The National Journal has an article using neighbors Indiana and Illinois to illustrate the increasingly divergent paths of Red States and Blue States:
After the 2010 election expanded Indiana Republicans' control of the state Senate and provided them a majority in the state House, GOP lawmakers joined with Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels to briskly advance a long list of conservative priorities. Together they adopted tough measures on illegal immigration (including legislation similar to Arizona's controversial enforcement bill); expanded the school-voucher program; limited collective bargaining by teachers; and overrode local restrictions that prevent gun owners from carrying their weapons in many public buildings. To much fanfare, Republicans defunded Planned Parenthood and enacted a raft of constraints on abortion, including a ban on the procedure after 20 weeks of pregnancy—a provision that critics say violates the constitutional right to abortion that the Supreme Court established under Roe v. Wade in 1973.
Two hundred miles to the west, in Springfield, Ill., the Legislature has marched, nearly as rapidly, in the opposite direction. Illinois Democrats have moved aggressively to leverage a 2010 election that maintained their party's control of the state House and Senate and installed Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn for a full term. While devising a budget to salve the desperate fiscal condition, Illinois Democrats made permanent the state's longtime moratorium on the death penalty. Quinn withdrew Illinois from a controversial federal illegal-immigration enforcement plan championed by President Obama, and signed a law that provides undocumented immigrants in-state higher-education benefits, including tax-advantaged savings. In January, the governor approved a civil-union bill that provides same-sex couples spousal rights equivalent to those of heterosexual couples. “It was,” Democratic state Rep. Greg Harris said with studied understatement, “a good year.”
Our system was set up for states to be the "laboratories of democracy" and federalism was designed to let local officials experiment based on their knowledge of local priorities. Indiana doesn't have to be like Nevada, and California doen't have to be like Iowa. Let ideas compete so everybody can see which ones work and which ones don't.
But the authors wonder if the fragmentation of today's "extremist legislation" and the increasing gap between Red and Blue State policies are testing the limits of federalism. It's an interesting debate, but I'm not sure to what end. Even if we agree with them that this is worrisome, the only solution would seem to be more control from Washington and less autonomy for the states, and that solution would be worse than the problem.
Comments
No, the Articles of Confederation gave virtually all power to the states. It didn't work, so we now have the Constitution, which gives considerably more power to the federal government. I know you'd like it to be otherwise, but your desires don't change reality. Consult your psychiatrist.
Maybe you should consult a history book. The Constitution did give more power to the federal government, but the founders feared centralized power, so they gave the national government only a very few powers carefully spelled out, with all other powers reserved to the states and the people. Over time, however, the roles have been reversed. Now, the federal government can do whatever it likes, and state and local governments are the ones that have to beg for permission to act. Even the Bill of Rights, which was designed as the great federal limiter, has been turned on its head, now being an instrument of Washington instead of a check on its power. The founders knew that power tends to accumulate, so they put in every diffuser of power they could think of. Unfortunately, they were even more right than they knew, and great power has accumulated despite their best efforts. They never meant for us to have quite the federal monster we now have. I know you'd like it to be otherwise.
Littlejohn, just a suggestion, you might want to start by reading the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The federal government, (through mostly obtuse machinations by control freak nannies otherwise known as Democrats) has become a centralized behemoth that now controls virtually every move made by what used to be a free people.
Tim, we fought a war and passed the 14th Amendment to correct the problems introduced by the 10th Amendment.
Calling it "obtuse machinations" is a terrible insult to the memory of the 625,000 men who gave their lives in that war - and to the Constitution.