FEDERALISM TODAY| 79limited Congress’s power under the commerce clause, Congress still may induce
states to act according to its policy goals. However, as noted above, there are new
limits on budgetary coercion. In the health care reform case, the Court ruled that
the threat to withhold Medicaid funds was a “gun to the head” of states,^39 meaning
states did not have a real choice. This was the fi rst time the Court limited Con-
gress’s coercive budgetary power over the states, and the boundaries of the new
limits will have to be decided in future cases.
Assessing Federalism Today
From protecting indiv idua l liber t y to a l low ing states to be “ laboratories of democ-
racy” in policy innovation, there is much to recommend federalism as a corner-
stone of our political system. However, there are disadvantages as well, such as
ineffi ciency in the policy process and inequality in policy outcomes. How does fed-
eralism in the United States fare from a twenty-fi rst-century perspective?
IDEOLOGICAL COMPLEXITIES
Historically, issues concerning federalism have seemed to break down along tra-
ditional liberal and conservative lines. Liberals generally favor strong national
power to fi ght discrimination, and they push for progressive national policies on
issues such as protecting the environment, providing national health care, and
supporting the poor. Conservatives, in contrast, tend to favor limited intrusion
from the national government and allowing the states to decide their
own mix of social welfare and regulatory policies.
However, in recent years the tables have turned, and in many cases
liberals today are arguing for states’ rights while conservatives are
advocating the virtues of uniform national laws. On a broad range
of new issues, such as medical uses of marijuana, gay marriage,
cloning, and assisted suicide, state governments are passing
socially liberal legislation.^40 And the Court’s earlier, state-
centered rulings give it little precedent for striking down these
laws. The Court’s current conservative majority will either
have to continue applying its state-centered federalism and
uphold these liberal state laws, or strike them down on ideologi-
cal grounds, which would undermine the Court’s credibility.
ADVANTAGES OF A STRONG ROLE FOR THE STATES
The advantages of a strong role for the states can be summarized
in four main points: states can be laboratories of democracy, state
and local government is closer to the people, states provide more
access to the political system, and states provide an important check
on national power.
The fi rst point refers to the role that states play as the source of pol-
icy diversity and innovation. If many states are trying to solve problems
creatively, they can complement the eff orts of the national government. Like-
wise, successful policies fi rst adopted at the state level often percolate up to
the national level. Welfare reform, health care, and environmental policy are
key areas in which states have innovated.
IN THE DEBATE OVER HEALTH CARE
reform and the Affordable Care
Act, supporters of nationalized
health care argued that the
federal government could do a
better job than the patchwork of
state policies to ensure that all
Americans received suffi cient
care.