The Merits Of Federalism

I have always been ambivalent about American federalism. I know that many in the legal community, including Supreme Court Justices who came after him, agreed with Justice Brandeis that federalism encourages the states to be “laboratories of democracy,” but I also know that many states–including the one I inhabit–use “states’ rights” as their defense against compliance with national rules, especially– but certainly not exclusively–the extension of civil liberties to their own citizens.

The election of Donald Trump, however, has made me a federalism fan.

In a recent opinion piece, Jennifer Rubin focused on the possibilities for resistance that our federalist system provides to Blue state governors in the face of Trump’s assault on rational federal governance.

The positive news: Governors are constitutionally empowered and morally obligated to check the federal government and fill the gaps where the federal government has abandoned vulnerable people. They will be the last line of defense against an irresponsible and reckless Trump administration.

Fortunately, an extraordinary batch of Democratic governors including Tim Walz of Minnesota, JB Pritzker of Illinois, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Wes Moore of Maryland, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Maura Healey of Massachusetts appear ready to both protect their residents from a reckless administration and offer an alternative vision that benefits average Americans.

Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota, told the New York Times, “States in our system have a lot of power — we’re entrusted with protecting people, and we’re going to do it.” He added, “They can expect that we’re going to show up every single time when they try to run over the American people.”

What can states do to counter what Rubin calls Trump’s “grab bag of crackpots?” His bizarre choice of RNK, Jr., who has declared war on medicine, is joined by his pick for secretary of defense, a man who doesn’t appear to believe in germs, and a nominee to head up Medicare who championed the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, (Her column appeared before the CEO of the Wide World of Wrestling was chosen to head up the Department of Education.)

In the face of growing evidence that Trump intends to decimate the federal government, what can governors do? According to Rubin, plenty. With respect to health issues,

they can stockpile vaccines and abortion medications, offer medical school students from red states a transfer to their schools, loosen rules for telemedicine, ease requirements to license doctors accredited elsewhere, reiterate vaccine requirements for schoolchildren (and fund free vaccine programs for vulnerable communities), expand their own health departments and pool resources to fund medical research. In short, they can develop an alternative model of responsible health-care governance.

Governors’ actions can go well beyond healthcare. If Trump’s government tries to enforce his promises to roll back overtime and worker safety rules, governors can enforce state laws protecting workers. They can defend the environment by bringing a steady stream of litigation to protect air, water and natural resources. (Rubin notes that Democracy Forward, a legal group formed after Trump’s 2016 win, has built a “multimillion-dollar war chest and marshaled more than 800 lawyers to press a full-throated legal response across a wide range of issues.”)

On other fronts, they can sue to enforce consumer protection rules or challenge coercive action depriving states of federal funds. (States filed roughly 160 suits against the first Trump administration.) Bob Ferguson, Washington’s Democratic attorney general and governor-elect, recently said that, according to Associated Press, “offices of Democratic attorneys general have been in touch for months to talk about how to push back against Trump’s policies.” They also can maintain strict gun safety regulations, bring suits against gun manufacturers and fund research on gun violence….

To promote democracy, they can offer enhanced civics education, public media literacy programs and public service requirements for high school and college graduates. And, as leading legal minds have been arguing for some time, they can creatively expand multistate compacts on everything from “social services delivery; child placement; education policy; emergency and disaster assistance; corrections, law enforcement, and supervision; professional licensing; water allocation; land use planning; environmental protection and natural resources management; and transportation and urban infrastructure management.” A new entity, Governors Safeguarding Democracy, may be just the vehicle to facilitate this activity.

Finally, Rubin notes that governors can counter the right-wing media ecosphere by highlighting the damage caused by anti-family, anti-child and anti-life MAGA policies.

Rather obviously, Red state governors won’t take such measures, so the resistance won’t be uniform. But it will be instructive. And it will offer Americans options– places to relocate to if and when their own state’s compliance with the wrecking crew becomes too onerous.

Comments

The Policies Of Resentment

Perhaps the most potent cause of MAGA adherence is resentment–the belief by far too many Americans that they are being denied their rightful status or being cheated out of benefits to which they are entitled by the “Others” who are “milking the system.”

Social policy can either ameliorate or feed those feelings.

As I have argued previously, policies intended to help less fortunate citizens can be delivered in ways that stoke resentments, or in ways that encourage national cohesion.  Consider public attitudes toward welfare programs aimed at impoverished constituencies, and contrast those attitudes with the overwhelming majorities that approve of Social Security and Medicare.

The difference is that Social Security and Medicare are universal programs. Virtually everyone contributes to them and everyone who lives long enough participates in their benefits. Just as we don’t generally hear complaints that “those people are driving on roads paid for by my taxes,” or sentiments begrudging a poor neighbor’s garbage pickup, beneficiaries of programs that include everyone (or almost everyone) are much more likely to escape stigma. In addition to the usual questions of efficacy and cost-effectiveness, policymakers in our diverse country should evaluate proposed programs by considering whether they are likely to unify Americans or further divide us. Universal policies are far more likely to unify, an important and often overlooked argument favoring both national health care and a Universal Basic Income.

The defects of existing American welfare policies are well-known and substantial. We have a patchwork of state and federal efforts and programs, with bureaucratic barriers and means tests that aren’t just expensive to administer, but also operate to exclude most of the working poor. Those who do manage to get coverage are routinely stigmatized by moralizing lawmakers pursuing punitive measures aimed at imagined “takers” and “Welfare Queens.” Current anti-poverty policies have not made an appreciable impact on poverty, but they have grown the bureaucracy and contributed significantly to stereotyping and socio-economic polarization; as a result, a growing number of economists and political thinkers now advocate replacing the existing patchwork with a Universal Basic Income- a stipend sent to every U.S. adult citizen, with no strings attached– no requirement to work, or to spend the money on certain items and not others– a cash grant sufficient to insure basic sustenance.

Critics of social welfare are appalled by the very thought of uniformity. Why, we’d end up paying people who didn’t deserve it!  It would encourage sloth, it would be spent on booze and drugs, it would require hard-working folks to pay increased taxes…

Interestingly, one “factoid” I recently came across seems relevant to this discussion: Residents in more than half of America’s counties now draw a substantial share of their total income — more than a quarter — from the government. Assuming the accuracy of that data point (I’ve lost the source), we now provide that money in massively inefficient ways.

Numerous pilot programs have disproven predictions that a UBI would undermine ambition and productivity.

The Washington Post recently surveyed the results, in an essay titled “Universal Basic Income Has Been Tested Repeatedly: It Works. Will America Ever Embrace It?”

A growing body of research based on the experiments shows that guaranteed income works — that it pulls people out of poverty, improves health outcomes, and makes it easier for people to find jobs and take care of their children. If empirical evidence ruled the world, guaranteed income would be available to every poor person in America, and many of those people would no longer be poor.

The Mirror, a news site in Indianapolis, recently reported on a small experiment here.

The universal basic income program was funded through a partnership between three Indianapolis nonprofits: Southeast Community Services, Edna Martin Christian Center and John Boner Neighborhood Centers. Participants received a total of 18 monthly payments from October 2022 to this March.

The program represented an effort to experiment with giving money directly to Indianapolis families, rather than providing them with assistance through programming or donations. Though participants got their last check two months ago, the basic income program was such a success that the centers are hoping to do it again.

Rather than spending their stipends on booze and drugs, or quitting jobs, nearly three-fourths of the participants were  spending most of their monthly $500 to help cover rent or housing costs.

The research typically focuses on the use people make of the stipends, and the programmatic effects–effects that are overwhelmingly positive. But researchers have neglected to study what may be the most positive aspect of such programs: the extent to which they reduce, rather than aggravate, the tendency to stigmatize recipients and further inflame bigotries.

That may be the most beneficial outcome of all.

Comments

The Pollyanna Approach

The daily headlines confirm the utter incompetence of the MAGA Republicans Trump has selected to run the federal government, and it understandable that rational people are experiencing varieties of depression. At least in the short-to-medium term, millions of people will be hurt. Badly. Assuming Trump gets his tariffs and his appointees, there will be dramatic inflation and domestic chaos; worse still, the chances of triggering World War three will be higher than they’ve been in a long time.

Not exactly the sort of situation to inspire hope. So how would a Pollyanna approach what promises to be a very dark time?

The answer to that question lies in the “what comes after.” There is no doubt that, barring a miracle, the next few years will see significant destruction of federal governance. We have already experienced the erosion of longstanding norms of democratic behavior in Congress; the narrowness of GOP victory (and the return of several congressional lunatics) will undoubtedly keep the House dysfunctional. Trump’s Supreme Court has already demonstrated its willingness to abandon the rule of law. With the guardrails gone, it will get very ugly very quickly, and a lot of people will suffer.

But the thing about ugly is: it engenders anger and resistance. And it ultimately collapses.

Over the past two hundred plus years, American law and policy have changed–often for the better, but also for the worse. Our electoral system has ossified, becoming less representative and less democratic. Our economic system has morphed from capitalism to a corporatism/crony capitalism that heavily favors the haves. Our social safety net is unwieldy, unnecessarily bureaucratic and underinclusive. Our citizens no longer trust the government or each other.

The underappreciated Biden Administration moved to correct much of the economic damage–and those moves were widely successful. Had Harris been elected, it is likely that she would have continued along that path of incremental improvement–but she couldn’t have dislodged the moneyed interest groups or repaired the the baked-in electoral dysfunctions–the Electoral College, the bloated version of the filibuster, the widespread gerrymandering and other structural mechanisms distorting the “voice of the people.”

The term “creative destruction” was first coined by Marx, who applied it to capitalism, but it has subsequently taken on a variety of other meanings. Here, I’m using it to describe a process in which widespread destruction of existing systems facilitates the birth of a better replacement. As we watch the Trumpers’ purposeful destruction of a governing framework that has developed over 200+ years, we need to consider what we will create to replace it. Any such consideration requires that we be clear-eyed about the nature of our structural, economic, legal and educational failures and inequities.

It will also require a national conversation on a basic topic: what is government for?

In coming posts, I will lay out my own argument, which is essentially that government is the mechanism through which a society provides two necessary infrastructures: one physical and one social. There is very little disagreement about responsibility for the physical infrastructure, although the pro-privatization movement made some (largely unsuccessful) inroads. Instead, our political disputes have largely centered on the contours of the social infrastructure.

America’s obsessive focus on individual responsibility and achievement has obscured recognition of the equally important role played by the governing institutions within which we are embedded. Elizabeth Warren summed it up in a much-cited comment.

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there – good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory… Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea – God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

We Americans too often fail to recognize the extent to which individual success is dependent upon government’s ability to provide a physical, legal and cultural environment within which success can occur.

Bottom line: We absolutely need to resist the illegal and inhumane actions of the incoming administration. But we also need to think long and hard about the repair job–the dimensions of an improved social contract– that will be needed when this eruption of corruption and bigotry has run its course.

Comments

Resistance And The Environment

If even a small percentage of Project 2025’s proposals–or Trump’s fever dreams– are implemented, Americans will suffer. Times will be very dark, and very unAmerican. So it may seem Panglossian to predict that we can and will emerge from those dark times, not unscathed, but essentially intact.

That said, however, there is one element of the coming assault on reason and evidence that poses a truly existential threat, and that is the denial of climate change– the likely withdrawal from global efforts to combat it, the resumption of reliance on fossil fuels, and the termination of federal green energy incentives. We humans can recover from bad governance. We can (and undoubtedly will) learn from the experience of being governed by corrupt and profoundly ignorant people.

But we are unlikely to survive a failure to take climate change seriously.

I find it hard to understand people who deny the reality of a warming planet–the captains of the fossil fuel industries who place a higher priority on their bottom lines than their grandchildren’s lives, the religious fundamentalists who are sure God will protect us (or perhaps is punishing us for our sins), the people who simply choose not to believe facts that might inconvenience them. In my own lifetime (and yes, I’m old) I’ve seen spring come earlier and earlier, and summer last far longer than it used to. As I write this, we are nearing the end of November, yet temperatures are in the 50s and 60s, flowers are still blooming and the leaves remain on most trees. When I was young, it was much colder at this time of year, and we’d typically already had snowstorms.

The rejection of science and evidence by Washington’s clown show is depressing, but those who have chosen climate as their resistance focus need to recognize how much impact is possible–and for that matter, necessary– at the local level, through actions both by local governments and the private sector.

Time Magazine recently had a story about the ways in which small business enterprises (SME’s) can fight climate change. The author reminded us that there are numerous ways to focus on “tackling climate change from the ground up—from cities cutting their own footprints to grassroots activists making changes in their backyards.”

Approximately 90% of the world’s businesses are SMEs; those firms are responsible for a significant share of global emissions. News headlines at the intersection of business and climate often focus on big companies with household names, but to achieve global climate ambitions, small firms need to be engaged….

For the small companies that engage, decarbonization can be rewarding. It helps them access new markets as Europe and many Asian markets have begun to impose sustainability requirements for imported products. Greener products appeal to consumers who are looking for sustainable products, too. And sustainability efforts make SMEs more resilient to climate risks like extreme weather.

The article noted a report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that identified emerging mechanisms—from green loans to supply chain finance—intended to facilitate green practices at small businesses.

Local governments also have a number of initiatives they can employ to combat climate change–everything from installing new technologies to improve their own energy efficiency, to encouraging the construction of energy efficient buildings (including rooftop solar and/or green roofs), moving public transportation systems to clean energy and promoting other kinds of low-carbon transportation, creating pedestrian and bicycle-only zones  and enhancing urban green spaces…the list goes on.

Many of these projects also enhance the quality of urban and suburban life. Planting trees and expanding public parks are environmentally important steps that also provide recreation for citizens, for example.

There is an argument to be made that –if sufficient numbers of local jurisdictions engage in these efforts–the impact would equal or exceed the mechanisms currently employed (and endangered) at the federal level. In any event, most of the actions available to local businesses and governments cannot be stymied by the know-nothings in Washington.

As a recent article from the University of California explained,

Local government can play a unique and critical role addressing the climate crisis. Local governments have immediate impact on the daily lives of community members and personal connections to constituents. We have a clear line of sight to understand how climate change is impacting people on a daily basis. If leveraged correctly, local governments have the power to bring people together across party lines to address local issues with creativity and agility.

The article listed a number of successful efforts already underway. Consider them a “road map” for resisting Project 2025’s prescription for planetary disaster.

Comments

Patriotism Betrayed

As Trump rolls out his loony-tunes Cabinet choices, we are beginning to see the irony of “America First.” Rather than even a skewed version of patriotism, Trump is threatening a wholesale retreat from America’s founding ideals and from America’s place in the world.

I won’t waste pixels on his desire to put a science-denying medical conspiracy theorist in charge of the nation’s health, although I will note that–should RFK, Jr. actually make it through the confirmation process–most of the people who will sicken and/or die will be the True Believers in the MAGA base, the same folks who refused to wear masks or get vaccinated against COVID.

RFK, Jr. and his brain worm aren’t the most unbelievable nominees. Others pose an immediate threat to America’s global dominance. A recent essay in the Bulwark addressed the consequences if those nominees’ should take office. With respect to Tulsi Gabbard, the author wrote:

In addition to the problems she will cause American intelligence, her appointment will also send shockwaves through allied intelligence groups.

Because absolutely no one is going to share intel with us once she’s at the top of the org chart.

Instead our allies will cobble together alternative working relationships that do not include America. Without a seat at those tables, decisions will start to be made without consideration of America’s interests.

Eventually those informal working relationships will be codified. And America will be on the outside looking in. Hostage to events with a diminished ability to shape them….

It will also mean that the Pacific nations will have to come to their own arrangements with China. Because if the American public was not willing to shoulder the burden of merely shipping arms to Ukraine, then there is zero chance that we will be willing to go kinetic in the defense of Taiwan.

Tulsi Gabbard–one of Putin’s “useful idiots” and a woman so compromised she couldn’t get a security clearance– at the head of America’s intelligence agencies would be very bad for America, but as the essayist notes, it would be worse if our allies still believed there was a chance America would continue as a guarantor of the global order, only to find that they were mistaken when Putin and Xi acted.

If the Gabbard nomination wasn’t a sufficiently clear sign of America’s retreat from its global obligations and alliances, Trump’s choice for Defense Secretary “sealed the deal” as the saying goes.

Trump has always mistaken acting for reality, and his choice of Pete Hegseth–a television host–confirms his inability to distinguish manner from substance. As the Independent recently reported, not only is Hegseth, a Fox News pundit, massively unqualified, he wants to launch a “frontal assault” against top brass, kick women out of combat, and “implement Donald Trump’s sweeping agenda for the world’s third-largest standing fighting force.”

Hegseth’s nomination, which came as a shock to members of Congress who will ultimately be asked to vote to confirm him, reflects a broader trend among Trump’s Cabinet-level nominations and White House appointments — grievance-fueled loyalists whose disdain for a perceived establishment matches Trump’s wrecking-ball approach to governing and disregard for expertise and experience in a government that tens of millions of Americans depend on.

Since the announcement of Hegseth’s nomination, we have learned that he self-identifies as a Christian Nationalist, sports several White Nationalist tattoos, and has been credibly accused of sexual assault. If confirmed, he will enthusiastically implement Trump’s promises to reimpose a ban on transgender service members, end a policy that covered travel costs for service members seeking abortion care, and gut diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Hegseth is also an out and proud bigot, who spent his college years crusading against diversity and “the homosexual lifestyle,” and suggested in a 2024 book that General Charles Q. Brown Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, and an Air Force fighter pilot with 130 combat flying hours and 40 years of service, only got the job because he is Black. (I’m sure that accusation endeared him to the African-Americans who comprise over 20% of America’s armed forces.)

There are very real issues with U.S. foreign policy. Critics–especially on the Left–point to multiple episodes where American interventions have been highly improper, to put it mildly. Others find fault with current Mideast policies. Americans of all political stripes routinely criticize aspects of the bloated Defense budget.

Correcting past blunders and “right-sizing” the budget, however, require competent leadership, and Trumpworld, from the top down, is thoroughly incompetent. (On the other hand, if the goal of America First is to make America the first country to surrender global influence and abandon its allies, they’ll be great…)

Putin and Xi are undoubtedly cheering….

Comments