There are three levels of government: local, state and federal. Perhaps the single longest running political argument in the United States is the struggle between folks who believe that the central seat of authority should lie in any one of those places. This debate was present at the Constitutional Convention in Philadephia, and it continues to dominate, in various ways, the debates this country has had over the past many years. Slavery as an issue was also framed as one of states' rights: should the federal government have the power to determine the slave or free status of a new state? It continues now - whenever the canard about having "some Washington bureaucrat" involved in the education/medical care/morality standards of a group of people, this is an argument for states rights.
There is a certain logic to the idea that the smaller the area being governed, the more responsive the government can be. On the flip side, the smaller the area governed, the more likely it is that the entities that are to be governed will be outside the jurisdiction or will move to be so if doing so will rid them of regulation. Thus, the broader area of government, the more likely it is that the regulation will have sufficient reach. Thus it can be said that the struggle can be thought of in terms of degree of scope.
Perhaps to give a more down to earth example, let's say I am a clothing manufacturer. If I make clothes for one family I can easily tailor the clothes to fit each member of the family. But, if I am the only manufacturer of clothing, then all the other folks in the community are going naked. So, I am very responsive, but the breadth of my coverage is very small. If I expand my operations to a whole community, I cannot take the time to tailor to each person, so I will make a set of clothing for a range of sizes. These will fit some people perfectly, some less so. There may even be those for whom I make no clothes that fit. My responsiveness has decreased, but my ability to cover more people has increased. As I increase the size of my operation, so do I decrease my ability to be responsive to individuals.
Obviously, there is some medium to be reached. There is some point on every issue where the balance is struck. Defense matters, for example, are a good example of a policy that is best enacted at the broadest possible level - we all want to be defended. On the other hand (in very simplistic terms) what does Nebraska need with a destroyer or submarine? In order to protect the oceans and coastal areas (again, I'm being simplistic) people who are in non-coastal areas have to pay for a navy. So it isn't a perfect fit, but in terms of the overall goal, defense, this misfit is not such a big deal. On the other hand, when it comes to issues of zoning, for example, it makes little sense to approach this on a federal basis. The national government simply does not have the resources to examine how every acre of land in the USA is zoned. The issues of zoning vary on a nearly neighborhood basis, and as such are handled locally. It is the issues that are not clearly under the aegis of local, state and federal governments that cause the problems.
I think it is clear that each issue needs to be individually scrutinized for the "best fit" with regards to the level of government that should help it. I think there also needs to be long looks at hybrid plans - plans that require a national standard (say some sort of educational proficiency) but have the implementation take place at a local level with funding coming from all three levels to ensure that there is the proverbial "level playing field" for poorer and richer districts. It is important not to approach these issues dogmatically (i.e. "Federal gummint is bad" or "only strong central government can be trusted to do what needs to be done").
I know this is sort of a toothless post - mostly I'm exploring my own thinking. Still, it is useful to look at this issue afresh. Perhaps the differences between states rights and federal authority aren't as far apart as we seem. I think the ends are the same, it is the means we are trying to work out.
No comments:
Post a Comment