An experiment in federalism

With Obamacare before the Supreme Court this week, some arcane jargon has entered the news cycle.

Never before have so many reporters pretended to understand or be interested in things like severability or the Anti-Injunction Act.

One term that has not been getting much airtime is federalism. If Republicans had the capacity to coordinate a national campaign, they would be talking about federalism endlessly.

Federalism would give state and local governments wider authority and more responsibility for policy while the federal government would become smaller.

Federalism must be an integral part of any serious attempt to solve America’s long-term structural problems, including education, entitlements and the national debt.

If states are empowered, fewer people will rely on the federal government. Once citizens stop viewing the president and Congress as a limitless ATM, there will be less incentive for politicians to thoughtlessly throw money at problems in exchange for votes.

Additionally, voters will have greater ability and incentive to hold elected officials accountable for their actions. State politicians will not be able to blame their mistakes on forces in Washington.

Federalism makes politics less anonymous and less abstract. Citizens can actually see the results of government spending, particularly at the local level.

More importantly, voters can be better informed about local issues than about national ones, and therefore can make better electoral decisions.

Not surprisingly, federalism has not fared well under the Obama administration. The impulse of Democratic policy on health care, the economy and regulation has been toward greater centralization of power in Washington.

Although President Barack Obama has been throwing money around at unprecedented levels, the problem of overcentralization certainly predates the 2008 election.

To this day, President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act enjoys wide bipartisan disapproval.

Even more dramatic examples of destructive overcentralization are the mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Imagine how much smaller the financial crisis would have been if Fannie and Freddie had merely been the largest companies in one state rather than in the entire country.

Such blatant examples of federal ineptitude should make the rhetorical task in 2012 easy for Republicans.

So far, however, only Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has made a concrete proposal explicitly designed to shrink the federal government. Ryan deserves much credit for putting his name on a necessary, though likely unpopular, document.

Plenty of Republicans pay lip service to smaller government in front of conservative audiences. So far, none of them have shown much willingness to actually risk their careers for the concept.

The lack of a coherent alternative to Obama’s policies is an example of the self-preservation instinct of comfortable politicians.

Ignoring difficult problems might be a politically effective way to campaign, but if Republicans win another election, it will not help them govern.

­— jzsoldos@indiana.edu