The relationship between the federal and state level

                The relationship between the national level and the states lies at the very center of America’s historical journey. The one true constant is that it's a relationship which is always evolving. At times in our history, the federal government has been in the ascendancy. At other times, the rights of states have been paramount. It is not my intention to offer a detailed historical account of the relationship between the states and the nation’s capital, merely to highlight some of the salient points in order to chart an overview.

                The relationship between the federal and local level of government is of obvious importance when seeking to comprehend the American system. There are two terms that might help to deepen your understanding. The first is called layer-cake federalism. This describes the situation in which both the federal and the state level have distinct areas of responsibility. For instance, the federal level is responsible for national security whereas the states have the capacity to set their own sales tax. The Constitution seeks to define these responsibilities in terms of enumerated powers (those laid down in the document) and implied powers (those powers suggested within the document). Marble-cake federalism however depicts the situation where the federal level and the states overlap in some manner. There are several illustrations of this overlap between the two ranging from education to the provision of welfare benefits.

                Historians have conventionally categorized three stages of federalism, although there is a debate to be had about that which term characterizes the modern era. The first stage is referred to as dual federalism. The states were the dominant actors during this particular era, whereas the federal government played little role in the lives of most Americans. The shift towards greater powers for the federal government did however gain some impetus during the Civil War. Constitutional amendments passed in the aftermath of the Civil War offered some protection against prejudicial policies implemented by the states, particularly those in the south. That said, the federal government remained secondary to the states. This historical epoch lasted from the birth of the Republic until the 1930s.

                The Great Depression marked a turning point in the role and significance of the federal government. As a result of this profound economic shock, the powers of the federal government gradually expanded via a set of policies first instigated by FDR. This era of co-operative federalism continued under a series of Democrat Presidents committed to the New Deal and a moderate Republican (Eisenhower) who did little to roll back the frontiers of the state. It was during this time that the United States emerged as the undisputed leader of the free world, which in itself required a significant expansion in the role of the federal government. Naturally, the Constitution played a crucial role. Although the sixteenth amendment was passed in 1913, it really came to prominence during the New Deal as it enabled the federal government to impose income tax and thereby raise revenue. It is always easier for an institution to expand power when that institution has control over the purse strings, and it is difficult to envision how the role of the federal government would have increased without the ability to raise revenue independently of the states. It is also worth noting that the federal government was prepared to exercise power over the states via categorical grants.

                The third period emerged during the economic turmoil of the 1970s. Whereas co-operative federalism owed much to the Democrats, the era of new federalism undoubtedly reflects a conservative rather than liberal mindset. The roots of new federalism lie in a reaction against the perceived excesses of the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson. The common themes of new federalism are to limit or reduce the role of the federal government, champion the notion of states’ rights and actively celebrate the rugged individualism of the American people. New federalism has been particularly welcome in southern states due to a historical antagonism towards the federal government. New federalism has also been built upon judgments made by the more conservative court under Rehnquist and Roberts. Finally, new federalism is characterized by a degree of skepticism about grandiose federal programs. As Ronald Reagan famously declared; “the [federal] government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

                It is uncertain whether the United States has moved beyond new federalism, although it is undoubtedly the case that the role of the federal government has expanded since the turn of the century under administrations from both parties. It is also true that no agreement exists over what term could be used to replace that of new federalism. President Obama has attempted to popularize the term progressive federalism to mark a distinction between his administration and that of his predecessor. Progressive federalism entails co-operation with the various levels of governance in order to promote social progress within the states. However, the term has not become part of the academic lexicon. Let us briefly examine the reasons why.

The state has been repeatedly utilized under the Obama administration in order to meet progressive goals such as universal health care and anti-discrimination laws. Moreover, the level of federal funds allocated to the states has also increased due to the re-authorization of the S-CHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) and increased investment in health and education. However, it is difficult to readily identify a common theme or package under ‘no drama’ Obama. A man who claims to be an “extreme pragmatist” is hardly likely to change the course of federalism in the manner of a Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Richard Nixon. Some political figures are by nature idealists, others are more inclined towards pragmatism. Any objective view of Obama would surely conclude that he belongs very firmly in the latter category. Presidents could be categorized as transformational (such as FDR), reconstructive (such as Reagan), re-aligning (FDR is another example) or merely transactional. Obama is very much the latter, although the opportunity to be a game-changer certainly presented itself as the policies associated with new federalism were discredited by the credit crunch and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which has now replaced the Vietnam War as America’s longest military conflict).

                Another reason why one should be reluctant to identify the modern era as progressive federalism is that the future after Obama is uncertain. As such, we need a degree of historical detachment before we can declare the end of new federalism with any real certainty.