96 Chapter 3Chapter 3 || Federa lismFedera lismbetter what their constituents want than further-removed national politicians do. If the
voters want higher taxes to pay for more public benefits, such as public parks and better
schools, they can enact these changes at the state and local levels. On the other hand, if
they prefer lower taxes and fewer services, local politicians can be responsive to those
desires. In addition, local government provides a broad range of opportunities for
direct involvement in politics, from working on local political campaigns to attending
school board or city council meetings, which may increase the input that citizens have
in the establishment of new policies.
Third, our federalist system provides more potential paths to address problems. For
example, the court system allows citizens to pursue complaints under state or federal
law. Likewise, cooperative federalism can draw on the strengths of different levels of
government to solve problems. A local government may recognize a need and respond
to it more quickly than the national government, but if additional resources are needed
to address the problem, the municipality may be able to turn to the state or national
government for help—as in the cases of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, when
local governments were assisted by the U.S. military and FEMA (Federal Emergency
Management Agency) and received supplemental federal aid for rebuilding efforts.
Finally, federalism can provide a check on national tyranny. Competitive federalism
ensures that Americans have a broad range of social policies, levels of taxation and
regulation, and public services to choose from (see Figure 3.1). When people “vote
with their feet” by deciding whether to move and where to live, they encourage healthy
competition among states that would be impossible under a unitary government.Disadvantages of Too Much State Power
A balanced assessment of federalism must acknowledge that there are problems with
a system that gives too much power to the states. The disadvantages include unequal
distribution of resources across the states, unequal protection for civil rights, and
competition that produces a “race to the bottom.” Also, one puzzle (which we will
explore in other chapters) is that more people vote in national elections than in stateGovernment that is closer to the
people can encourage participation
in the political process and may be
more responsive to local needs. These
protesters in New York, for example,
are letting their local politicians know
their feelings on immigration policy.DID YOU KNOW?
Owing to a state program that is
similar to Obamacare, only2.5%
of people in Massachusetts don’t
have health insurance. In Texas, 16.6
percent of people do not have health
insurance—the highest percentage
in the nation.
Source: Census.govFull_04_APT_64431_ch03_070-101.indd 96 16/11/18 1:31 PM