Essay: The growth of federalism in the United States

Over the last two centuries the United States has grappled with the idea of federalism. While former President James Madison had a very concrete understanding of that form of governance, “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments” (Madison, 1788, p. 67), the United States has never had a conclusive division of power between the state and the US Federal Governments. Instead of definitive spheres of governance as Madison envisioned, over the years the US Federal Government has played an increasingly important role in state matters. Beyond changes in the balance of power between the federal and state governments, federalism also forces political actors to play to multiple, and sometimes incompatible, political bases. Compared with a unitary system of government, federalism is the most effective for new states because it grants territories a level of regional autonomy, its divisions in government lead to more effective legislative policies, and federalist governments have been able to unify during times of national crisis.
Between the signing of the Constitution of the United States and the outbreak of the American Civil War, state governments exercised a large degree of independence from the US Federal Government. During this period state governments openly questioned the policies of the Federal Government, and the Federal Government fought to establish its supremacy over the states. The first conflict between the states and the federal government came with the establishment of the Bank of the United States. In response, the State of Maryland decided to tax the Bank of the United States. In the case McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that the US Bank was constitutional and that states did not have the right to tax the federal government. This case established the precedent that the United States Federal Government could dictate the countries monetary policies. More importantly, during this period the supremacy of federal law over state law was established with the Nullification Crisis of 1832. The ensuing conflict established the precedent that the states did not have the right to judge the constitutionality of acts of Congress. It was not until the American Civil War and the resulting defeat of the Confederate States of America that the supremacy of the US Federal Government in legislative and economic matters was established.
Between the conclusion of the American Civil War and the election of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the United States entered a period of definitive dual federalism. During this period “fundamental governmental powers were shared between the federal and state governments, with the states exercising the most important powers” (Lowi & Ginsberg & Shepsle & Ansolabehere, 2010, p. 73). While the US Federal Government left a majority of the decision making up to the states, unlike before the Civil War, the supremacy of the Federal Government was no longer in question. Although the government did establish various national standards during this period, it did little to enforce compliance on the state level. For example, little was done to enforce the implementation of the 15th amendment at the state level. This period also ushered in an increase in the economic power of the federal government. With the legalization of the income tax with the 16th amendment in 1913, the US government saw a large rise in revenue. This allowed the national government to firmly establish itself as dominant economic force over the states. Although, the federal government did not widely use its economic advantage till the 20th century, this period ushered in a new level of economic involvement on the part of the national government.
After of the election of President Franklin D. Roosevelt the United States entered a period of cooperative federalism. This is a type of federalism “in which grant-in-aid have been used strategically to encourage states and localities to pursue nationally defined goals” (Lowi & Ginsberg & Shepsle & Ansolabehere, p. 77). While the federal government assumed a significant financial advantage over the states with the passage of the 16th amendment it was not till the New Deal that the government used this advantage to establish national goals. Under the New Deal the national government gave millions to states in order to establish public works projects and other initiatives. Today federal dollars play such an important role in state budgets that federal aid as a percentage of state budgets are around 20% (Lowi & Ginsberg & Shepsle & Ansolabehere, p. 81). Similarly, during this period the government has played a greater role in regulating local economic activity through a liberalization of US Commerce Clause. While the balance of federalism has changed since the signing of the US Constitution, federalism has had a consistent impact on the nature of US politics.
Due to the dual nature of government in federalism, federal level politicians must play to multiple political bases in order to ensure reelection. On the state level they must implement policies that play to local concerns and local political organizations. On the federal level politicians must keep in mind the interest of the national political party in order to insure reelection support. While many times politicians are able to bring these dual parties into agreement, this is not always the case. This was especially evidence during the 2009 healthcare debate with Democratic Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan. On the local level his political base was vehemently anti-abortion. However, on the federal level, the pro-choice platform of the Democratic Party wanted abortion funding added to the healthcare bill. While Representative Stupak was eventually able to work out a compromise, in cases of irreconcilable differences between national and state interests can lead to conflict. In the most extreme cases this dual interests can lead to war, such as with slavery in the United States. While federalism can create difficult political conflicts, it is far superior in many ways to a unitary system of government.
A federalist system of government confers multiple advantages to a developing country. It provides various regions within the country with a level of autonomy. This allows a diverse set up groups to come together under one government without sacrificing local traditions. During the early years of the United States significant cultural and economic differences existed between the various states. For example, South Carolina had a cash crop economy and was primarily rural. By comparison, Massachusetts made a majority of its money through shipping and had a large urban population. By providing individual states with their own governments, the United States Constitution was able to tie together a diverse group of areas under one government. In contrast, a unitary system of government eliminates regional autonomy. This is especially problematic in countries with a diverse set of citizens. For example, in Great Britain the government has been forced to establish local assemblies in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland in response to call for greater regional autonomy. Although a unitary system of government can exist in countries with a homogenous population and economy, few countries fall within these parameters.
Federalism also holds a policy advantage over other a unitary system of government. While it is difficult to create national standards, allowing states to implement plans helps create more effective policies. For example, under the Help American Vote Act, states were given more autonomy in developing vote-counting system for elections. Since numerous different types of voting systems were developed, each state acted as a test case for election reform. In contrast, unitary systems have limited opportunities to test policies before they are made nation standards. The result is sub-optimal and sometimes costly solutions to societal problems. By allowing states to exert a high level of control over the implementation and design of policies, the policies are made more effective and are tailored to meet local needs.
The main hypothetical danger of federalism versus a unitary government is that a country with a federalist government will be divided during times of national crisis. This was certainly the case during the American Civil War when the Confederates States of American failed to unify to meet the forces of the United States of America. The various states did not effectively pool resources and failed to develop an effective system of financing the war. Even with highly effective military leadership, the Confederate States of America fell to the overwhelming power of the USA. On the other hand, the United States, despite having a federalist system of government, was able to come together to fight a common enemy. During the Civil War President Lincoln assumed almost dictatorial control of the country and was effectively able to pool the countries resources. This trend of unifying under times of need is true throughout American history. During the Great Depression, the federal government gained powers traditionally relegated to the states to develop a national response to the economic downturn. Historical patterns of federalist government shifting towards a unitary style of governance eliminate concerns of national divisions during times of crisis.
The growth of federalism in the United States is far from the concrete divisions of power that James Madison envisioned in the 1780s. Over the years the US Federal Government has been able to gain more power over the states by the power of the purse and various other measures. At the same time, federalism has deeply impacted the political arena in the US by forcing politicians for negotiate with various power bases on every level of government. Despite its flaws a federalist system of government gives countries the flexibility and autonomy needed establish a successful nation, qualities not found in a unitary government.