Skip to main content
Is American federalism dying?

It's an odd thing to post when the federal government is near bankrupt, but I can't help but note how many states in the American Union are now effectively living off of national aid. The whole idea of the American republic was that there would not be one dominant centre, nor one majority that would prevail in all things. I think that that is embedded in the Federalist Papers, and in the development of the country. Since the civil war, the feds have in theory guaranteed rights and security--more in breach than in the event, until the 1960s--but now, the States seem to be withering.

I think that would be a shame. Texas is very different from Maine or Oregon, and they should be governed differently with mobility between them. America would lose out if there were just one national culture, and more importantly, the national political gangs and semi-feudal federal establishment would be even stronger. Besides, a unified empire like that could not be run on republican lines, and would devolve into some awful mix of populism and statism like, well, it has been for a while. I think that once the success of nationalists was assured, it would only be a few decades until things went seventies-Brazilian (just, funnily enough, as Brazil goes Chinese).

Since America is so armed, this is a matter for everyone. I just wish they were patriots and citizens of the republic first and foremost, and again. Then the feds would have very little opportunity to make trouble, and some chance to do good.

I've been reading about Australian federalism this week. Partly, because it fits with my late Victorian or Edwardian interests; federalism was a vogue for a while at the end of the British Empire, and partly, because it seems so bound up with the modern debate of whether rights are best left to legislatures or Judges.

I'm also interested in this idea of a devolved, top-down federation. If any Australian or Canadian readers want to drop their thoughts in on whether or not they think that their state or province is a real entity, I'd happily put their thoughts up.

It'd be odd, wouldn't it, if the historic strength of the American States had created such a strong 'national' pushback, particularly mediated through jurisprudence like that of Dworkin or Sunstein, that the States went all Atlantis in the global financial deluge.

That said, if you're in California, and your state is burning, I bet you wouldn't mind some water right now. You're in my prayers.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hi Martin,
We've lived in NSW, VIC and WA. Although there is rivalry between the states, there is, for me, an Australian character, which like the accent, is amazingly similar, wherever you go in this vast country. The landscape changes, the people stay the same.

Many here would disagree.Melbourne is more concerned to promote culture and the arts.Sydney has such natural beauty that it doesn't have to try as hard, so it doesn't.Queensland is where rich people go for their holidays.The Great Barrier Reef, tropical islands etc. Laid back, relaxed.
A lot retire there only to come running back to the big smoke.

I'm sure when you asked your question, you were looking for a more political, deeper, response. State politics here in NSW is in crisis at the moment and on the verge of bankruptcy. I believe the premier is looking to PM Rudd for help that is not forthcoming. They'll work it out.I feel some new taxes coming on,
Love Mary
8:40 am
Martin Meenagh said…
That's a response as valid as any, Mary. Actually, I've been thinking about how 'Ausrtralia' was nominally federated by the states up, but is under a constitution that moves from the crown down. Anyway, it makes much more sense for it to be a country of one people since immigration is such a big deal and since it has been around for a shorter period, with fewer people, and within a British Imperial context, than America.

There are new taxes coming on everywhere, God help us. I'm frankly a bit scared of where all the spending is going to take us as states, and frankly wonder if many of us are ready for the reduced living standards implied.

Ah well. Hope that you are enjoying yourself there in Oz, and the very best to you as usual. Thank you for the comment.

M
9:39 am
Conservative Cabbie said…
Martin

The problem for the States or us here in the UK is that politicians have to be seen to be activist and that means statist.

I absolutely agree that the various states differ culturally and historically and that one size fits all should not apply. What is really annoying is that the constitution is quite assertive in what is considered to be in the realm of the federal government, of the people and of the states but activist political leaders and interpretive judges have reduced the ninth and tenth amendments to constitutional bookends and nothing more.
America and the world are crying out for a bit of Jeffersonian republicanism and a period of status quo.
6:54 pm
Martin Meenagh said…
You won't get an argument from me on that, CC, except to say that the limitation of state sovereignty was started with the best of intentions. Segregation and lynching were state affairs. However, for different reasons, the commerce clause, the income tax amendments, the direct election of senators, the new deal, and the civil rights movement all massively empowered the centre.

I think that more than a little federalism is long overdue, not least because the US will end up bankrupt or in low-level civil wars if the centre issues much more borrowing or tries to take people's guns away. The problem is that many states are out of money and now depend on the feds--something I hope that they realise and try to reverse very soon.

I also find the attempts of interventionist lawyers and legal philosophers to continually impose their own rationales on the constitution and to call it 'rational minimalism' or proper construction would be funny were it not for the consequences. I hope that we don't end up with a radical supreme court, because I can't see the need and can see a lot of danger in that.

Many thanks for the comment.
8:02 pm
Conservative Cabbie said…
Martin

Slavery and civil rights are the real problems for conservatives. It's something that I struggle to rationalise.

Conservatives believe in a slow organic pace to change. Dramatic change not only does a disservice to our heritage but risks social upheaval. But that doesn't wash when it comes to serious inequities like slavery and racism.

The only way that I can rationalise my conservatism is to accept that both it and progressivism share a symbiotic relationship. A solely conservative society is racked by inertia much like the antebellum south. It needs a progressive kick up the proverbial from time to time. Similarly, without the natural brake of conservatism, a solely progressive society just becomes a headlong rush to God knows where.

My view on the Supreme court judges is that they have one job only - to interpret the constitution from a strict legal standpoint. Empathy should not be a factor.

We will be hearing a lot about the 10th amendment in the coming 4-8 years. One fly in the ointment for federalism though is the latino community. They are becoming a significant player and I doubt there first allegiance is to their respective states.
11:19 pm
Martin Meenagh said…
See, I'm inclined to find differences in American communities, CC. Latinos are one thing; but what about chicanos, Mexicanos, Mestizos, and for that matter, filipinos? Those groups could be won over to different state models, or some of them could, I think (and I remember that New Mexico has always been a bilingual state). I wonder about Puerto Rico, Cuban Americans, and the professional ethnic lobbyists.

I also recall that George Bush delivered reasonably good lines in Spanish when necessary, and at least as Governor won quite a few of that background over.

But a strong centre that doles out money and seeks to empathise rather than encourage thought and patriotism is one prey to ethnic lobbyists, so our common concern for a smaller centre is probably going to lead us to agree on English-language issues.

I like the thought of Burke and Michael Oakeshott, and as you've suggested on your blog, they speak to a true conservative sensibility that is admirable.

I also, generally, agree with you about the Supreme Court. I like its restrained catholic majority at the minute, though I wonder at the continuing effects on local elections of the decision in Bush v Gore, and of the courts selectivity in looking at, for instance, signing statements.

One big issue for me was the way the court rode roughshod over the amendment repealing prohibition a while ago, substituting a national trade in wine and liquor for state rules.

I was in Chicago at the time for a while and if I had stayed would have welcomed the cheaper booze, but the decision itself--in Granholm v Heald-- I thought intellectually unsupportable, even if it was a very limited one.

It made drinking easier for those able to buy in bulk, but much more complicated or expensive for anyone who just wanted to ship a little wine, and the whole thing became ludicrously bureaucratic. The case was driven by the market ambitions of wineries, not by any thought for states or the letter of the 21st amendment. Not many people agree with me about that, though.

We do need to hear more about the ninth and tenth amendment I think, but I think that that will be a delayed project if two or three justices retire as seems likely. have you read Judge Bork's old barnstorming books on the issues? There was a man who got trashed....
12:08 am
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Congressional Healthcare Bill in America I spent a good deal of this morning and yesterday reading over the proposed American healthcare bill (or at least, a compound version; there appear to be five doing the rounds). I don't want to blog on the details of it immediately. It's also a bill, which may well stall in the Senate or be overtaken by events, and which could yet be critically amended. It is the product of Congress, not the administration per se, and the lawyers have not yet got at it. I had some instant worries about it though. In no particular order, I'll list them; Firstly, it can't allow individuals to choose their doctor and treatment in the long run; instead, it will practically formalise the role of doctors as salaried employees of large medical groups. Sarah Palin is onto something with the idea that this will then allow essentially ideological or non-medical outlooks on, say, euthanasia, abortion, transgender issues, or non-emergency treatments of c...
6 comments
Read more
William Orpen There are four major Christian traditions, which are of course Catholic, Orthodox, Armenian and Coptic. Some sects and cults also exist, like the Moonies or Anglicanism. Yet in some bizarre way this weekend, protestant contributions to something other than the seizure of churches have been making their way into my consciousness. I suppose that the first indication of this trend was a reflection in an old copy of Gibbon that he actually became cultured because of Calvinism. Packed off to Switzerland because he went Catholic at an otherwise boring Oxford, Gibbon fell in love with Suzanne Cuchod, and with Greek because of instruction from a Calvinist mentor. It's an odd thing--I keep coming across indications of Calvinists who could have fun, though they doubtless thought that they would pay for it later, and whose political intelligence was second to none. Althusius springs to mind, for instance. But then what am I thinking, I thought to myself? I've sat on balconi...
11 comments
Read more
Damon Buffini I'm not quite sure what to make of this story. Damon Buffini, a multi-millionaire in the City, and a very accomplished man, seems to have heard staff he regarded as lazy and ungrateful at the upper levels of management complaining about restaurants. He subsequently forced them all to eat two-day old Big Macs whilst reminding them of how lucky they are. It's nice to know that Saturn--in the form of a sort of globalisation guevara--could force his children to eat rather than devouring them, as in Goya's painting. How broken do people have to be not to walk out, though? I guess from his point of view, if they had any spine they'd be in business on their own. The whole thing is horribly fascinating.
Post a Comment
Read more