88 Chapter 3Chapter 3 || Federa lismFedera lismprefer the results of state-led policies to a situation wherein states must obey federal
directives. For example, many Republican attempts to repeal and replace the
Affordable Care Act (the ACA, or “Obamacare”) have proposed shifting federal
Medicaid funds to the states in the form of a block grant. In theory, this block grant
would allow states to design health care programs tailored to their specific populations.
However, over time, the amount of funds in these block grants would be less than
planned spending for Medicaid under Obamacare, meaning that federal spending on
health care for the poor would decrease—presumably leading to cuts in the services
available to these individuals.Expanding National Power
Despite the overall shift toward cooperative federalism, strong overtones of national
government supremacy remain. Three important characteristics of American politics
in the past 60 years have reinforced the role of the national government: (1) reliance
on the national government in times of crisis and war; (2) the “rights revolution” of the
1950s and 1960s, as well as the Great Society programs of the 1960s; and (3) the rise of
coercive federalism.Crisis and War Reliance on the national government in times of crisis and war has
always been a characteristic of American politics. Even in the 1800s, during the period
of dual federalism and strong state power, the national government’s strong actions
were needed during the Civil War to hold the nation together. More recently, after Hur-
ricanes Harvey and Irma devastated coastal communities in Florida, Louisiana, and
Texas in 2017, most people looked to the federal government to deliver emergency sup-
plies, aid in rescue operations, and allocate funds for rebuilding affected communities.
Policy responses to the major crises of the twentieth century (the Great Depression’s
New Deal policies, the massive mobilization for World War II), as well as the response
to the banking meltdown of 2008–2009, also dramatically shifted the balance of power
toward Washington.The “Rights Revolution” and Great Society Programs The “rights revolution”
initiated by the Supreme Court, as well as Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs,
contributed to increased national control over state policies. Landmark Court decisions
thrust the national government into policy areas that had typically been reserved to the
states. In the school desegregation and busing cases of the 1950s and 1960s, for example,
the Court upheld the national goal of promoting racial equality and fighting discrimina-
tion over the earlier norm of local control of school districts.^10 The “one person, one vote”
decisions, which required that the populations of legislative districts be equalized when
district lines were redrawn, put the federal courts at the center of another policy area that
had always been left to the states.^11 The rights revolution also applied to police powers,
another area of traditional state control, including protection against self-incrimination
and preventing illegally obtained evidence from being used in a criminal trial.^12
These Court actions were paralleled by a burst of legislation that tackled civil rights,
education, the environment, medical care for the poor, and housing. These so-called
Great Society policies made the national government much more active in policy areas
previously controlled by state and local governments. For example, after passage of
the 1965 Voting Rights Act, federal marshals were sent to the South to make sure that
African Americans were allowed to vote.
In the 1960s, the national government also expanded its reach through a large
increase in categorical grants, which the states sorely needed even though theThe operations of the federal
government will be most
extensive and important in times
of war and danger; those of the
State governments, in times of
peace and security.— James Madison, Federalist 45Full_04_APT_64431_ch03_070-101.indd 88 16/11/18 1:30 PM