Federalism

So it's been nearly two months since my last post. A number of things contributed to that, but I won't go into that. Anyways, I'm back with a new article on the Federal system of the United States.

I picked Federalism since it underlies so much of this country's politics, as well as being one of the issues I most care about (either that or it underlies so many of my issues). The federal system of the United States is one of the factors that gives the United States such a unique political system. It is also one of the most misunderstood aspects of United States politics; so with this article, I hope to give the history behind our Federal system and why it is so important that the United States preserve it.

First the history lesson...

In the spring of 1775 the American colonies were at war with Britain. The battles of Lexington and Concord had just occurred, and the Shot Heard 'Round the World had been fired. The Second Continental Congress, scheduled to convene months before any of this, found itself in a situation they hadn't bargained for. Nonetheless, the Congress handled the situation quite well, attempting to treat with King George III, created the Continental Army which General Washington would eventually lead to victory, and signed the Declaration of Independence. As their final act, however, they ratified the Articles of Confederation, a document which finally united the several colonies.

Anyone who remembers their American History classes in high school probably has a deep bias against the Articles of Confederation. He remembers his teacher telling the class how ineffective and powerless the Articles were. More specifically he probably remembers the Continental Congress was unable to levy taxes or issue paper money (strangely enough, it could issue coins). But the Articles really were quite good; they got the colonies through the last two years of the Revolution, resolved a number of inter-state issues, such as when they passed the Northwest Ordinance.

Ultimately, however, the Articles were insufficient. They had, after all, been drafted and ratified in an environment of war, with the colonies already united against a common foe, Britain. When the war ended, however, many of the powers and incentives of the Articles ceased to be relevant. So in 1787 a Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia to revise the Articles. What they ended up doing was drafting an entirely new constitution, one which has lasted over 200 years.

The change being called for was essentially to create a stronger central government. In modern parlance, they were moving from a confederal government to a federal government. (I'll explain later why I don't think there's really any difference between the two.) The new Federal government was given an executive and judicial branch, was able to authoritatively resolve disputes between states, raise taxes, issue money, regulate interstate commerce. The most important change, perhaps, was the doctrine that the new Constitution and its government would be superior in all matters, a promise which didn't exist in the old Articles.

The elements of the Articles which remained are just as important, if not more so. The new Federal government was only part of the plan. Below the Federal government were each of the states, retaining an good deal of their rights. This implicit guarantee was made explicit in the 10th Amendment included in the Bill of Rights: all 'powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively...'

Thus, for over 200 years, the United States has been a conglomeration of the Federal government and the several state governments, with neither possessing all power or ultimate sovereignty. Or it should have been that way...

In my opinion, the Federal system set up by the Constitution has been all but abandoned. The Federal government has instead become a National government. This is a bad thing, and I'll be talking about all of the ways this has happened in future articles. For now I'll be addressing the question of why we need a truly federal system and some tangible effects we can witness in its practical absence.

Why Is Federalism's Fall Catastrophic?

Anyone who has paid any attention to recent national elections knows that the United States is a country with many diverse political opinions and viewpoints. The whole red state/blue state thing (which, btw, has the colors backwards; but I digress) demonstrates this quite well. This isn't a recent phenomenon, either. The founding fathers recognized this very fact, and it has persisted throughout our nation's history.

The federal system that the writers of the Constitution set up was one that allowed for all of those diverse opinions to flourish. The fear that many Americans had of a strong central government was embedded in that. The citizens of New York didn't want Georgians to be passing laws which would substantially affect how they lived, and vice versa. The federal system instead says 'New York will govern New York, Georgia will govern Georgia, and the Federal government will govern in those matters which require the intervention of a third party.' This was the agreement and understanding that the states united ratified in the 1780s.

Without this federal system, you will have Georgians making decisions for New Yorkers; or Californians for Coloradans. Each and every decision made by the United States government has the potential for enormous fallout, affecting 300 million people's lives. Representatives from urban states will be deciding how rural farmers will conduct their business. And representatives from rural areas will be deciding what values urbanites must adhere to. This is happening today; the Federal government makes all of the decisions, with the states filling in the gaps. A federal system demands it work the other way around, with states making all of the decisions individually and the Federal government filling in the gaps which the states simply cannot fill (foreign policy, interstate commerce, military, etc.).

This modern implementation was not as it was intended, for the founding fathers knew that such a system would fail. Instead, the Constitution allows each state to decide its own values, its own priorities, its own rights, and its own prohibitions. Each state is unique, and any effort to blanket over that fact will begin to tear apart the nation's fabric. Any effort to create an unauthorized 'unity' of law - as happens as a matter of course these days - actually fosters disunity and enmity. Rather, the states and state governments must be a significant part of the political system.

The modern violation of these federal principles is the real cause of today's political strife, not a 'culture war' or any other catchphrase you might want to insert. If you are looking for a reason for why the fall of federalism is catastrophic, just look around. Abortion, medicare, welfare, pork-barreling, education, etc. Just about every contentious issue in our nation today would be a mere fraction as contentious if it were approached in the manner that federalism demands. Instead, we are a nation divided against itself, with citizens becoming more and more bitter towards politics every day.

In articles to follow (and don't worry, not all will be politics; there will be plenty of religion and worldview, as well), I'll begin to outline some of the ways in which the United States government is currently trespassing against federalism, what needs to change, and what effects we can hope to see by it. I hope you enjoy following along.

A Closing Coda on the Terms Federal, Federalist and Federalism
(This is admittedly a not-so-well-written section that may cause more confusion than it clears up.)

There is a historical anomaly in American history that causes the word federal to mean several different things, depending on the context. In the 18th century, as the American republic was being created, it indicated a system with two levels of government: a central government and several sub-governments. In effect, federal was synonymous with confederal; federation synonymous with confederation.

As the Constitutional Convention of 1789 proceeded, however, those who wanted to give the create a much stronger central government became known as federalists. And those who wanted a weaker central government - though still stronger than under the Articles of Confederation - were, of course, the anti-federalists. The terms federal and confederal were no longer synonyms; instead they described similar systems of bi-level government, but indicated different balances of power.

This association of federalism with a strong central government was strengthened with Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison's publication of The Federalist papers, a series of articles which defended the strong-central-government system of the new Constitution.

Even within each camp, however, there was a diversity of opinion. Among the anti-federalists were those who accepted the Constitution as an acceptable balance of power and those who thought it gave the central government too much power. George Mason of Virginia was one of three anti-federalist members of the Constitutional Convention who even refused to sign the Constitution.

In the federalist camp there was also a wide range of opinion. Alexander Hamilton thought that the new Constitution gave too much sovereignty to the states. In fact, if he had been able to have his way in the Constitutional Convention, he probably would have all but done away with the state governments. In the nascent republic he formed the Federalist Party which would seek a strong national government.

James Madison, on the other hand, was a federalist (fairly obvious since he was one of the three authors of The Federalist papers) and a staunch supporter of the Constitution. But when political parties began to form, he found himself at odds with the more radical federalists, such as Hamilton and subsequently co-founded with Jefferson the Democratic-Republican Party, an [ostensibly] anti-federalist party (though certainly an anti-Federalist-Party party).

The wide spectrum of the definitions federalist and anti-federalist makes classifications of early America somewhat difficult, confused even more by what historical figures considered themselves to be. James Madison is one good example of that, as seen above. John Adams is another example, as he was a member of the Federalist Party, but very much believed in states' rights, and recognized that the American nation required a balance of power between the levels of government.

So essentially, in 18th century America, there were really three groups of political thought: those who thought the Constitution was too centralized (e.g., George Mason); those who thought the Constitution wasn't centralized enough (e.g., Alexander Hamilton); and those who thought the Constitution was just right (e.g., James Madison).

But what do those who call themselves federalists in the 21st century believe? Certainly since the 1980's, with the founding of the Federalist Society (which is concerned mostly with the federal judiciary system), for example, federalism has been resurrected as a political persuasion in America. A good way to answer that question is by answering another question: with what founding father does a modern federalist find himself most in agreement? In most cases, the answer will be one of those founding fathers found in the moderate group: Madison, Adams, etc.

Some, in an effort to emphasize the concern for states' rights, will cite Jefferson as a main influence. The more libertarian wing of the modern federalists will particularly look to Jefferson's agrarian republic ideals. Certainly, however, no modern federalist looks to Hamilton as a source of inspiration. For the United States have witnessed the culmination of Hamilton's vision for the federal government, and that travesty is the very reason why federalists have begun to distinguish themselves from other political philosophers.

For in general, both the 18th century federalists and 21st century federalists have the same goals: to establish a balance of power between the federal government and the state governments. In the 18th century, when the federal government had virtually no power whatsoever, that called for an increase in the federal government's power. In the 21st century when the federal government has exercised more power than it is constitutionally permitted, a decrease in federal presence is required.

So, from one angle - looking at the practical steps each is taking to achieve their goals - modern federalists end up looking like 18th century anti-federalists, by each attempting to decrease the size of the federal government. But one must look at the goals of the parties, rather than the means. With that attitude, one sees the close affinity that the federalists of the two ages have.

Clear as mud?

You can be sure of one thing, however. Whenever I use the term Federalist, I will always mean it in the original sense, one which seeks for a balance between the United States government and the governments of the several states. I will never mean it in the Hamiltonian sense, advocating for a very centralized government. Hopefully that will provide a a bit of clarity in my discussions.