Last night, I was listening to Matt K. Lewis and Bill Scher on bloggingheads discuss CPAC. One point that was brought up was the increasing number of prominent Republicans who have taken the position that gay marriage is a "state issue" and the federal government should leave it alone. This is Marco Rubio's position.
In certain respects, this is clearly a dodge. Gay marriage is a generational issue and young people across the political spectrum overwhelmingly support it. If the Republican party is to have a future it will need to eventually support gay marriage or at least become indifferent about it.
What is more interesting, however, is thinking about the role of federalism in modern politics. Federalism can mean two different things: 1) the federal government has less power and the states do more; or 2) the states are given the power to craft solutions that address local needs, because they are more adept at dealing with local issues. As political parties and interest groups become more centralized and nationally based, Federalism--as advocated by the Republican party--is increasingly become more like the first version. Large interest groups now have the capacity to enforce party discipline at the state level. If you are a Republican legislator in Minnesota and you vote in favor of gay marriage, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) will spend money to defeat you in the next election. Likewise, Bob McDonnell didn't get invited to CPAC this year, presumably because his transportation bill included a tax hike. Same for Chris Christie, whose support for gun control in New Jersey meant he wasn't coming.
The best example of this phenomenon is Mitt Romney. Romney was the governor of Massachusetts,one of the bluest states. The people of Massachusetts were in favor of universal healthcare in their state. As governor, Romney basically crafted a solution that met the goal of universal coverage but did so in a way that preserved the private market for insurance. One could see this as a triumph of federalism, where a Republican governor met the needs of his state, without eliminating the market-based system favored by conservatives. But when he ran for President in 2008 and 2012, party leaders and conservatives didn't really see it this way, and he had to distance himself from this policy. (Note: it obviously didn't help that Obamacare was based on his Massachusetts plan)
In certain respects, this makes sense. Political parties should be ideologically coherent, and interest groups want to promote their positions at both the state and federal level. But this presents a real challenge for true supporters of federalism. Well funded, centralized interest groups and party leaders can stifle the ability of state legislators to find workable solutions that are favored by their constituents. If federalism means anything, it's that the voters of Virginia, and their elected representatives, are the people best suited to make decisions about how to fund Virginia's highways, and that a few leaders of the ACU (who put on CPAC) shouldn't really have much influence on that process.
In an era when highly centralized interest groups are able to exert pressure on state representatives, is there any room for real federalism?
No comments:
Post a Comment