Read on Twitter
THREAD: Let's talk about federalism. Yes, federalism, the system of government where powers are divided between national and local governments. In America we typically discuss federalism in the context of "Federal" v. "State" government powers.
But that's only one part of the federalist dynamic. Power is shared at many levels, some of the not technically part of the "state." I think it's best to consider "Deep Federalism", a set of nested sovereignties. The most intimate is the household or family. The powers
here are most obviously gendered and ever in flux depending both on larger cultural, economic and legal changes. Children must obey an authority (parent/guardian) whose powers are enumerated more in custom than law. Above that is the municipal/local authority with mundane
powers over trash collection, zoning, infrastructure, etc. as well as administrative power of education. Then the state and the Federal governments on top. So among these four levels, one is non-governmental (family/household) and yet exercises the most direct power.
This Deep Federalism has legal (governing actual behaviors), political (choosing leadership), economic (ability to make a living), administrative (carrying out powers) and customary (habits of socialization) elements that often run at cross-purposes.
Threats to the innermost layer - the household - are most likely to provoke the greatest political conflict. Consider how the household was defined historically - in the 1860 South it included slaves in the household - perceived threats to that layer were most explosive.
But those threats could increase not just because of legal or political changes elsewhere in the system. They could also come from new technologies of communication and transportation, with the telegraph/penny press playing the role of the viral video today. Federalism is
designed to hold off such faraway threats by devolving powers to localities. What should it matter what a New England abolitionist says at home as long as he doesn't come down to Alabama? What "power" did a faraway abolitionist really have? Quite a bit, actually.
That power comes from the flow of information transgressing the barriers of Federal/State federalism. The fear expressed by secessionists was not necessarily one of central administrative overreach (Northerners had the better case here re: Fugitive Slave Act). No, it was
the seamless passage of "incendiary" information - rumor, David Walker's appeal, abolitionist sermons, pre-millennialist liberation, etc. - "demoralizing" the enslaved members of Southern households. Needless to say, information flows much more freely in 2019 than 1860.
Nothing polarizes America today like slavery did in 1860. But every other issue under the sun provokes such fervor because today's media - social media, viral videos, etc. - bring faraway calamities to the palm of your hands, warping the sense of "real" and "imagined" threats.
All of this makes keeping national impulses out of local politics difficult. It's not surprising that ticket-splitting is less and less common. Federalism means more than legal limits of Federal power. It also means conscious re-thinking of how we process personalized media.
Needless to say, the latest issue of the Journal of the Civil War Era is excellent on this topic. But we really should have this conversation about Deep Federalism in our own time - the limit and extent of our powers and responsibilities in the age of social media. END
