Federalism Video Flashcards

Definition and significance of Federalism

• Federalism is the division of power between the national (federal) government and subnational governments (states) that shapes policy outcomes, rights, and governance.
• Why it matters for American government:
  • Determines which level of government is responsible for particular policies.
  • Enables checks and balances and experimentation across states.
  • Affects citizens’ access to policymakers and the responsiveness of policy.
• Examples of federalism in action (per PPT #2):
  • Various policy decisions across levels of government illustrating the balance of authority.
• Key terms from the outline: Definition; Why it matters for American government; Examples of federalism in action; Pros and cons of state control over policy; What should be decided at the national vs. state level; Constitutional justifications; Other tools of national control over the states; Historical evolution of federalism in the United States.

What level of government should decide policymaking? framework

• Thomas Jefferson’s classic view:
  • The national government should decide issues that are “great and aggregate.”
  • States should handle policies that are “local and particular.”
• In the 21st century, global interconnection complicates what counts as local policy.
• When deciding who should decide a given issue, consider the pros and cons of state control over policy.
• Apply the framework to a concrete policy area: environmental policy.
• Important premise: all states must have the same limitations and the same freedoms to make policy (i.e., uniform baseline rules).
• Decision-making often depends on which state is doing the policymaking; we must imagine policies across all $50$ states to evaluate correctly.
• Summary takeaway: The question revolves around trade-offs between local tailoring vs. national standards and coordination.

Pro state control

• Diversity of needs across states:
  • The 50 states can be strikingly different demographically, economically, geographically, religiously, and in terms of public opinion.
  • Allowing states to set policy lets each state tailor policies to its population’s needs and wants.

Applied to environmental policy (pro state control)

• Environmental needs vary by state:
  • Ocean-bordering states vs. inland states require different policies.
  • Oil-producing states vs. agriculture-dominated states require different energy policies.
  • Urbanized, high-population states vs. sparsely populated states need different environmental policies.
  • Voter preferences: states like Washington and California tend to favor more “green” policies than Texas or Louisiana.

Pro national control

• Importance of national standards:
  • The national government can set overall standards in key policy areas (e.g., minimum wage, education, voting rights).
  • National standards help prevent states from enacting laws that could be dangerous or harmful to people in the state.

Applied to environmental policy (pro national control)

• Consequences of lax state standards:
  • States that do not enforce minimum environmental standards endanger their residents.
  • Lax standards can harm wildlife and threaten food and water supplies.
  • Unchecked pollution, improper nuclear waste storage, and conditions that worsen oil spills or wildfires can have lasting or permanent damage.

Pro closeness to the people

• Accessibility and representation:
  • State representatives are easier to reach than national representatives (e.g., contacting a Sacramento Assembly Member vs. a U.S. House Member).
  • State representatives tend to be more demographically similar to their voters, which can align policy with voters’ wishes.

Applied to environmental policy (pro closeness to the people)

• State-level responsiveness to voters:
  • In states with progressive environmental policies (e.g., WA, CA), most voters support higher environmental standards and green energy.
  • This correlation suggests state representatives respond to voters’ concerns more readily than the national government.

Pro low visibility of state officials

• Media attention and accountability:
  • National politics garners much more media coverage; state-level politics receive less attention.
  • Lower visibility can make it harder for voters to monitor state government and can enable corruption that would be less tolerated at the national level.
  • Generally, state officials tend to have less policy expertise than national officials.

Applied to environmental policy (pro low visibility)

• Policy development and enforcement challenges:
  • State officials may be less able to develop workable environmental policy.
  • State governments may engage in lax or dangerous environmental practices that go unnoticed by citizens.
  • State governments often lack the enforcement powers of the national government, making enforcement more difficult.

Pro innovation and experimentation

• States as laboratories of policy:
  • Many policy issues are complex; there are often no obvious solutions.
  • Allowing states greater control over policy creates $50$ laboratories of policy experimentation where a workable solution can be tested.
  • If a state finds a viable solution, other states and the national government can copy it.

Applied to environmental policy (pro innovation and experimentation)

• Examples of state leadership:
  • States like Vermont and Minnesota have developed greener environmental policies and can serve as role models for the rest of the country.
  • Their experiences with challenges can guide broader adoption across states.

Pro national control: spillover

• Cross-state effects:
  • When states implement poor policies, the consequences do not stay within state borders.
  • Many problems (education, welfare, immigration, drug policy) cross state lines; if a state can’t fix its problems, the federal government may step in.
  • Federal tax money funds these national interventions.
  • This spillover argument supports greater national control over policymaking.

Applied to environmental policy (spillover)

• Environmental spillover is particularly obvious:
  • Environmental disasters (pollution, water contamination, nuclear accidents, climate change) cross state and national borders.
• Other spillovers include non-environmental issues: migration, violence, drug trafficking, disease outbreaks, infrastructure failures, unemployment.

What level of government should lead? policy orientation and real-world examples

• Personal politics influence level-of-government preferences:
  • California often passes more progressive laws than many other states (e.g., climate, immigration policies).
  • During the Trump Administration, California frequently clashed with national policy.
  • Agreement with California’s direction tends to support more state control; liberals/progressives are more likely to back California’s approaches.
  • Conversely, liberals/progressives may oppose Alabama’s reproductive rights policies, which restrict abortion access and grant new state powers to punish pregnant women; they would likely oppose state control by AL in reproductive rights.

Constitutional arguments and federal tools (brief overview)

• Beyond practical arguments, constitutional arguments are used to justify both national and state control over policymaking.
• The national government possesses a variety of tools to compel state compliance with federal policy.
• These constitutional and coercive tools help explain the historical trend toward greater national power at the expense of the states.

States’ rights as code for discrimination

• Important caveat:
  • The term “states’ rights” has sometimes been used as code for discrimination.
  • From the 1950s–1960s onward (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954; Civil Rights Act, 1964; Voting Rights Act, 1965), the federal government pressured Southern states to end segregation and discriminatory policies.
  • Some Southern politicians defended discriminatory policies by invoking states’ rights, signaling a reluctance to enforce civil rights.
  • Ronald Reagan’s 1980 visit to Neshoba County, Mississippi, to speak in favor of states’ rights signaled a political stance on civil rights enforcement.
• Quotations from Southern politicians (on the slide):
  • George Wallace, 1963 inaugural speech (Alabama): reference to states’ rights as a political stance.
  • Strom Thurmond (Senator from South Carolina) defending states’ rights; Thurmond’s Swimming Pool speech explicitly endorses segregation.
  • See linked videos for historical context on these positions.

States’ rights in defense of discrimination today

• Ongoing debates about discrimination, civil rights, and religious liberty:
  • How should we define discrimination and who decides its boundaries?
  • How to balance religious freedom or personal beliefs with the rights of groups facing discrimination?
• Contemporary examples illustrating the debate:
  • Colorado wedding cake case (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 2018) and related LGBTQ equality debates.
  • Class-action challenges to Texas abortion law (2023): broader questions about reproductive rights and state policy.

Connections to course themes

• Federalism shapes practical policy outcomes (environment, education, health, immigration).
• The balance between local tailoring and national standards affects:
  • Policy effectiveness and innovation
  • Accountability and responsiveness
  • Equity and civil rights protections
  • The ability to address cross-border spillovers and national interests

Key terms and references (for quick recall)

• Federalism: division of power between national and state governments.
• “Great and aggregate” vs. “local and particular”: Jeffersonian framing of national vs. state roles.
• $50$ laboratories of policy experimentation: idea that states can test policies, then be copied by others or the national government.
• Spillover: cross-border effects requiring national-level coordination.
• Brown v. Board of Education ($1954$), Civil Rights Act ($1964$), Voting Rights Act ($1965$).
• Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n (2018): LGBTQ rights and religious liberty debates.
• Reproductive rights litigation and policy debates in states like Alabama (context for state-control arguments).
• Notable figures and moments: George Wallace (1963), Strom Thurmond, Thurmond’s Swimming Pool speech (1960s).
• Conceptual caveat: “states’ rights” as a political code with historical associations to discrimination.