News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
MOST READ
Get some leverage.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Balance of Power
Yellow Dog Productions/Getty Images
Who's in charge of lifting lockdowns?
Jun 02 2020
Swindell, an associate professor of public affairs at Arizona State University, studies how different levels of government interact and work together.
<p>
In a nation with
<a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html" target="_blank">more than 90,000 governments</a>, responses to the coronavirus pandemic have highlighted the challenges posed by our system of federalism, where significant power rests with states and local governments.
</p><p>
Three weeks ago Wisconsin's
<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/politics/wisconsin-supreme-court-strikes-down-stay-at-home-order/index.html" target="_blank">Supreme Court overturned</a> the governor's order for residents to stay at home — and then several cities and counties <a href="https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2020/05/13/wisconsin-stay-home-order-not-over-dane-brown-counties-milwaukee-city-racine/5188700002/" target="_blank">imposed their own restrictions</a>, very similar to the governor's rules.
</p><p>
So who's running the show? It depends.
</p><p>
At the national level, President Trump has both told the 50 states to
<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/05/white-house-trump-funding-states-coronavirus-165783" target="_blank">fend for themselves</a> — and <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-claims-governors-power-states-deciding-reopening-country/story?id=70119115" target="_blank">claimed to have the authority</a> to force states to "reopen."
</p><p>
In the absence of nationwide coordination and leadership, governors have made their own decisions about how to contain the spread of the virus. Their decisions apply only to their own states, making the country a patchwork of varying efforts.
</p><p>
And with state governments lifting their lockdown restrictions to varying degrees, the patchwork is getting even more complicated. Factor in the powers and responsibilities of more than 3,000
<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/05/06/graham-county-north-carolina-coronavirus-lockdown-228601" target="_blank">counties</a>, nearly 20,000 municipalities and almost 13,000 public school districts around the country, and it becomes clear that the answer to "Who's in charge?" is not so simple.
</p><p>
Who actually has the power to make binding decisions mostly depends on two factors. First, what's being decided: Is it about public health, police, hospitals, schools, barber shops or other businesses? Second: It depends on the state.
</p><p>
Historically, the United States has divided responsibilities for different services and functions across levels of government, so they could be tailored to regional preferences where possible.
</p><p>
For instance, jails are run locally or by counties while businesses get municipal and state licenses. Animal control laws, zoning and pothole repairs are typically handled by local governments. But states typically regulate businesses and industries, oversee welfare programs and manage major highways.
</p><p>
The national government handles things where widespread coordination and standards are important — like the national defense, Social Security, space exploration and commerce among the states.
</p><p>
Before the Great Depression, state and national government duties were more clearly differentiated. Since the 1930s the system has evolved, and the distinctions between which levels do what have blurred and blended.
</p><p>
For instance, states are in charge of public schools and universities, but the federal government makes
<a href="https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html" target="_blank">school districts comply with rules</a> about equal access for all students and provides money to support needy children <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2019/10/two-decades-of-change-in-federal-and-state-higher-education-funding" target="_blank">and university research</a>. Similarly, states build and maintain interstate highways but the federal government <a href="https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-highway-trust-fund-and-how-it-financed" target="_blank">pays many of the costs</a>.
</p><p>
Today, this mixing of responsibilities has made it difficult to form a nationally coordinated response to a pandemic in which the effects are mostly local. State and local officials have tried to respond but do not have federal-level resources or buying power.
</p><p>
The federal government may claim to be able to shut down the economy, but the truth is that
<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/18/states-police-power-coronavirus-135826" target="_blank">states are responsible</a> for regulating businesses operating within their boundaries. So the federal government <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/04/14/834040912/fact-check-trump-doesnt-have-the-authority-to-order-states-to-reopen" target="_blank">can't order states</a> to close down or reopen businesses.
</p><p>
On the other hand, the president or Congress can decide to give more money to states that go along with federal requests — and
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/nyregion/sanctuary-cities-funding.html" target="_blank">potentially cut funding</a> to those that don't. States depend on federal money for <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/politics/trump-sanctuary-city-coronavirus/index.html" target="_blank">criminal justice</a>, education and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-times-the-government-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/" target="_blank">highways</a> funding, so this type of influence can be very effective.
</p><p>
Another aspect of American federalism worth noting: The Constitution ensures states retain
<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment" target="_blank">powers beyond the federal government's but also remain </a><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv" target="_blank">very independent from each other</a>. Each can develop its own policies and systems for delivering services.
</p><p>
That means potentially 50 approaches to combating a pandemic that does not respect state boundaries — and the state with the most lax standards in a sense setting the protection level for the whole nation. For instance, Arizona has reopened hair salons and theaters and now allows restaurants to serve inside. Neighboring California is
<a href="https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-for-essential-needs/" target="_blank">remaining mostly closed</a>, though its people may travel freely across the state line.
</p><p>
As if that weren't muddy enough, each state relates differently to its local governments. Constitutionally speaking, there are only two levels of government in the country — federal and state. Courts and legislatures have determined that
<a href="https://urbaninnovation.asu.edu/content/navigating-waters-between-local-autonomy-and-state-preemption" target="_blank">local governments are extensions of states</a>, with varying levels of independence.
</p><p>
In most states, local governments must
<a href="https://urbaninnovation.asu.edu/content/navigating-waters-between-local-autonomy-and-state-preemption" target="_blank">seek permission from state legislatures</a> before setting rules on topics ranging from drone flights to short-term rentals. But other states allow municipal governments to take on whatever responsibilities do not expressly belong to the state government.
</p><p>
All this means response to the pandemic varies not just from state to state, but also within states.
</p><p>
The way overlapping authority has played out is easy to see by looking at how one type of local government — school districts — responded to Covid-19. Sometimes, districts acted on their own. Other times, state departments of education ordered statewide closures, affecting districts that hadn't shut their doors. And some states never issued stay-at-home orders even though most districts had shut down.
</p><p>
As states begin to reopen, similarly confusing processes are happening in reverse. Some states with loosened restrictions have cities that want to maintain something close to sheltering in place — setting off disputes over state vs. local powers from Georgia and Utah to Texas and Colorado.
</p><p>
This
<a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/05/05/county-leaders-to-governors-let-us-make-our-own-calls-on-reopening" target="_blank">diversity of precautions</a> and actions can be seen as a strength of federalism, because it allows us to see how different responses affect the viral spread. Differing local and state decisions are creating experimental laboratories for finding different ways to move back into a fully operational economy.
</p><p>
And that's why your barbershop is still closed while the one in the next town or next state over is already open again.
</p><p>
<em>This article is republished from </em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us" target="_blank"><em>The Conversation</em></a><em> under a Creative Commons license. </em><a href="https://theconversation.com/whos-in-charge-of-lifting-lockdowns-137972" target="_blank">Click here</a><em> to read the original article.</em>
</p><p>
<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137972/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" width="1">
</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Wisconsin provides a case study in election resilience - The Fulcrum ›
- Biden backs vote-at-home, says Trump out to undermine election ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
AFP/Getty Images
The two tweets marked with a fact-check warning, prompting the president's retaliatory threats.
Trump threatens social media after Twitter fact checks his vote-by-mail claims
May 27 2020
The fight over combating disinformation, one of the main scourges of a functioning democracy, has gone to an unprecedented place in the past 24 hours.
President Trump is now threatening to impose new federal regulation on social media companies, or even force them to shut down. That was his extraordinary vow of retaliation on Wednesday to Twitter's path-breaking decision the day before to call out falsehoods in a pair of presidential tweets.
Compounding the importance of the moment for the cause of good government — which is supposed to rely on unfettered political speech, an independent media and truth-bound public officials all acting in harmony — is the topic at the center of the dispute: Wholly unsubstantiated claims from a president of the United States that the American electoral system is being corrupted.
<p>Trump doubled down on those again Wednesday, on the same social media platform that had just fact-checked him, repeating without any evidence that this year's increasing reliance on mail-in voting will create "a free for all on cheating, forgery and the theft of ballots."</p><p>Twitter added a warning phrase to two Trump tweets from the day before, which among other things derided absentee ballots as "fraudulent" and asserted that "mail boxes will be robbed" and "this will be a rigged election" after millions of forms are delivered across the country this fall at voters' behest — the only plausible way to assure significant turnout, in the middle of a once-a-century pandemic, as Trump stands for re-election.</p><p>Under two of his miniature jeremiads, Twitter has placed a "Get the facts about mail-in ballots" link, which takes readers to a specially curated page of links and summaries of news stories about the baselessness of the president's claims. </p><p>It is the first time Twitter has deployed this device in response to declarations from Trump or any other national political figure. The company detailed new policies for labeling misleading tweets this month, saying it was part of an effort to make itself less of a venue for misinformation about the coronavirus.</p><p>"Republicans feel that social media platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen," the president wrote in reply Wednesday. </p><p>He did not detail further what he was talking about. Presidents have no authority to single handedly impose federal regulations on companies, let alone put them out of business. Such actions would require action by Congress or, in the case of the social media giants, the Federal Communications Commission. And any effort to strengthen the rules would presumably be resisted by the deregulatory conservatives who dominate the GOP ranks on Capitol Hill.</p><p>Beyond its implications for election integrity and the control of disinformation, the episode highlights Trump's willingness to challenge decades of assumptions about the balance of powers — because his latest threats amount to one of the most aggressive presidential assertions of authority ever in order to harm businesses perceived as political antagonists.</p><p>Trump is echoing a conservative chorus that formed before his election to complain that Silicon Valley's products discriminate against conservatives and their limited censorship efforts are focused disproportionately on voices from the right. </p><p>Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other social media platforms have broad latitude under federal law to moderate their content as they choose — one of the things that has fueled their extraordinary growth for two decades. Some allies of Trump have suggested the industry's current liability protections should be taken away and they should be treated more like traditional publishers, who may be sued for the content they disseminate.</p><p>The Trump campaign asserted that Twitter's liberal bias prompted the campaign to pull all advertising from the platform, although Twitter itself no longer accepts traditional paid political messages.</p><p>"We always knew that Silicon Valley would pull out all the stops to obstruct and interfere with President Trump getting his message through to voters," Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement Tuesday. "Partnering with the biased fake news media 'fact checkers' is only a smoke screen Twitter is using to try to lend their obvious political tactics some false credibility."</p>
Claim: Vote-by-mail ballots will create a rigged election en California. Fact check: False
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjg4MzI2MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0OTc2NjM5Nn0.UX8MnuW5FuRzGGJYFeB9sxdAzFSxTxUQmoUmKUDhOdM/img.jpg?width=980" id="d12c4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f864a6c20f63a65dbb186422ff5bc879" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Sara Wilson, Medill School<div><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed cc_cursor"><strong>By Sara Wilson, Medill School</strong></p></div><p> <iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1265255835124539392" id="twitter-embed-1265255835124539392" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1265255835124539392&created_ts=1590495473.0&screen_name=realDonaldTrump&text=There+is+NO+WAY+%28ZERO%21%29+that+Mail-In+Ballots+will+be+anything+less+than+substantially+fraudulent.+Mail+boxes+will+b%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fles5rPlDLQ&id=1265255835124539392&name=Donald+J.+Trump" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="6ad137b524e007f00774bfe041e81888"></iframe> </p><p>President Trump tweeted another claim about states "illegally" sending ballots or absentee applications to voters. His series of tweets about California specifically say that Gov. Gavin Newsom is sending ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there," suggesting that people who aren't citizens are voting en masse.</p><p>Newsom issued an <a href="https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2020-news-releases-and-advisories/ap20045-eo-send-vote-mail-ballot-november-3-2020-general-election/" target="_blank">executive order</a> on May 8 to send every registered voter — not anyone living in the state — a vote-by-mail ballot for the Nov. 3 election. People can still vote in person if they want.</p><p>Voter fraud in the United States is very rare. An analysis from a team of investigative journalists <a href="https://votingrights.news21.com/article/about/" target="_blank">found 491 instances</a> of absentee voter fraud between 2000 and 2012. "Mail ballot fraud is incredibly rare, and legitimate security concerns can be easily addressed," <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/false-narrative-vote-mail-fraud" target="_blank">according to experts</a> from the Brennan Center.</p><p>There is also little evidence that undocumented immigrants are voting in California or elsewhere. David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/nov/16/lou-dobbs/no-evidence-many-illegal-immigrants-voted-midterm-/" target="_blank">told Politifact in 2018</a> that "There's zero evidence of even dozens, let alone millions, of non citizens voting in this or any other election."</p><p><a href="http://thefuclrum.us/fact-check" target="_blank">Read more fact-checking by the Medill School of Journalism.</a></p>From Your Site Articles
- Twitter adds tool to report falsehoods about U.S. elections - The ... ›
- How disinformation could sway the 2020 election - The Fulcrum ›
- Joaquin Castro tweet about Trump donors sparks privacy fight - The ... ›
- Fact-checking Trump's executive order on social media - The Fulcrum ›
- Fact-checking Trump's executive order on social media - The Fulcrum ›
- Fact-checking Trump's claim of free speech violations - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Pool/Getty Images
Germany has been able to contain the coronavirus thanks to the combination of central leadership from Angela Merkel and active regional governments, writes Charles Hankla.
Disorderly democracies can tackle the pandemic better than efficient autocracies
May 15 2020
Hankla is an associate professor of political science at Georgia State University.
<p>
Since the coronavirus pandemic began, some countries have consistently received accolades for their rapid, coordinated responses, while others have been roundly condemned as laggards.
</p><p>
Among those able to "flatten" the curve and limit the outbreak have been
Taiwan, Australia, Singapore, Jordan and the Republic of Georgia. By contrast, Spain and Italy are among the countries joining the United States in struggling to contain the Covid-19 spread.
</p><p>
What do the countries that have dealt effectively with the virus have in common? Many factors have likely contributed to their success, including
<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/11/us/us-health-care-system-coronavirus/index.html" target="_blank">preexisting health systems</a>, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2020/04/05/why-organizational-agility-is-key-to-defeating-the-coronavirus/#149fa89f68ad" target="_blank">bureaucratic agility</a> and <a href="https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/democracy-autocracy-coronavirus-doesnt-care/" target="_blank">the decision to act early</a>. Equally important, in my view as a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Y58-EhUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao" target="_blank">political scientist</a>, are each country's political institutions — whether top-down autocracies, federalized democracies or something else. Determining which ones work best is the tricky part.
</p><p>
Some autocratic regimes have argued that they are
<a href="https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1182074.shtml" target="_blank">uniquely equipped</a> to deal with the pandemic, prompting <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/feature/coronavirus-empowering-dictators-and-changing-world-order-139127" target="_blank">a fair bit</a> of <a href="https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/coronavirus-crisis-could-spark-authoritarian-revival/" target="_blank">soul searching</a> in the democratic world.
</p><p>
But the success of democratic countries like
Germany, combined with the failure of autocracies like Iran, make it clear that things are not so simple. Indeed, the crisis arose in part because autocratic China did not <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/27/the-future-is-asian-but-not-chinese-coronavirus-pandemic-china-korea-singapore-taiwan/" target="_blank">move swiftly enough</a> to contain it.
</p><p>
A related but more subtle argument is that
<a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/federalism-coronavirus-problem-government/" target="_blank">more centralized</a> governments are better able to confront crises like the coronavirus. According to this take, countries with strong regional and local governments — and especially <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/u-s-federalism-creates-chaos-in-fighting-coronavirus.html" target="_blank">federal countries</a> like the United States — are at a disadvantage. By contrast, strongly centralized democracies like France and high-functioning autocracies like Singapore are in a better position to act.
</p><p>
There is no question that centralized leadership, even when exercised coercively, provides certain real benefits during a public health crisis.
</p><p>
This is because pandemics are an example of a policy area with
<a href="https://www.bis.org/publ/bisbull04.htm" target="_blank">strong spillover effects</a>. A citizen could be infected in a city or state with weak social distancing rules and transmit the disease when traveling to another city or state. Or the efforts of one state to hoard masks could produce a critical shortage in another.
</p><p>
The states in this country, for example, have been
<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/09/why-states-and-the-federal-government-are-bidding-on-ppe.html" target="_blank">forced to compete</a> for personal protective equipment, which has generated inefficiencies and a bidding war. And some places <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/04/29/georgia-coronavirus-death-rate-could-double-as-lockdown-eases/" target="_blank">have begun to reopen</a> businesses against the advice of experts. If this move causes a spike in transmission, it could spill over into other states that have taken more risk-averse stances.
</p><p>
But the results of my
<a href="https://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781788972161/9781788972161.xml" target="_blank">ongoing research</a> suggests that success during a pandemic is not just a question of strong national leadership. The findings indicate that the countries best able to provide local public goods — including primary health care, critical during a pandemic — are not those that are most centralized. Rather, they are ones that strike a fine balance between the powers of central governments and those at the state and local level.
</p><p>
There are several reasons for this.
</p><p>
A more decentralized approach to government will facilitate the targeting of policy to the needs of
<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1826343?seq=1" target="_blank">different locales</a>. When the pandemic is concentrated in certain areas of a single country, for example, it <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/opinion/coronavirus-end-social-distancing.html" target="_blank">may make sense</a> for sub-national authorities to decide when to reopen. And the better information and stronger accountability enjoyed by local and regional governments are likely to matter even more during the economic recovery.
</p><p>
Germany, for its part, has enjoyed the
<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/04/angela-merkel-germany-coronavirus-pandemic/610225/" target="_blank">strong national leadership</a> of Angela Merkel, but it is relying also on the individual states to decide how to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52382196" target="_blank">ease social distancing</a>.
</p><p>
Decentralized and federal systems also allow states and locales
<a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00346.x" target="_blank">to learn</a> from each other and to emulate what works. They <a href="http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/204582.html" target="_blank">put pressure on those states and locales</a> that are doing poorly to do better. Moreover, strong regional and local governments can serve as a backstop when national policy is insufficient, limiting the damage of central misgovernment.
</p><p>
The most
<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/here-are-government-s-biggest-failures-coronavirus-response-n1175791" target="_blank">obvious example</a> of this phenomenon is the United States, where the Trump administration's mixed signals, incorrect information and slow reaction time arguably made the country <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-federal-governments-coronavirus-actions-and-failures-timeline-and-themes/" target="_blank">more vulnerable</a> to the coronavirus. At the same time, states like California, Oregon and Washington have succeeded in limiting local cases enough that they are <a href="https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/04/06/california-sends-500-ventilators-back-to-national-stockpile-1272393" target="_blank">now shipping ventilators</a> to places where they are needed more.
</p><p>
In France, too, regional and city governments have
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/world/europe/coronavirus-france-masks.html" target="_blank">tried to pick up the slack</a> for the perceived failures of the central government in Paris. But the country's highly centralized political institutions have put strong limits on their freedom of action.
</p><p>
It's no surprise, then, that most countries that have succeeded in containing the virus — Germany, Taiwan and Australia for example — combine central coordination with active regional and local involvement.
</p><p>
Of course, some centralized — and autocratic — countries are coronavirus success stories.
</p><p>
Interestingly, however, these tend to be relatively small countries with very strong governments, for example
Jordan and especially Singapore. Larger centralized countries like China and Russia tend not to perform as well. Put differently, the larger a country's territory and population, the less effective a purely top-down strategy will be.
</p><p>
While the United States and most decentralized democracies aren't yet on the list of success stories, it's not too late to take advantage of their inherent strengths for the recovery. To accomplish this, my research shows their leaders should guard the autonomy of local authorities, while building cooperation and trust across all levels of government.
</p><p>
<em>This article is republished from </em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us" target="_blank"><em>The Conversation</em></a><em> under a Creative Commons license. </em><a href="https://theconversation.com/how-disorderly-democracies-can-outperform-efficient-autocracies-in-tackling-coronavirus-136924" target="_blank">Click here</a><em> to read the original article.</em>
</p><p><img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/136924/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" width="1"></p>
From Your Site Articles
- House committee proposes transparency enhancements - The ... ›
- Congress' knowledge deficit renders it powerless - The Fulcrum ›
- The coronavirus response: Trump vs. the states - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Pool/Getty Images
Democrats like California Gavin Newsom have had a change of heart on states' rights, according to Amherst College professor Austin Sarat.
While fighting the virus, liberals rally behind states' rights banner
May 13 2020
Sarat is a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
<p>Covid-19 has put federalism in the headlines and scrambled the usual alignment of forces favoring either federal or state governments as the dominant power. </p>
<p>Whether it is the different decisions by governors about when to ease coronavirus restrictions, or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-mcconnell-states-bankruptcy.html" target="_blank">assertion</a> that states going bankrupt is preferable to a congressional "blue state bailout," arguments about the proper balancing of federal and state powers and responsibilities have become a regular part of our pandemic politics. </p>
<p>Democrats and liberals, and those who champion equality and inclusion, have generally <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/general/news/2012/04/26/11379/think-again-how-classical-liberalism-morphed-into-new-deal-liberalism/" target="_blank">opposed</a> states' rights at least since the New Deal. They have looked to the national government to promote policies that support disadvantaged people and minority groups. But, as the coronavirus crisis has progressed, and the national government's response to it has become more vigorous, the left has started singing a different tune. </p><p>States' rights sentiment is now enthusiastically embraced by Democrats such as Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, who last month <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-09/california-declares-independence-from-trump-s-coronavirus-plans" target="_blank">referred</a> to his home as a "nation-state" that might "export" needed medical supplies to other states. </p><p>This enthusiasm was <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/federalism-coronavirus-states-leadership.html" target="_blank">displayed</a> in reactions to Attorney General William Barr's threat to sue any states that keep people under what he termed "house arrest," and in the dustup over President Trump's <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/14/trump-power-constitution-coronavirus/" target="_blank">declaration that he</a> has the "ultimate authority" to decide when and how to reopen states. He told reporters assembled for one press briefing last month that "when somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total and that's the way it's got to be. ... It's total. The governors know that." </p><p>Trump's assertion of executive authority represented an astonishing change of course. Both before and after he boasted about his power, the president <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/america-has-never-had-50-state-disaster-before/608155/" target="_blank">had argued</a> that management of the crisis was the governors' problem. </p><p>Resistance came swiftly to Trump's claim of embodying total federal control. The third-ranking member of the House Republcian leadership, Liz Cheney of Wyoming, rallied to the defense of federalism, bluntly tweeting back that the federal government "does not have absolute power."</p><p>Gov. Andrew Curomo of New York <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/14/trump-coronavirus-reopen-us-cuomo" target="_blank">said</a>, "I don't know what the president is talking about, frankly … we don't have a king." The Democrat <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/492677-cuomo-there-will-be-a-constitutional-crisis-if-trump-tries-to-reopen" target="_blank">warned</a> of a "constitutional crisis" if the president ordered state officials to reopen their economies. Cuomo said he would openly "oppose" such an order.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1249845408127488000" id="twitter-embed-1249845408127488000" type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1249845408127488000&created_ts=1586821340.0&screen_name=Liz_Cheney&text=The+federal+government+does+not+have+absolute+power.+%0A%0A%E2%80%9CThe+powers+not+delegated+to+the+United+States+by+the+Consti%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FJvBYkxAHa6&id=1249845408127488000&name=Liz+Cheney" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="89ce96695c712b04a241a8458190f6f1"></iframe>
</p>
<p>The president initially compared Cuomo's defiance to a "mutiny" before tempering his remarks and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-testing-outcry-mounts-trump-cedes-to-states-in-announcing-guidelines-for-slow-reopening/2020/04/16/202ec300-7ffa-11ea-8013-1b6da0e4a2b7_story.html" target="_blank">changing his position</a> as criticism mounted.<br/></p><p>The mutiny to which Trump refers has roots in the early 19th century, when southerners <a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statesrights.html" target="_blank">waved the banner of states' rights</a> to protect slavery. </p><p>One of the most important early proponents was John C. Calhoun, who as vice president under Andrew Jackson argued that states had the right to "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/13/jackson-copes-with-nullification-crisis-jan-13-1833-333853" target="_blank">nullify</a>" and disregard whatever federal laws they regarded as unconstitutional. That view later fueled the secessions across the South.</p><p>States' rights, and the bold assertion of state prerogative against the federal government, were tainted by the legacy of slavery and the Civil War — a legacy that helps account for continued liberal <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/last-rites-for-states-rights/" target="_blank">resistance</a> to those ideas.</p><p>That resistance was cemented in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. Two years later, the "<a href="https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1951-2000/The-Southern-Manifesto-of-1956/" target="_blank">Southern Manifesto</a>" called on states to mount a campaign of "massive resistance" to desegregation of schools. </p><p>Gov. Orval Faubus of Arkansas and Gov. George Wallace of Alabama literally <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/orval-faubus-prevents-little-rock-high-school-integration-video" target="_blank">stood in schoolhouse doors</a> to do more than just prevent black students from attending previously all-white schools. They wanted to make clear their opposition to what they saw as the heavy-handedness of the federal government's effort to promote civil rights.</p><p>More recently, state sovereignty has been associated with opposition to gay marriage. While some states led the way in promoting marriage equality, leaders across the South <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/nullification-again/397373/" target="_blank">claimed</a> the Supreme Court's 2015 decision that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry violated the Constitution's protection of religious liberty — so state and local officials were not bound by that ruling.</p><p>There is, however, a lesser known history of states asserting themselves to promote democracy and equality. For example, Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1783. And in 1889, three decades before the adoption of the 19th Amendment, Wyoming became the first state to put women's suffrage into its state constitution. </p><p>The early 20th century saw <a href="https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-birth-direct-democracy-what-progressivism-did-the-states" target="_blank">states</a> lead the way in protecting workers from the ravages of unfettered capitalism, sometimes in spite of or in opposition to national policies. Reflecting on these initiatives in 1932, Justice Louis Brandeis <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/285/262" target="_blank">called</a> states "laboratories of democracy."</p><p>And in 1977, in the twilight of two decades of liberal activism on the high court, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. penned a <a href="https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Brennan-90_HVLR_489.pdf" target="_blank">Harvard Law Review article</a> calling on state supreme courts to ignore those U.S. Supreme Court decisions they found unconvincing and strike out on their own to protect civil liberties and civil rights.</p><p>Liberals also <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/reagan-nixon-trump-white-nationalism/595465/" target="_blank">embraced</a> states' rights when Republican presidents including Richard Nixon and George W. Bush occupied the White House. And, with the election of Donald Trump, they again warmed to that idea. Some even suggested that states should secede, what they call "<a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/140948/bluexit-blue-states-exit-trump-red-america" target="_blank">bluexit</a>." </p><p>And, when not dreaming of secession, liberals praised states for going their own way on environmental issues and asserting their prerogative to create <a href="https://www.aclu.org/aclu-response-sanctuary-city-legislation" target="_blank">sanctuaries</a> for people illegally in the country.</p><p>During the current national public health emergency, they are looking again to states for leadership. Fueled in part by liberal support, the country has entered a <a href="https://worldbusiness.org/perspectives-a-new-federalism-awaits-us-in-a-post-covid-19-america/" target="_blank">new era</a> for federalism in which the exercise of state prerogative will not wither when life returns to normal. </p><p>But as they continue to lead the nation's coronavirus response, governors and their liberal allies should make clear they are not advocating a wholesale return to states' rights. They should instead <a href="https://www.politicususa.com/2020/03/26/nancy-pelosi-on-tackling-coronavirus-science-is-an-answer-to-our-prayers.html" target="_blank">reiterate their commitment </a>to a democratic and inclusive society — and to a government committed to rationality, the rule of law and respect for human dignity at the local, state and federal level.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- If electors can be faithless, why have an Electoral College? - The ... ›
- A father-daughter film underscores states' rights to bar partisan maps ›
Related Articles Around the Web
- When the South Wasn't a Fan of States' Rights - POLITICO Magazine ›
- Post-Election, Liberals Invoke States' Rights | The New Yorker ›
- We're about to see states' rights used defensively against Trump - Vox ›
- States' Rights & The Civil War ›
- States' Rights, Depending on the Issue - The New York Times ›
Keep reading...
Show less