Доклад: American Federalism in 1990s

American Federalism in 1990s.

While it would be an overstatement to suggest that the average American has a

clear concept of meaning of federalism in 1994, there is some evidence than

issues, involving locus of governmental power are important to many. For

example, polling organizations frequently ask citizens - which level of

government most enjoys their trust and confidence. The results consistently

indicate, that people trust their local governments most and their national

government least. The states drift along in the middle. So, most Americans

view local government the most favorably.

However, as is the case in most areas of our political life, attitudes change

significantly when citizens are faced with specific issues. Even though

Americans appear to be committed to federalism in the abstract, they always

seem to have lengthy list of problems which they want the federal government

because state and local governments have failed to resolve them, or a list of

services which are perceived as poorly provided or not provided at all. It is

common for individuals and groups to respond to such perceptions by demanding

that the national government create new standards or mandates or provide

direct or indirect expenditures of money. Sometimes, they seek both.

While it is traditional to expect demands for increased national government

activity from more liberal, so-called «big government», elements in American

society, conservatives, who see themselves as a defenders of state’s rights

and local self-government also may jump on the bandwagon and demand national

action. Thus it is quite unsurprising that recently liberal elements in

American society have sought national legislation controlling access to

firearms, as reflected in recently-adopted Brady Bill, which requires dealers

to run checks on purchasers. On the other hand, it seems unusual, from a

federalism perspective, that conservative elements have sought national

government action to eliminate or restrict access to abortions or to permit

the introduction of prayers in the public schools.

Perhaps the best recent example of such a demand for national action may be

found in public safety area. There is a general perception, that high levels

of criminal activity made the persons and property of the average citizen in

this country unsafe. In general, however, the definition and control of

criminal behavior has historically been a state and local responsibility. Our

national officials sense that there is a demand for them to do something in

response to state and local failures. The result is anti-crime legislation at

the national level which has been proposed by the President and which is

largely supported by members of Congress. While many of us doubt the

effectiveness of the specific legislation, few people have seriously objected

to this activity as destructive of basic fabric of our federal system.

The result is an inconsistent and often confusing approach to solving

governmental problems in a federalist concept. In terms of practical

politics, the system provides multiple forms of access. Various groups, 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, that are satisfactory, they seek action at another level.

None of the models of the federal systems seems to describe this state of

affairs very well.

There is also confusion about federalism at another level in the US. We often

observe this best when trying 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 definition undemocratic.

These patriotic souls are skeptical of evidence which demonstrates that some

unitary systems are quite democratic, and that some federal systems are quite

autocratic in nature.

Still, others confuse federalism with the concepts of separation of powers

and checks and balances which are so important in understanding American

government. While federalism does indeed divide governmental powers and

involve some checking and balancing, separation of powers is a term, normally

reserved to discussions of the relations between the executive, legislative,

and judicial branches of our governments. This distinction is troublesome for

many of our students.

Due to my limited time I would like to state some most nuisance problems,

that became a heavy burden for 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 requires

new or improved services or level of regulation, but leaves funding largely

to state and local governments. This permits national level officials and

institutions to establish their own policy without any considering costs.

While that seems a poor way to operate, it fits in well with some traditional

American political attitudes in which costs of government services are either

ignored or assumed to be borne by someone else.

Some examples may illustrate the reasons for state complaints. In 1993, the

Congress passed a law requiring the states to provide a system of voter’s

registration which was