American Federalism in 1990s.While it would be anoverstatement to suggest that the average American has a clear concept ofmeaning of federalism in 1994, there is some evidence than issues, involvinglocus of governmental power are important to many. For example, pollingorganizations frequently ask citizens – which level of government most enjoystheir trust and confidence. The results consistently indicate, that people trusttheir local governments most and their national
government least. The statesdrift along in the middle. So, most Americans view local government the most favorably. However, as is the casein most areas of our political life, attitudes change significantly whencitizens are faced with specific issues. Even though Americans appear to be committed to federalism in theabstract, they always seem to have lengthy list of problems which they want thefederal government because state
and local governments have failed to resolvethem, or a list of services which are perceived as poorly provided or notprovided at all. It is common for individuals and groups to respond to suchperceptions by demanding that the national government create new standards ormandates or provide direct or indirectexpenditures of money. Sometimes, they seek both. While it is traditionalto expect demands for increased national government activity from more liberal,so-called big government , elements in
American society, conservatives, whosee themselves as a defenders of state s rights and local self-government alsomay jump on the bandwagon and demand national action. Thus it is quite unsurprising that recently liberal elements in Americansociety have sought national legislation controlling access to firearms, asreflected in recently-adopted Brady Bill, which requires dealers to run checkson purchasers.
On the other hand, it seems unusual, from a federalismperspective, that conservative elements have sought national government actionto eliminate or restrict access to abortions or to permit the introduction ofprayers in the public schools. Perhaps the best recentexample of such a demand for national action may be found in public safetyarea. There is a general perception, that high levels of criminal activity madethe persons and property of the average citizen in this country unsafe.
Ingeneral, however, the definition and control of criminal behavior hashistorically been a state and local responsibility. Our national officialssense that there is a demand for them to do something in response to state andlocal failures. The result is anti-crime legislation at the national levelwhich has been proposed by the President and which is largely supported bymembers of Congress. While many of us doubt the effectiveness of the specificlegislation, few people have seriously
objected to this activity as destructiveof basic fabric of our federal system. The result is aninconsistent and often confusing approach to solving governmental problems in afederalist concept. In terms ofpractical politics, the system provides multiple forms of access. Variousgroups, no matter what ideological view of the federal system, take a pragmatic approach. That is,when their preferred level of government fails to produce policy results, thatare satisfactory,
they seek action at another level. None of the models ofthe federal systems seems to describethis state of affairs very well. There is also confusionabout federalism at another level in the US. We often observe this best whentrying to teach about the system in our American Government classes. For some,federalism is equated with democracy.This is to say that they believe that unitary systems are by definitionundemocratic.
These patriotic souls are skeptical of evidence which demonstrates that some unitary systemsare quite democratic, and that some federal systems are quite autocratic innature. Still, others confusefederalism with the concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances which are so important inunderstanding American government. While federalism does indeed dividegovernmental powers and involve some checking and balancing, separation
ofpowers is a term, normally reserved to discussions of the relations between theexecutive, legislative, and judicial branches of our governments. Thisdistinction is troublesome for many of our students. Due to my limited timeI would like to state some most nuisance problems, that became a heavy burdenfor every American, involved in active politics in any way. First, we should mention the so-called unfunded mandate ,that became the biggest bone of contention
in American intergovernmental rules.An unfunded mandate can be said to exist when the national government requiresnew or improved services or level of regulation, but leaves funding largely tostate and local governments. This permits national level officials andinstitutions to establish their own policy without any considering costs. Whilethat seems a poor way to operate, it fits in well with some traditionalAmerican political attitudes in which costs of government services are eitherignored or assumed to be borne by
someone else. Some examples mayillustrate the reasons for state complaints. In 1993, the Congress passed a lawrequiring the states to provide a system of voter s registration which was