Reflecting On Your Own Viewpoints
A cynic may argue that philosophy is simply a rationalization for self-interest. The wealthy glorify conservatism and the poor favor state help. A philosophy of federalism may be similar: we may merely favor that level of government that will provide what we want. If the cynic is correct, then constructing a general philosophy of federalism is, at best, irrelevant. However, such cynicism flies in the face of the framers of the US Constitution, who set out arguments for the value of federalism based on fundamental principles. For example, if we read the Federalist Papers, James Madison argued that federalism discourages tyranny and supports pluralism and liberty.
Thus, let us set out a premise that philosophy matters. Let us assume that our philosophies help shape our attitudes and opinions, which in turn direct our actions. Therefore, our beliefs about federalism are worth considering. I suggest three principles that are helpful in constructing a federal philosophy (Table 3.5.1):
Table \(\PageIndex{1}\):Three Guiding Principles
|
Principle
|
Consideration
|
|
Unity
|
Should all Americans comply with the same policies and have the same rights and responsibilities?
|
|
Diversity
|
To what extent should local and state differences in needs and wants cause differences in policies, rights, and responsibilities?
|
|
Democracy
|
What balance between state and national control allows for the best democratic deliberations, considering questions about representation, rights, and policy effectiveness?
|
Consider the three case studies discussed in this chapter: an ethnic studies requirement, marriage rights, and health care reform. Each outcome presents an implicit preference for a particular federal philosophy. In the first case, it is up to the state to decide on the ethnic studies curriculum, a type of dual federalism. Do you agree? Presumably, the state government is best at responding to demands for a new class. However, could we not argue that this class is needed just as much in other states and should be a national policy? On the other hand, the demographics of each state vary, so perhaps the substance of an ethnic studies curriculum would also change, and it might be best left to people within each state to deliberate among themselves about the nature of such a course.
Marriage equality falls under the category of debating about rights. Do you prefer rights to be defined at the state or national levels? Since the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s, the trend has been to nationalize rights, to argue that we have rights as Americans, and hence unity is far more critical than diversity. Moreover, the trend has been for an activist Supreme Court to step in often and define these rights, although the US Congress has also provided landmark legislation. The deliberation about same-sex marriage in this country was relatively quick, lasting from the mid-1990s until the Obergefell decision in 2015. In that time, the scope of the decision shifted from the state to the national level. As a result, same-sex marriage became a matter of federal authority, a form of cooperative federalism. States no longer have leeway; they must follow national policy.
The third example represents the most nuanced. Unlike an issue such as marriage equality, which is mainly dichotomous (either yes or no), the extent and nature of health care policies allow for a blend of national and state laws, characteristics of new federalism. In this country, unlike left-wing democracies, we don't conceive of economic needs as rights, so if a state chooses not to provide health insurance, we don't usually argue that the state has violated the rights of people experiencing poverty. Perhaps, if we lean politically more toward the left in the future, there would be a greater nationalization of social policies. In the meantime, a balance of unity and diversity as principles has yielded Obamacare with policy decisions occurring at both state and national levels.
What do you believe? When do you want the national government to decide policies, when do you want the states to choose, and when do you want decision-making to be shared? Consider your opinions about the three case studies discussed in this chapter. Consider other issues. What is your federal philosophy?
For Further Inquiry
- Throughout the pandemic, I was struck by the disparities among the states regarding the efforts to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. I visited my elderly father in Arizona; about half of the customers at the local Safeway have masks on; when I went running in Santa Clarita, many bicyclists, off essentially by themselves, were wearing masks. It's pretty apparent that politics mattered. Some states required face coverings in stores; others did not. It's also the political culture; some people perceived a mask as an unwarranted infringement on liberty, and others just saw it as one's duty during a crisis. In your opinion, was federalism a hindrance or a strength in fighting the pandemic?
- Survey the current news using your favorite media. Select a particular policy issue that is currently being debated. Ask yourself who is debating the issue. Is the scope of the debate at the local, state, or national level or at more than one level? Do you believe the issue is best considered at the level you observe? Reflecting on your opinion regarding the particular issue, how does your consideration help you better understand your own political philosophy?
