POLI SCI THREAD WARNING: So I’ve just finished reading Daniel Hopkins’s “The Increasingly United States” and it’s given me a lot to think about. I believe the topic will be of interest to tens of you and so want to share some of what I’ve learned and what it means politically. 1/

Hopkins is writing on the subject of nationalization, which (to crudely define it) refers to the tendency of politics to turn increasingly on national matters and national identity to the exclusion of state/local matters and identity. 2/

This has considerable implications for federalism and the nature of political representation. Let’s talk about what some of those are. First, the American system was designed, as you all know, to leave considerable power with the states. 3/

The Founders intended this to be a counterweight to the centralizing effects of politics, keeping power out of the hands of the national government. But nationalization weakens this mechanism. Why? 4/

Because voters now look at politics through a national lens and seek national solutions to problems. Governors and mayors may not reap the benefits they used to from handling their state or city effectively if national politics drive voting behavior more than state/local. 5/

And Hopkins demonstrates that this is increasingly how voters behave. This undermines federalism and partially explains, to make use of a current example, why voters in MN and Minneapolis may not hold their governor and mayor responsible for riots in the state and city. 6/

Second, this potentially dilutes the effectiveness of representation; local and state officials have a tenuous connection with voters because on some level it doesn’t matter what the governor or mayor does — their fortunes are tied to the national party, not their performance. 7/

So one institution meant to weaken the centralization of authority — federalism — is itself weakened by an increasing focus of voters on what’s going on in AMERICA rather than what’s going on in their state or town or neighborhood. 8/

The Founders anticipated state loyalties would override national ones, keeping the central government in check. That has broken down and has lots of implications for the size and complexity of government and the kinds of policies proposed to solve problems. 9/

The natural question is why nationalization has happened. A big part of the story, but not all of it, is technology. As media has evolved and people have shifted to online sources of info and national cable news channels, local and state politics have been crowded out. 10/

This is both a supply and demand problem. On the supply side, news conglomerates are businesses and so want to reach the broadest audience possible. That entails talking about national issues of interest. 11/

On the demand side, voters don’t care as much about states and localities as they used to. They GRAVITATE to national stories, and particularly stories about the president. Thus voter turnout is markedly higher in presidential elections than local ones. 12/

Nationalization was also aided by the growth in federal authority. As the central government took responsibility for more areas of our lives, national matters became more important and interest in them grew while interest in state and local matters declined. 13/

This nationalization may help to feed polarization, as parties focus less on local needs and more on distinguishing themselves from the other side, inducing them to take ever more left- or right-wing stances. 14/

The causal arrow runs the other way, too. Polarization also feeds nationalization. To get a handle on that we’d need to talk about what causes polarization, but that’s a topic for another thread if there’s interest. 15/

In short, voters look at things more through a national lens than they ever used to. That has implications for how politicians behave, the policies they propose, and how voters vote. I could talk about those for a long time and I’m sure I’ll revisit this at some point. 16/

But the book gave me a lot to think about. It has implications for my own research into presidential power and the administrative state. And while it is an academic text, it’s HIGHLY accessible. 17/

Besides, I have the very best followers, the smartest followers. People are saying it more and more. I recommend the book highly if you want to develop more understanding of our current political era. https://www.amazon.com/Increasingly-United-States-Political-Nationalized/dp/022653037X 18/18