Advantages of Federalism. – Excerpts
from William Lasser’s American Politics, the Enduring Constitution, Second Edition
(Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999, pp.67-72)
§
Flexibility – A federal
system allows different states and communities to adapt varying conditions and
traditions. At the same time, the strong
central government can move in to solve common problems or enforce common
standards of justice.
§
§
Experimentation – A new
idea can be developed and tested on a local level. If it works, it can be adopted be other
states or even by the federal government. If it doesn’t, it can be
quietly laid to rest without its negative effects spreading beyond the local
and state level.
§
§
Competition – Just as
a capitalist economic system encourages efficiency through competition of
private individuals and corporations, so too the federal system encourages
efficiency through competition of different states. Much of this competition
consists simply of tax giveaways and other financial incentives, but it may
also stimulate the states to improve education, job training, and
infrastructure.
§
§
National
Strength without National Uniformity –
Advocates of dividing power between the states and national levels stress that
the benefits are achieved without sacrificing the strength of the nation as a
whole. Military and foreign policy is
handled by the national government, eliminating the weakness and inconvenience
of government by committee in these areas.
National economic power is strengthened by the federal
government’s ability to regulate interstate commerce. National standards of rights of justice can
be imposed without sacrificing local power and control.
§
§
Controlling
Abuses of Power – An original argument in favor of federalism,
advanced by James Madison, was that the two governments would keep each other
in check, providing an effective check on state power. The national government no doubt provides an
effective check on state power – especially through the federal courts
– but the opposite in rarely is true.
In some ways the states do provide a means through which the people can
make their demands heard in
§
§
Increased
Responsiveness and Opportunities for Participation – The
existence of local, state, and national governments greatly increases the
opportunities for citizens to participate in politics and the likelihood that
they will find a sympathetic and responsive ear at some level of
government. A group that fails to achieve
results at the national level can often seek relief in the states, and vice
versa. The opportunity to play one
government against another is not unlimited, of course. Since valid federal
laws displace valid state laws, those who can mobilize at the federal level
have an obvious advantage.
§
§
The
Importance of the Dumbo Effect – Laws
passed at the national level can have an important symbolic effect on the
states. A national law underscores the
importance of an issue and may provide critical momentum to various state
efforts. Federal grants can play a
similar role. States and localities that
might be reluctant to carry all of the burden of new programs may do so if the
federal government picks up part of the tab.
Surprisingly, such programs often continue even after the federal aid
has ended. This phenomenon is known as
the Dumbo effect, after the elephant who could
fly on his own, but though he could do so only with the aid of a magic feather.
§
Lack
of Accountability – When more than one government
unit is involved in making decisions, assigning blame or credit for what goes
wrong or right can be difficult.
Federalism allows politicians to blame each other instead of taking
responsibility themselves. In fact, state politics commonly turns on issues
that are really the concern of the national government, and national politics
often centers on matters of state concern.
Candidates from national office have run successfully on a pledge to
improve the nation’s education system – even though the national
government’s role in education is extremely limited. Conversely, local candidates often rail
against Supreme Court decisions that, once in office, they can do nothing
about.
§
§
Cost
Shifting – Critics also argue that federalism encourages cost
shifting between the state and national governments and between different parts
of the country. Congress, in recent
years, has made a practice of creating policies but refusing to pay for them,
in many cases leaving the states to pick up the tab. Conversely, the states might neglect small
problems and then call for federal assistance when they truly turn into big
ones.
Another problem is the tendency
of national officials, especially representative and senators, to use the
federal government to benefit their own states at the expense of others. Because the national legislators are elected
from the states and view themselves as representatives of their local
constituents, they see nothing wrong with this practice and often take credit
for it. Thus rural Oklahomans pay for
mass transit (ie the Big Dig) in
§
§
Lack
of Coordination – A further difficulty in fragmenting government
power is a local of coordination between the many agencies with responsibility
for a given problem. Problems have
arisen, for example, when the states are struck by natural disasters. It may take days or weeks – while
people suffer – for the local, state, and national agencies to figure out
who should do what, where, and when.
§
§
Duplication
and the Burden of Diverse Regulations –
Interstate businesses are forced to keep up with diverse local, state, and
federal regulations, which is extremely expensive and difficult. Cooperation and coordination between the
various states and the federal government, however, can lessen these
problems. Unfortunately, state laws
remain diverse in many areas and keeping up with varying rules and procedures
can be a major headache for those who do business in many states.
§
§
Interstate
Competition – Although competition among states can encourage
change and social progress, it can also lead to waste and inefficiency. The Commerce Clause prohibits a state from
directly discriminating against out-of-state businesses, but states are
permitted to compete against each other for new businesses. In recent years, competition among states has
reached a fevered pitch. One bidding war
among three states to attract a Canadian steel plant employing four hundred
people, for example, cost the winning state’s taxpayers an estimated
$350,00 per new employee in tax credits, low-interest loans, and new road
building projects.
§
§
The
Wrong Level of Government – Ideally, policies that require
national uniformity are handled in Washington, and those that lend themselves
to local solutions are left to the states.
In practice, there is no guarantee that a given policy will be dealt
with at the optimal level of government.
Since the New Deal the national government has tended to take over
programs that might better be left to the states. For example, critics cite federal programs in
housing and education as examples of policies that would be better left to the
states or left unregulated.
The problem is just as serious in
the opposite direction. In many cases
the states lack the resources, political will, or leverage to carry out
important policies. Rich states would be
able to afford more generous social programs than poor states; but once
enacted, such programs would also attract citizens from other states in search
of higher benefits. Similarly, research
has shown that it is counter productive for states to increase the taxes of the
rich, since wealthy citizens are free to move to states with lower taxes.
§
§
Too
Much Politics? – Federalism certainly increases the burdens on the
citizen who wishes to keep up with and participate in politics. In a single year, a citizen might be expected
to vote in city, country, school district, statewide, and federal
elections. For a citizen to be informed
about the actions of the government, he or she must follow the actions of the
city council, country council, school board, state legislature, and
Congress. Add in the separations of
powers (mayor, county administrator, school superintendent, governor,
president, not to mention the courts), and the burden may be overwhelming to
everyone, which might explain the dramatic increase in voter apathy over the
last 5 or 6 decades.