Polarization and Federalism

Today’s (Sunday’s) Washington Post has a long, interesting, data-filled article documenting the astounding polarization of American politics at all levels—in Congress, between states, across electoral districts, at the county level, and among population groups that live in different universes, functionally and opinion-wise. There’s been a long-running debate among political scientists over whether political polarization is mostly a matter of elite opinion and of institutional dynamics (such as political gerrymandering) that exacerbate differences of opinion within an electorate that, by and large, remains middle-of-the-roadish; or whether the sharp divisions that threaten to immobilize our politics have deeper roots in public attitudes. By and large, the Post piece supports the latter view. The Post quotes Bill Galston to the effect that Americans now disagree very fundamentally about the role of government—and it shows.

I’ve suggested on earlier occasions that such divisions, very often running along state lines, are a potent argument for federalism. (States are much more governable, and a great deal could be gained by way of civic harmony and sensible government if, instead of trying to find a national compromise on everything, we could just agree to disagree.) Needless to say, not everyone shares that view. In an intriguing recent book called The Fallacies of States’ Rights, Notre Dame professor Sotirios Barber argues that

Greve is whistling “Dixie” here. His promise of diversity cannot be serious. The communities of his [competitive federalism] system will not differ significantly from each other in terms of the issues that have historically divided Americans.

I think Barber is both wrong and partially right here. Communities will differ significantly in terms of the issues that divide us now—provided we let them. But we have to agree to let them; and that presupposes some national debate and rough consensus.

The difficulty in that debate isn’t that the “promise of diversity cannot be serious.” The difficulty is that it is serious—and that one side (Professor Barber’s) cannot accept it for that very reason. The entire Democratic Party and its constituents depend on federal transfer payments, regulatory cartels, and intergovernmental bureaucracies that provide jobs and benefits. For all of them, competitive federalism’s promise spells suicide.

For mid-November, Boston University Law Sc hool has arranged a debate between Professor Barber and yours truly: he’ll critique The Upside-Down Constitution, and I’ll critique his Fallacies. The essays will appear in a later issue of the Boston University Law Review. It’s a terrific format, and it’ll be fun. I’ll keep y’all posted.

Michael S. Greve

Michael S. Greve is a professor at George Mason University School of Law. From 2000 to August, 2012, Professor Greve was the John G. Searle Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where he remains a visiting scholar. His most recent book is The Upside-Down Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2012).

About the Author

Recent Popular Posts

Related Posts


  1. R Richard Schweitzer says

    “Greve is whistling “Dixie” here. His promise of diversity cannot be serious. The communities of his [competitive federalism] system will not differ significantly from each other in terms of the issues that have historically divided Americans”

    No, Professor Greve is **not** “whistling.” What can (and would) “differ significantly,” even where the “terms of [divisive] issues” may not seem to “differ significantly” are: (1) how those terms are seen (understood) by the **individuals** affected by the issues; (2) the more “diverse” nature of “solutions,” “resolutions,” or mitigations of “divisions” that may result from proximity to individual choices and their impacts; (3) determinations of the implementations of solutions, resolutions, and mitigations that permit the broadest forms of freedoms of individual choices to displace coercion with cooperation.

    And why is **everything** so politicized? How have those factors generating that politicization affected the centralization for determination of solutions, resolutions and mitigations ? Are there any “buffers” left for the continuing effectiveness of individual choice? Is de-centralization through the diverse organizations and “politics” of state governments still one of those “buffers?”

    Recommended: “The Politicization of Society” (K. S. Templeton, ed. 1979) still available in the Liberty Fund “backlist.” [Especially Essay Eight]

  2. gabe says

    Ahhh, my friends, you all seem to miss the real point here! The COURT will settle everything for poor afflicted souls such as we are. The States have no rights, nor do the people – only those rights that the COURT deems fit to PERMIT and / or CREATE. That is the diversity to which we are doomed!!!
    My god, I am starting to sound like a supporter of the LOST CAUSE! Oh well, if the fit wears, then shoe it!!!

    take care

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>