Liberal Federalism?

Slate has an interesting article up about how liberals might want to embrace "federalism" - returning power to the states. Liberals, of course, have long been against lots of states' rights because it often was an excuse for conservatives to continue discriminatory policies and overturn parts of the New Deal. The writer, however, argues that their is less need to worry about he former in today's world and the latter is happening on the national level, and the reverse might be possible in today's political climate:

"Liberals often have a reflexive distaste for decentralization of political power: State and local autonomy strike them as provincial and regressive. But much of the association of federalism with conservative politics is the result of historical accident: There is nothing inherently conservative about limitations on the power of Congress and the executive. And now that both of these branches are firmly controlled by conservatives, perhaps liberals will begin to see the merits of meaningful federalism. They won't need to look far: The president, mounting that favorite hobby horse of conservatives—tort reform—has just proposed federal legislation to limit medical malpractice awards. Even a modicum of respect for the prerogatives of the states should stay Congress' hand: Tort liability has always been a matter of state law, and the effects of supposedly excessive awards in one state should have few consequences for the quality or cost of medical care in other states.

Federalism is not just for conservatives, anymore," he argues.

I had pondered this before, especially on the very issues of tort reform and state medical marijuana laws he brings up (even being liberal, I generally agree the states can settle such things themselves). It is clear conservatives have abandoned their ideals of states' rights and smaller government. This is not surprising. As the writer says, the union between conservatism and federalism is more historical than philosophical. The practice of federalism (through the courts) naturally benefits those not in majority control of the national government the most, like the conservatives in the past. However, now that conservatives are in the majority, and thus have found themselves able to facilitate their ideals through national policy, it only makes since they would abandon federalism. There is no reason that now that liberals are the minority on the national stage that they can't use federalism to their advantage now.

It is clear, as the article points out, that liberals can use federalism to both fend off conservative policies (such as tort reform, draconion drug laws, and the Patriot Act) and push progressive ones like California's stell-cell research program and rights for same-sex couples.

Of course, the reason liberals don't like the idea of federalism in the first place is because of fears conservative state governments would use it as a means to erode civil liberties and rights and they have in the past. However, as the author says, as long as this area was kept untouchable by the states there shouldn't be a problem. Also, liberals want everyone to benefit from national government programs and policies, not just liberals in liberal states. Of course, we would continue to fight such things on the national stage, but such is so cemented in American society there is no longer a worry about abolishment. Even Republicans now only argue for reform to social programs and regulation. And also - and here's where the real benefits show - blue states like Vermont have a better health program than we have nationally anyway. Besides, since progressives in those states are the ones who have to work to get good people elected either way, it makes no difference.

Obviously with these requirements, "liberal federalism" would be nothing like what conservatives had once envisioned. It's a highly interesting idea, although probably not something that could be a lasting ideological change. Liberals will one day be back in charge on the national stage and the cycle will start again. But, in the mean time, it is a new battleground for progressives to take the fight. And, as the article also points out, a way to really compare liberal and conservative policies side-by-side. If tort reform really brings down health costs, we will see that in states (like here in Texas) that have it. If expanding Medicaid works to cut the number of uninsured, we will see that in places like Vermont. One might think it a good idea just to try and settle these policy arguments once and for all.