Since the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, liberal activists and politicians have broken from typical Democratic Party tradition and embraced, whether explicitly or implicitly, a new political philosophy. It is one of federalism — the idea that cities and states should be subject to more local than national control. While certain issues require national instead of state policy, it is in the interests of both the country at large, and the left specifically, to continue to embrace federalist politics even if the Democrats regain control of the national government.
Instead of one-size-fits-all national policy, federalist politics emphasize the need for local control, which more accurately reflects voter preferences. We can see this new embrace of federalism in big-city mayors’ defenses of “sanctuary cities,” which reflect the assertion of the rights of municipalities to ignore certain federal laws.
Federalism has a complicated past in the context of the United States. The United States has drifted from delegating power to the states to concentrating it in national government. The rights of states have been maligned by Liberals because of their role in the continuation of Jim Crow laws throughout the South and of conflicts between slave-holding states and the federal government in the years preceding the Civil War.
While it is certainly true that federalism has been used as a tool to protect odious and despicable laws, the principles behind federalism are value-neutral. Indeed, federalism and states’ rights can be used to protect the advances of progressive causes. In fact, the future battleground between the federal and state governments will surely be laws related to the regulation of marijuana.
Democrats and liberal activists should emphasize the need for allowing states to pursue policies that reflect the sentiments of their voters. In this way, Democrats can pursue and protect their own interests in liberal strongholds even with Republicans in control of national government, while reducing Republican contempt and dissatisfaction in states where liberal policy is imposed despite overwhelming opposition.
Local politics can also be more meaningful and important for young college students to engage in because of their proximity to the issues facing their hometowns and states, and many of our now-prominent national politicians got their start in state and local institutions. The problem is, however, that the left will likely abandon its support of federalism when it inevitably regains power in the national government.
This would be a mistake. The key to stable politics is principled politics, not a system in which principles are shed as soon as elections are won. Instead, the embrace of federalism will do much to make our country more stable and our politics less toxic. If Liberals’ policies are really as beneficial to people as they claim, then the best way to win converts is to lead by example. If liberal states offer their citizens better lives, voters in other states might want to follow suit.
There is also a strategic element to the embrace of federalism. Democrats are at a disadvantage in national politics, and though much blame is heaped on gerrymandering, this is misplaced. Gerrymandering is certainly a roadblock, but the main reason that Democrats are at a disadvantage is because of geographic sorting; Democratic voters are increasingly concentrated in cities, focusing their power in deep-blue states and districts but not spreading their voting power around. If Democrats embrace federalism, they can achieve their preferred policies in liberal strongholds even while being held out of power at the national level. Solving the larger problem of national disadvantage is necessary but will take time and organization. In the meantime, Liberals would be wise to bide their time and shift their focus to local and state politics, instead of hoping for a miracle.
Because the left is currently out of power in the national government, it is incumbent upon them to inject principles back into our politics, support federalism even when in control of the national government and resist the temptation of power to impose policy from above.
Aaron Bondar is a sophomore double-majoring in economics and political science.