalism. For example, woven throughout the activities of many departments are various programs aimed at the enforcement of laws against racial discrimination. Staying with the example of HUD, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity enforces laws prohibiting racial discrimination in housing. Given that such federal defense of civil liberties has been ruled constitutional, its enforcement would remain a national function. Although some have argued that there is no justification for national lawmaking in this area, this question is not one of policy effectiveness, but of fundamental liberties. The limits of national action in this domain would remain a topic of dispute, as it is today.
There are many important areas where it is not obvious what the ‘lowest effective level of government’ would be. Even in a situation with powerful States holding proportional votes in the Senate, there will be an ongoing process of figuring out what fits at which level. It is quite possible that the original enumeration of powers in the Constitution will require modification in light of the developments of modern economies and technology. But at least, with the elimination of the forces impeding federalism, the debate will be on the substance of the problem, and not on vote trading. States will have every motivation to take on everything they can. For example, social security is a massive federal program. How would it be impacted? First off, the question is not whether a government mandated pension system is a good or bad idea. The question is whether such an issue can be effectively decided at a State level. If State A thinks government mandated pensions are a good idea, while State B does not, is it possible or desirable for the States to follow different paths, in a country in which people and companies are guaranteed the right to move between States at will? If I pay into a mandated pension plan for 15 years in State A, and then pay no pension for 12 years in State B, and then pay into a different mandated plan in State C for 8 years, before retiring in State D, one can at least definitely State that the current social security law would need major modification. It could not simply be handed back to States as is, for them to continue or drop.
The difficult process of determining what fits at what level can be observed, from the opposite direction, in the evolution of the European Union. This precise issue of pension harmonization between European countries has arisen now that citizens of EU countries are guaranteed the right to move freely between countries and work wherever they desire. Here we have the example of historically independent nations who are progressively figuring out what belongs at a federal level, and slowly ‘giving up sovereignty’ in domains where the higher federal level is agreed to be the most effective.
Federalism is neither right nor left, and it provides no answers to specific policy issues. It is a methodology aimed at decentralization and local empowerment, in order to have wider citizen participation and more effective government.
The principle of federalism is that of empowered knowledgeable citizens acting at each level of social organization to make the decisions appropriate at that level. The more effectively decisions are pushed down to the lowest possible level; the broader is the participation of citizens in the political process and the more efficient is government.
Whether you are for or against high speed rail between, say, Portland and Seattle, is immaterial to the question of whether the decision and financing of such a project is more properly decided and undertaken by a State or regional entity encompassing these cities in the Pacific Northwest, rather than at a national government level by representatives of Maine and Louisiana. Similarly, the question of how to supply housing for those with low incomes, or whether to intervene at all, ought to be decided and financed within the confines of the economic unit whose boundaries match the wider housing market in which those people live - whether that be a town or a metropolis. But it is unlikely that the State or federal level is necessary to develop solutions to housing issues that sit economically and socially at a more local level.
It is true that federalism in the United States is subject to guilt by association, given the long history of ‘States Rights’ being championed by slave-owners, and their descendants - at first to enslave and later to terrorize blacks into acquiescence to apartheid. Other countries with a federal system, but without our racial history, have a broad based attachment, by all political parties, to the principle of decentralization – e.g. Switzerland or Germany. Even countries with strong centralized national governments are moving towards decentralization; for example, Great Britain has granted greater local control to Scotland.
By making the States of America self-sufficient and powerful, it will be possible to transfer a wide range of functions back to the States, or simply stop the duplication of efforts. Recent political rhetoric unfortunately mixes goals of federalism with specific policy objectives. Those who call for the elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the name of federalism are confined to the right of the political spectrum and they are doing so largely because they disagree with the goals and programs of that department. They use federalism as a ‘trojan horse’ argument against the existence of any such effort at subsidized housing. The Left feel obligated to defend a national program, not because of opposition to federalism, but because of their support for housing subsidies. However, the elimination of the federal HUD department does not necessarily mean California, for example, would or would not pursue the goals of current federal HUD programs. Prior to the creation and expansion of HUD, many States and cities had a variety of subsidized housing programs, New York City being a prime example. In this proposal for renewing federalism by redrawing boundaries and devolving activities back to the States, New York State would encompass all of the New York City metropolitan area. There is no question that such a State and city would have the capability and resources to implement any housing and urban development policy it could possibly imagine. Instead of paying taxes to the federal government which are then sent back to the State in the form of various grants in support of housing, New York would simply keep the money at home, and tax itself for the programs it deems valuable.
The process of devolution would not always be as simple as ‘shut down department X’. Some of the more recent contentious debates surrounding civil liberties do not cleanly fit into the logic of federalism. For example, woven throughout the activities of many departments are various programs aimed at the enforcement of laws against racial discrimination. Staying with the example of HUD, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity enforces laws prohibiting racial discrimination in housing. Given that such federal defense of civil liberties has been ruled constitutional, its enforcement would remain a national function. Although some have argued that there is no justification for national lawmaking in this area, this question is not one of policy effectiveness, but of fundamental liberties. The limits of national action in this domain would remain a topic of dispute, as it is today.
There are many important areas where it is not obvious what the ‘lowest effective level of government’ would be. Even in a situation with powerful States holding proportional votes in the Senate, there will be an ongoing process of figuring out what fits at which level. It is quite possible that the original enumeration of powers in the Constitution will require modification in light of the developments of modern economies and technology. But at least, with the elimination of the forces impeding federalism, the debate will be on the substance of the problem, and not on vote trading. States will have every motivation to take on everything they can. For example, social security is a massive federal program. How would it be impacted? First off, the question is not whether a government mandated pension system is a good or bad idea. The question is whether such an issue can be effectively decided at a State level. If State A thinks government mandated pensions are a good idea, while State B does not, is it possible or desirable for the States to follow different paths, in a country in which people and companies are guaranteed the right to move between States at will? If I pay into a mandated pension plan for 15 years in State A, and then pay no pension for 12 years in State B, and then pay into a different mandated plan in State C for 8 years, before retiring in State D, one can at least definitely State that the current social security law would need major modification. It could not simply be handed back to States as is, for them to continue or drop.
The difficult process of determining what fits at what level can be observed, from the opposite direction, in the evolution of the European Union. This precise issue of pension harmonization between European countries has arisen now that citizens of EU countries are guaranteed the right to move freely between countries and work wherever they desire. Here we have the example of historically independent nations who are progressively figuring out what belongs at a federal level, and slowly ‘giving up sovereignty’ in domains where the higher federal level is agreed to be the most effective.
Federalism is neither right nor left, and it provides no answers to specific policy issues. It is a methodology aimed at decentralization and local empowerment, in order to have wider citizen participation and more effective government.