3 ms·

I think this is a very important point. The more that power the is wielded at the Federal level the more that national politics divide the American people. Emph

I think this is a very important point. The more that power the is wielded at the Federal level the more that national politics divide the American people. Emphasizing state power, a red state can adopt one policy while a blue state can adopt another, yet each policy has minimal effect on the other, so there is no reason for citizens of either state to care all that much what the other state does. But in a system that emphasizes Federal power (which our system has been trending towards) this indifference is less likely because citizens are forced to live under whichever policy won at the Federal level.

craftyguy 8y ago
> But in a system that emphasizes Federal power (which our system has been trending towards) this indifference is less likely because citizens are forced to live under whichever policy won at the Federal level This system has been in place in the US for well over 200 years. The US has a long history of states vs federal government, don't believe the folks who tell you that today is any different in that respect.
- rayiner 8y ago
  The relative influence of state versus federal government has changed quite dramatically over time. In 1930, federal spending was 3.5% of GDP, versus state spending which was 9.1% of GDP. Today, it's 24% federal versus 14.8% state. Also relatively new is the use of federal constitutional law to overturn local social/moral regulation. Half a century after Roe v. Wade, a supermajority of people in states like Alabama and Mississippi believe that abortion should be illegal in most/all cases. That's for both men and women (who poll similarly on abortion). Meanwhile, voters in Maryland are riled up to take back the Senate to protect Roe, not because there is a danger of abortion becoming illegal in Maryland (where it's supported by voters 2:1), but to make sure it stays legal in Alabama and Mississippi. In retaliation, voters in Alabama and Mississippi have made it harder for women in Maryland or Massachusetts to actually get abortions, by securing a federal ban on funding them (which creates a huge barrier because the federal government bankrolls Medicaid). In other areas, federal constitutional law was used to strike down lots of moral regulations in conservative states (e.g. on obscenity) that were considered perfectly acceptable at the time of the founding. (Of course, in retaliation, conservatives have figured out how to use the expansive nature of the federal government to hamper the loosening of moral regulation in liberal states, e.g. marijuana laws).
- SubiculumCode 8y ago
  For much of the first 75 years of the United States, the president was very weak, and federal law was generally scarce. There was often not even a standing army.

craftyguy 8y ago

> But in a system that emphasizes Federal power (which our system has been trending towards) this indifference is less likely because citizens are forced to live under whichever policy won at the Federal level This system has been in place in the US for well over 200 years. The US has a long history of states vs federal government, don't believe the folks who tell you that today is any different in that respect.

rayiner 8y ago
The relative influence of state versus federal government has changed quite dramatically over time. In 1930, federal spending was 3.5% of GDP, versus state spending which was 9.1% of GDP. Today, it's 24% federal versus 14.8% state. Also relatively new is the use of federal constitutional law to overturn local social/moral regulation. Half a century after Roe v. Wade, a supermajority of people in states like Alabama and Mississippi believe that abortion should be illegal in most/all cases. That's for both men and women (who poll similarly on abortion). Meanwhile, voters in Maryland are riled up to take back the Senate to protect Roe, not because there is a danger of abortion becoming illegal in Maryland (where it's supported by voters 2:1), but to make sure it stays legal in Alabama and Mississippi. In retaliation, voters in Alabama and Mississippi have made it harder for women in Maryland or Massachusetts to actually get abortions, by securing a federal ban on funding them (which creates a huge barrier because the federal government bankrolls Medicaid). In other areas, federal constitutional law was used to strike down lots of moral regulations in conservative states (e.g. on obscenity) that were considered perfectly acceptable at the time of the founding. (Of course, in retaliation, conservatives have figured out how to use the expansive nature of the federal government to hamper the loosening of moral regulation in liberal states, e.g. marijuana laws).
SubiculumCode 8y ago
For much of the first 75 years of the United States, the president was very weak, and federal law was generally scarce. There was often not even a standing army.