Polarization between presidential candidates and lawmakers at the national level should remind us that most issues are better resolved in states and localities.
Increasing political polarization between presidential candidates and lawmakers at the national level should remind us that most issues are better resolved in states and localities.
A s the 2024 presidential election draws closer, we don’t hear enough from either major candidate about our capacity for self-government and the limits of national power. On top of that, both presidential candidates misuse federal rhetoric in discussions of state and local issues, a fact deftly pointed out by Donald F. Kettl in Governing magazine in September. However, while federalism is often strengthened by specific policies, there are several unforeseen factors and state, local, and national interactions that could embolden federalism.
The first reality that won’t change regardless of which presidential candidate wins is that Washington, D.C., is mired in dysfunction and gridlock. Given that neither party is likely to secure large enough congressional majorities in 2025 to break the gridlock, and with both presidential candidates being polarizing figures, Washington is unable to resolve critical policy issues Americans care about.
Multitrillion-dollar budget-reconciliation bills in Congress not only reflect poor governance but also fail to address the spending crisis that continues to drive up the cost of living for Americans. As a result, states will need to decide how closely they wish to further tie themselves to federal funding. Many states may have to continue cost-saving measures and develop policies to try to shield their residents from the inflationary spending driven by a dysfunctional Congress.
In this current political environment, state and local policy innovation — states are often referred to as “laboratories of democracy” — has become increasingly important. As polarization and dysfunction continue to expand, states should be inclined to chart their own destinies.
In 2014, President Obama stated his “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone” strategy for bypassing congressional approval. Executive orders are often harnessed as an end-around our important separation-of-powers doctrine while eroding the very concepts of limited government built into our constitutional framework.
The Supreme Court is showing itself more aggressive in blocking unconstitutional orders, striking down, for example, President Biden’s student loan forgiveness decree in 2023 and, the year before, deeming that the vaccine mandates of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) exceeded its authority.
If a Trump victory occurs, Democratic governors and other state officials will likely once again exert state-sovereignty arguments. California, for example, may seek to keep vehicle-emission standards stricter than those stipulated by federal guidelines, or it may defend sanctuary-city policies. If Harris wins, many Republican governors and attorneys general will continue their pushback against expansion to the definition of Title IX, federally driven voter-registration efforts, and climate-change mandates imposed on the states.
While pushback against presidential edicts is largely driven by partisan loyalties in the states, it remains a crucial check against the dangerous expansion of the imperial presidency. An essential point is that even if one’s preferred presidential candidate doesn’t win, politics is cyclical. While politicos can certainly make the case that this election has added importance because of diminishing social cohesion, there are reasons to believe that the sky is not falling, regardless of the outcome.
Following Woodrow Wilson’s Progressive era and presidency, America returned to a mind-set more friendly to federalism and limitation of national power during the ascendency of Warren G. Harding and his “return to normalcy” slogan. One hundred years ago, two of the most conservative candidates from both parties were pitted against each other —Calvin Coolidge, a Republican, and John W. Davis, a Democrat. While Coolidge is known for axioms in favor of devolving power away from Washington, D.C., Davis himself echoed Jefferson, saying that “local self-government” is “indispensable to liberty,” adding that “a centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny.”
Similarly, President Bill Clinton in 1993 embarked on a more progressive agenda that was derailed by the Republican Revolution of 1994. To his credit, Clinton’s political flexibility enabled him to work with Congress to return more power to the states, with the landmark reform of welfare in 1996 as the greatest example.
National failures, gridlock, and schemes to centralize power only reinforce the need for robust federalism. Increasing political polarization between presidential candidates and lawmakers at the national level should remind us that most issues are better resolved in states and localities. Not only because that creates better public-policy solutions but because democracy is strengthened when more power is given to the people themselves. If the goal of government is to serve people and not exercise control over them, our commitment to federalism can’t be derailed merely by our presidential preferences or the outcome of elections.