If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it a hundred times. America is a “closely divided nation.” Disputes rage continuously over sensitive social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and public displays of religion. Red and blue states seem to be constantly at loggerheads. If anything, differences of opinion among Democrats and Republicans seem to be getting worse with each passing year. Perhaps you wonder how we will ever get out of this predicament.

At its core, the divide between red and blue America can be traced back to at least one fundamental problem. Americans have abandoned the concept of federalism that is at the heart of the U.S. Constitution. We rely too much upon the federal government. We should instead rely more heavily upon our local governments—or, better yet, ourselves.

When America was established, the founding generation was concerned at the prospect of extending a republic across such a vast territory. Republics, the Founders believed, could work well as a form of government only when they are small. When they are too big, they inevitably fail. The sheer number of people guarantees that voters’ voices will be diluted, less able to influence governmental decisions. Minority political interests, in particular, suffer under such a system.

Our ancestors, then, faced a difficult question. How could they successfully create a republic, despite America’s immense size?

The Founders solved the problem by incorporating federalist principles into their new government. The U.S. Constitution creates a series of small republics (the states) within one, national republic. Most matters are left to the discretion of the states, thus ensuring that voters have a more direct impact on the decisions that most impact their daily lives. The national government intervenes only when matters are truly “national,” most notably in matters of national defense, interstate commerce, and foreign relations.

America’s federalist system worked well, for many decades, while Americans appreciated and understood this important aspect of their Constitution. But during the Great Depression, the principle of federalism took a serious beating, as economic fears caused people to look to the federal government for assistance. FDR proposed a series of national solutions, known as the New Deal. The Supreme Court upheld FDR’s plan through a radical expansion of the constitutional definition of “interstate commerce.” Indeed, the words were stretched practically beyond recognition.

Sadly, matters have gotten worse over the decades, and Americans no longer seem to understand the purpose or importance of the constitutional division of power between state and federal governments. Many responsibilities have been abdicated to the national government. As decisions have become more and more national, the fighting among America’s diverse citizenry has become more and more intense.

America is the great melting pot, composed of a variety of subcultures. Normally, we treasure our differences, just as we value the democratic and republican principles that bind us together. Why, then, should we limit ourselves to one universal solution for so many of the issues that face our nation? On most matters, each state could adopt its own policy quite easily, without disrupting truly national interests, such as our relations with foreign nations.

Several articles in recent years have discussed federalism as a solution to the great divide between red and blue America. Many of these articles have focused on the abortion issue. The point is well-taken. Roe v. Wade was a turning point in American history. The justices in Roe dictated a single abortion policy to a nation of diverse people. The result has been unnecessary ill-will and antagonism between the two sides of the debate. Much of this hostility might never have occurred if abortion policies could have remained diverse, determined by democratic processes within each state.

But Roe was not the only problematic moment in our nation’s jurisprudence. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have unnecessarily restricted the states in other ways. For instance, through a process that lawyers call “incorporation,” the Court determined that large portions of the Bill of Rights would apply to the states, despite the fact that these first ten constitutional amendments were originally written to apply only to the federal government.

Lawyers can (and do) debate whether the Court properly incorporated the Bill of Rights following passage of the 14th Amendment. But the practical impact of these court decisions is indisputable. Incorporation has created conflict where federalism previously allowed each state to express its own, diverse view. To the degree that incorporation has restricted the states on matters of church/state relations, it has had perhaps the most far-reaching impact—and the most negative, from a federalist perspective.

A return to federalism could serve one last, important function. If done properly, it would reduce conflict on fiscal matters. If states were to resume their responsibility to regulate (or not regulate) as they see fit in various matters of welfare, education, workplace regulations, and other issues, then the federal government would be left with less to do. Less federal responsibility should equal smaller federal budgets, fewer federal income taxes, and decreasing U.S. deficits.

The Founders established federalism at a time when America was composed of only 13 states. They thought the country too big, then, to be governed by one, national government. Today, America is composed of 50 states. The need for federalism has increased, not decreased, over time. These federalist principles offer hope for a nation that has been striving, fruitlessly, to come to national consensus on a host of controversial and personal issues.

Admittedly, a return to federalism would be difficult, as it would require a drastic change in mindset for most Americans. Yet the rewards would be more than worth the effort.

Comments (0)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment