Federalism and the Future
Pick up any newspaper or read an online report off MSN or Facebook and the phrase “the United States federal government” may be mentioned. This is because the United States was founded on the idea of federalism, which is a system of government meant to balance the ideas in a unitary system like that of Britain, where the central national government controls everything, and a confederation, where each state has the most power. As mentioned in the reading, “Federalism is a compromise meant to eliminate the disadvantages of both systems” (“Federalism in the United States”). Texas happens to fall on the side of conservatism (the desire for less big government control and more state-level) both socially and in business (Ch. 1 PowerPoint, slide 7). The biggest pro to the federalist system is how flexible it can be when pressured by changes; in fact, “A review of American history shows that the lines that divide power between the national government and the states are blurry, and in practice the balance of powers between the two levels of government is constantly in flux” (“Federalism in the United States”). Four major forces prompt changes to the type of relationship exists between the national government and the states: national crises and demands, judicial interpretation, grants-in-aid, and professionalization of state governments. Because these forces have been influential in the past, they will continue to be so in the future, especially the national crises and demands the nation will face.
In more detail, these four influencers can be seen at work both now and in the past. National crises and demands are often the easiest to find examples on and go back to the beginning of the United States itself. One major example from the past would be the Civil War, which Texas joined on the side of the Confederacy. Though mainly about slavery, underlying the idea of slavery was the problem of the states’ rights in owning slaves versus the federal government’s right to abolish it. Texas, and most of the south, are also very traditional in their attitudes, meaning that they “maintain the dominant social and religious values”; however, Texas is also individualistic, which means Texans prefer “limited government intervention” (Ch. 1 PowerPoint, slide 9). Texas began as self-supporting via cotton, cattle, and oil and this attitude has remained dominant in most of the state (Ch. 1 PowerPoint, slide 13).
A second influencer is judicial interpretation – namely the Supreme Court. It rules on major court cases where the rights of the states and federal government are called into question (“Federalism in the United States”). Depending on the makeup of the Supreme Court, these decisions can swing either way for quite some time; for example, very conservative Supreme Courts in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and then again since 1995, usually ruled in favor of states’ rights while it ruled in favor of the national government between 1937-1995 (“Federalism in the United States”). Roe vs. Wade, the case that made abortion legal, occurred in 1973 during this less-conservative Supreme Court era and has come under fire ever since, especially as the Court has grown more conservative over time.
A third factor is that of grants-in-aid. These are handouts by the national government to the states for various reasons and take the form of block grants, project grants, formula grants, and categorical grants; since 1960, the national government has done almost as much giving in this way as it has legislating for state approval, which means “state and local govts have increasingly looked to Washington for money” (“Federalism in the United States”). The states looked to the national government before the 1960s, however, as during the Great Depression, the states needed the financial support of Washington to survive (Ch. 2, slide 13).
The final factor is the professionalization of state governments. This basically means that many state governments have, since 1960, hired more experienced staff in their roles so that the governments have become “more capable and forceful policy actors than they have in the past” (“Federalism in the United States”). Even so, the federal government works off the merit system – applicants must fill out paperwork and prove that they are qualified for the position – while the state government of Texas uses the spoils system, where those who have the position reward their friends and family with positions in the government regardless of suitability or qualifications (Ch. 10 PowerPoint, slide 17). This seems to happen at the county level most of all; in a smaller, rural town, local governments may be entirely Republican due to the population being so, and long-term re-elected officials such as judges may even find their children running for and taking their old positions once they’ve retired, often due to their connection to the retiree rather than their own merits.
The United States is currently operating under coercive federalism, where “the federal government pressures the states to change their policies by using regulations, mandates, and conditions (often involving threats to withdraw federal funding)” (“Federalism in the United States”). An example of this are the roads in Louisiana; bad as they are, they remain so due to the state’s stubborn refusal to lift the drinking age from 18 to 21 in their state until 1996, twelve years after the federal government passed a law requiring states do so if they wanted money for road repairs (Ch. 2 PowerPoint, slide 18). Despite the national government’s coercive tactics, current political problems may shift the power once again. The legislative moves of the Trump presidency and the Republican party have brought a surge of super-conservative ideas into the public eye that many liberal minded Democrats (and in some cases, less conservative Republicans) don’t like. One of the biggest problems seems to be the growing evidence that Russia interfered with the U.S. presidential election and how that should be handled. If the recession of 2008 could be considered a national crisis, then an attack on the democratic method the U.S. uses to choose its leader, who is such a powerful figure in the global area, should also be considered a national-level crisis. Given that the states have a conservative Supreme Court in spite of their growing reliance on federal money, the relationship between the two governmental entities should continue to widen further with the states getting more rights as the federal government is seen as more and more incompetent. Texas, with its independent and traditional culture, will most likely not notice much change overall.
Works Cited
“Federalism in the United States.” PDF file.
“Chapter 1: Texas Culture and Diversity.” PowerPoint.
“Chapter 2: Texas in the Federal System.” PowerPoint.
“Chapter 10: Local Government.” PowerPoint.
