Insight from the Archives. A weekly newsletter with free essays from past issues of National Affairs and The Public Interest that shed light on the week's pressing issues.
Sign-in to your National Affairs subscriber account. Already a subscriber? Activate your account. On the state level, however, the opposite phenomenon has occurred. This longevity allows citizens to have consistent political expectations for their state governments. This political consistency and the responsive nature of state government may contribute to higher levels of trust in state governments as opposed to the national one, with only 24 percent of Americans saying they trust the federal government and a nationwide average of 58 percent saying they trust in the states.
More than distrust of federal government, many Americans distrust increased executive power, even when it might serve their political interests. Over 75 percent of the American public, across both parties, believes that it would be too risky to give more power to the president. The American people still tend to distrust the presidency as an institution, potentially because political control of the position switches between the parties almost every eight years, and Americans tend to trust the federal government more when their party is in control.
This fear stems in part from the history of U. This Act prohibited discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, or religion. With this troubling history in mind, the current movement toward greater state power can raise concerns about leaving the protection of civil liberties up to the states, even as it may be motivated by this very cause.
Leaving the protection of civil rights to the federal government alone, however, can also have troubling consequences. As control of the presidency and Congress can switch parties every few years, protections enacted by one administration can be reversed by the next. For example, in , the Trump administration repealed the transgender bathroom protections that the Obama administration had implemented and that around half of Americans supported.
Even if the federal government adequately protects civil rights, it can be necessary for states to complement these policies with protections of their own. As the federal government switches between political parties with changing presidential administrations, the consistency of state governments can help guarantee civil liberties.
A state government can also complement federal civil rights policies by serving as a leader on and example of how to protect certain civil liberties. In order for civil liberties to be properly protected on a federal level, states often first act as trailblazers on guaranteeing rights.
It is also unlikely that a state, or a consortium of states, can become the prime mover in developing drug therapies and a vaccine. Here, too, the federal government must take the lead. Thus, the states cannot succeed without the federal government recovering something of the esprit that animated it from the Great Depression through the first decades of the Cold War.
And yet something about the new federalism will endure. States have once again become the innovators in American political life and the institutions that are taking their democratic remit seriously. If Americans emerge from the current darkness with their faith in their fellow citizens and their government intact, the states will have lit the way.
Somewhere, Louis Brandeis must be smiling. Skip to content Site Navigation The Atlantic. Popular Latest. The Atlantic Crossword. Sign In Subscribe. It also allows for similar states to band together and support common reforms. Indeed, there are lots of reasons to approach federalism with optimism. For one, in contrast to faith in the national government, 60 percent of Americans still trust their state government.
At least in part, this is because state and local governments are closer to their constituents and have fewer public considerations to juggle. On top of that, government activity is mostly local to begin with.
With these structural advantages, federalism can make significant changes. It offers a sterling case for how states can set examples of progressive reform. California has long led the way on climate legislation, for instance by requiring, in , that fridges be more energy efficient.
Many other states followed suit and forced the fridge industry to adapt—without legislation at the federal level.
0コメント