Introduction to Topic	Go To Lesson Website	Useful Links
Indicative Quiz Page	Go to Discussion Area	Professor e-mail

Introduction to Topic

Again, in this chapter which the book handles very well, I will keep my comments to a minimum and will expect you instead to spend your time profitably in reading this chapter carefully. I will put emphasis on the very dynamic nature of our federal system. While it is true that the document which established our federal system (the U.S. Constitution) has remained remarkably stable over the years since its ratification, the system which it set up has been able to interpret and reinterpret that framework with exceptional flexibility.

The first formulation of the federal system (dual, or layer-cake federalism) did last for a very long time with rather few and minimal changes, but the great depression of the late 1920's prompted some massive changes. Roosevelt's New Deal represented a massive paradigm shift. The federal government, as if borrowing a page from policies advocated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, began to a shift from relative (if benign) neglect of the economy to active participation in several spheres of the lives of the people. Taking over some areas previously understood to be under the state's responsibility, but which the states were unable to attend to due to declining tax revenues (caused by the depression), the federal government moved from its previous negative government policy to a positive government one.

This massive shift in power and responsibilities, created the cooperative (or marble-cake) model of federalism. This model saw cooperation (sometimes less than willing, to be sure) between the federal and state levels of government, with federal grants (both formula and categorical) to the states providing the glue which held the system together. The federal government embarked upon the creation of the welfare state (although this was far from comparable to that which goes by the same title in Europe.) When the great depression and subsequent World War II ended, the dependence of the states upon federal grants insured that the system created did not end as many had expected.

It was at this point that yet another form of federalism emerged (though some political scientists see this as simply a subset of cooperative federalism...), which came to be known as centralized-, or creative federalism. (In several books, this form is known by the moniker "picket-fence federalism" though Ronald Reagan is credited with finding a cake analogy, calling this "fruit-cake federalism"...) This unusual form of federalism was launched by President Lyndon Johnson in his attempt to do away with the twin scourges of racism and poverty in the United States. It seemed clear to Johnson that much of his program would have no chance of proving acceptable to the conservative and often racist state legislatures in the Deep South, and in an attempt to bypass that hurdle, Johnson appeared poised to use a more liberal central government to move his "Great Society" program forward regardless of state oppostion. Whatever one thinks of the strategy, it would appear that the war in Vietnam, rather than the war on racism and poverty at home got the better of LBJ, and centralized-, or creative federalism achieved only limited success.

The final form of federalism presented by the book, came to be known as new federalism (or by some, as "on-your-own federalism"), and was credited to Ronald Reagan. However, the main tool used to create this new form of federalism, block grants, should clearly be credited to Richard Nixon. Reagan, using Nixon's brainchild, attempted to free the states from central government control by giving grants to the state while at the same time separating these grants from central government oversight and regulation. Unlike Nixon, however, Reagan withheld 20 to 25% of money making up the block grant and returned it to the federal treasury. Obviously, a good many of the Governors thus blind-sided were forced by this strategy to cut the programs that previous formula and categorical grants had created. Bush senior did little to change this situation.

In attaining the position of President, Clinton modified this form of federalism with a program which he called the new covenant, though some wags called this new-new federalism. This consisted largely of returning some of the money shaved by Reagan back to the states in the pre-existing block grants. After Clinton's intervention, roughly 10-15% of the monies making up the block grants (formed out of a blocking together of monies for formula and categorical grants) were withheld, allowing state governments to reinitiate some of the programs which they had no choice but to cut, during Reagan's tenure.

And as for "W" and his policies, rather little seems to have changed in a carefully planned out manner. It has been interesting to note, however, that a Republican president has been responsible for both considerable centralization of power of the federal government with the creation of the Homeland Security Department, as well as rather extravagant federal spending increases (leading to a record $575 million deficit this year alone) in the areas of Homeland Security and Defense. Both of these stand, of course, in stark contradiction to stated Republican "States' Rights" priorities...

As for points that I want you to pay particular attention to:

There is a school of thought which sees much of US policy-making as something of a pendulum process. Moving as it were from one extreme to another in search of some kind of equilibrium. One of the classic examples used to illustrate this trend is the move from a unitary (and hence heavily centralized) form of government (as colonies of the United Kingdom), to a confederal model (which, by its very nature, is just about as decentralized as a government can get), before some type of equilibrium was found in our present federal form of government. Can you see any similarities in the subsequent moves and changes in the federal government from decentralized, to centralized and again towards decentralization in federal control over the government system? Again, just something to think about...