The abolition of slavery. Women’s right to vote. Desegregation of schools. The Civil and Voting Rights acts. Same-sex marriage.
All of these victories for progress have one thing in common: they involve the imposition of federal power over the states.
Indeed, the old neo-Confederate line on the Civil War is that it was about “states’ rights.” But I think it’s worthwhile to consider a classic reply to that.
A state’s right to what?
Conservatives and racists are not the only ones in America who can make use of our federal system.
In fact, I believe that liberals may have to use state and local government to accomplish their goals in the near future. Democrats will likely lose control of at least one house of Congress in November, and the nation’s highest court has a solidly conservative majority.
Andrew Karch is a political science professor at the University of Minnesota who studies federalism in public policy. He said it’s true there are “general tendencies” in which liberals tend to favor federal power (and local power in large, blue cities) more than conservatives. However, those principles “can sort of be downplayed if it’s in the pursuit of certain goals that these parties also find really important,” Karch said.
In other words, the stereotype about federal Democrats and state-based Republicans isn’t always true.
After the recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson overturning Roe v. Wade, liberals need to make sure we can protect abortion rights in states where we have control. This will become especially relevant if a federal abortion ban ever gains traction.
Climate change is a global crisis. But that doesn’t mean individual states can’t take action. Examples of this include California’s recent move to restrict its state pension funds’ ability to invest in oil, and a bill introduced in New York that would impose a fee on some fossil fuel companies to help pay for climate mitigation projects.
States could also impose a carbon tax. This would run the risk of industry fleeing to neighboring states, but it could also reduce a state’s share of carbon emissions.
There’s also the question of local government. At the federal level, Democrats are usually the ones favoring centralized government. However, this trend is sometimes reversed at the state and local levels.
This, Karch said, is because of how Americans are clustered ideologically. When there are liberal cities within a more conservative state, then liberals are likely to want to decentralize power to the city level, he said, citing the work of Yale law professor Heather Gerken.
On the other hand, “many state governments are increasingly adopting preemptive laws,” which prevent cities from passing certain policies. Karch gave the example of laws which prevent cities from raising their minimum wage — laws that exist in many states.
Raising the minimum wage should be a progressive priority. A 2019 review of international evidence on the minimum wage found that raising it has a minimal effect on employment and a significant effect on raising workers’ incomes.
Plus, studies have associated minimum wage increases with other benefits as well. These include decreased rates of smoking, child neglect, teen alcohol use, teen pregnancy and low birth weight among babies.
So liberal federalism isn’t just about states vs. the federal government – it’s also about expanding upon the power of local municipalities to set their own policies.
I’m not arguing for unconditional decentralization. Like I said at the beginning, many of this country’s greatest victories for liberty and justice have been the result of the imposition of federal power over states and localities.
But, I do believe that federalism can, at times, be useful for progressives. And I also believe that the coming period — one of gridlock and conservative control at the federal level — will be one in which federalism is particularly useful.
