Read on Twitter
Enjoying listening to the all-star panel right now. @DavidAFrench is up now, with his defense of federalism as one partial antidote to polarization: Federalism constrained by a rigorously enforced Bill of Rights will de-escalate the stakes of nat’l politics. https://twitter.com/profschleich/status/1385633582668988421
@JakeMGrumbach responds with data showing that decentralization of election law causes “democracy scores” to fall when the GOP takes control of a state government. Paper here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c682q88keqycp6s/grumbach_laboratories_of_democratic_backsliding.pdf?raw=1 Explainer here: https://www.vox.com/2021/4/5/22358325/study-republican-control-state-government-bad-for-democracy
@povertyscholar is explaining that abstract generalizations about “federalism’s” alleged virtues or vices across time and space might not be super-helpful. “A grounded perspective on federalism is critical.” (For one such perspective see her great book: https://www.amazon.com/Fragmented-Democracy-Medicaid-Federalism-Politics-ebook-dp-B07B7N5SL8/dp/B07B7N5SL8/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=)
@povertyscholar urges us to look at facts on the ground, not just spout off about “the values of federalism.” How do subnational governments affect people’s health, housing, likelihood of police violence, etc. (Lotta law profs ought to be nervously shuffling their feet right now)
“We should be concerned with arbitrary geographic variation” in basic welfare rights like Medicaid, housing, etc, b/c variance in such important programs ought not to vary by state lines. Federalism can be experienced on the ground as fear of lawlessness/cruelty.
@dhopkins1776 is up next, noting that the ambition to reduce polarization thru decentralization might be at odds w/ our nationalized politics. Dan’s book making this argument at length w/ great data (eg state party platforms) is here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07CVCT5Q8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
@dhopkins1776 notes that “overwhelmingly” people tend to feel more efficacious in and trusting of subnat’l politics. (That’s a candid concession to the pro-federalism folks btw, and I was not aware of a lot of studies on this question!)
@dhopkins1776 also notes that in some federal regimes, like Canada’s, subnational politics attracts more province-specific interest than nat’l politics. So he’s not trying to introduce universal laws of federalism: He’s talking about the USA.
Just as McDonalds gives you the same choices wherever the franchise is located, so too, our two political parties are so nationalized that they offer the same bundles of positions in every state. (This metaphor has me wondering what a state political party’s happy meal might be).
