The ongoing political struggle continues a debate first started in 1781: Who will make decisions for America? The South Dakota Standard – The South…

The federal and state governmental response to Covid-19 has accentuated an American debate dating back to 1781 which government has the power to do what?

American history is essentially the story of this enduring power struggle. Over time, the practical balance of power (as illustrated in the above image from study.com) between states and the federal government (federalism) changed as our society evolved. To date, our republic has experienced five distinct epochs of federalism.

Unfortunately, the hallmark of our current epoch, Ad Hoc Federalism, is inconsistency, which, as current events repeatedly demonstrate, produces dysfunction rather than stable, effective government. A major power shift sufficient to trigger a new epoch is necessary to save the republic from what appears increasingly likely to be a death spiral for American democracy.

In 1984, (the book not the year), George Orwell observed that Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. In that spirit, it is worth exploring how and why we have a dysfunctional government today.

After declaring independence in 1776, the United States operated as an informal coalition of allied sovereign states until adopting the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union in 1781. The primary goal of the Articles was preservation of each states sovereign independence with only narrow grants of state authority to a weak central government. The myriad dysfunctions of this system resulted in rapid replacement of the Articles with our current Constitution in 1788.

Of course, the Constitution did not receive universal support. The fight over adoption was based upon principles that are once again major issues of concern. Advocating for the Constitution were the Federalists, who favored a strong central government with independent power and the ability to compel compliance by the states. In opposition were the Anti-Federalists, who opposed a strong central government as a threat to individual liberties and state sovereignty due to an increased potential for tyranny.

In the 1790s, both groups formed political parties with Anti-Federalists becoming Democratic-Republicans (Democrats) while Federalists kept the same moniker.

In contrast to the confederacy it replaced, the federal government detailed in our Constitution is empowered directly by the people through application of democracy consent of the governed just like state governments. As we learned in high school, the federal government has enumerated powers based upon explicit grants of authority and implied powers from undefined general grants of authority that displace state powers. There are also concurrent powers shared between states and the federal government.

This governmental structure of shared responsibilities and authority is relatively unique in the world as 85% of world nations have a system in which all power resides with the central government.

Our multi-tiered government invites disputes over power. In the past, such clashes were based upon a consistent ideological interpretation over time. Until 1933, the Dual Federalism Epoch was premised upon the federal and state governments with distinct jurisdictions and responsibilities. Each government exercised its authorities without interference from the other.

In the early 1800s, federal funds accounted for less than 1% of state budget revenue. Of course, Dual Federalism emboldened some states to try unilaterally nullifying federal law, resulting in the Civil War.

By 1933, the Great Depression demonstrated that a rigid separation between state and federal jurisdictions was a practical impossibility given the nature and scope of societal problems. In response, the epoch of Cooperative Federalism, in which both levels of government work together to maximize effectiveness, was born. This paradigm shift is embodied in Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelts New Deal programs, where the federal government took the lead in identifying problems, establishing a programmatic framework to address them, and providing funding, but turned over implementation and administration responsibilities to state and local governments. In the 1930s, federal funds increased to roughly 20% of state budget revenue.

By 1964, power shifted further to the federal government when it took over policymaking for all Americans by effectively compelling state and local governments to implement specified policies. This epoch of Centralized Federalism used federal funds (grants-in-aid) with detailed conditions that required states to support specific programs. Democratic President Lyndon Johnsons Great Society program exemplified this standardized approach to address poverty and racial injustice with spending on education, medical care, and urban renewal.

In 1980, Republican President Reagan implemented the New Federalism epoch, seeking to return power to states while reducing federal funding. Non-discretionary grants-in-aid were largely replaced with federal block grants to maximize state and local government discretion for greater customization. This approach, a reaction to the power shift begun during the New Deal, reflects the original Anti-Federalist ideal that government functions best at a level as close to the voters as possible.

The tug-of-war culminated in our current dysfunctional epoch of Ad Hoc Federalism that began at the start of this century. Politicians now demonstrate frustrating inconsistency advocating for either state or federal power in a self-serving manner contingent upon the partisan nature of the subject and whether the entity/official acting is from the same political party. This approach poses a unique risk to effective state governments because federal funds now account for 30% to 40% of most states budget revenue (37% for South Dakota.)

States also depend upon federal funds and resources in more than just the regular budget process. Threatened or actual withholding or delayed distribution of money/resources based upon partisan disfavor can have a serious adverse impact. For example, the Trump administration issued numerous threats to withhold federal disaster aid and other types of federal support to state and

local governments because they had Democratic leadership. Such actions illustrate the dangers of Ad Hoc Federalism, which is poised to get worse in the future.

Why so much history? Because when you are lost and in trouble, as American democracy currently is, finding your way to a better place requires three critical pieces of information where you came from, where you are now, and where you want to go.

Winston Churchill famously wrote Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In determining where the U.S. should go, a better lesson is, Attempts to repeat history are doomed to fail, learn from it.

The epoch of Dual Federalism, when power struggles were largely resolved in favor of states, lasted nearly 150 years. In contrast, over the past 90 years, federal power has remained preeminent across four different epochs. The historical context of each epoch suggests why attempts to repeat similar outcomes today are unlikely to succeed.

The principal reason for enduring federal preeminence is the 1913 ratification of the 16th Amendment authorizing a federal income tax. With the federal government drawing taxes directly from people and businesses, states are deprived of the foremost source of budget revenue. When the Great Depression began in 1929, the federal government was the only entity with the financial capacity to mount an organized, comprehensive response. It remains that way today.

The driving force of the U.S. economy when the income tax was implemented, however, is not the same as today. In the early 20th century, the wealthiest Americans were oil baron John D. Rockefeller and steel magnate Andrew Carnegie. Industry had recently displaced agriculture as the primary method of making money.

Mass communication, mass entertainment, mass education and mass consumption based upon the standardized model of mass production became the norm. The 1920 census revealed such a huge population (power) shift from agricultural to industrialized areas that Congress refused to reapportion seats in the House of Representatives.

A century later, the wealthiest Americans are technology titans Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg. The information economy (knowledge, information, and services) has displaced industry as the chief method of making money. In the process, it transformed the rest of American society by enabling a level of customization not previously possible.

In 1909, Henry Ford said a Model T was available in any color as long as its black. In 2021, an F-150 pickup has more than four million potential build configurations. Despite the possibility of getting exactly what you want in other areas of the economy, the federal government continues to function based upon the standardized model of 20th century industry.

Cooperative Federalism was empowered by President Roosevelts overwhelming mandate for change from winning 413 of 531 electoral college votes in 1932 and 523 of 531 in 1936. In 1964, President Johnsons win with 486 of 538 votes sustained his efforts with Centralized Federalism.

Similarly, President Reagans ability to implement New Federalism was facilitated by winning 489 of 538 votes in 1980 and 525 of 538 in 1984. In contrast, Ad Hoc Federalism is not the result of a presidential agenda. Establishing a new epoch requires a bold leader with an overwhelming popular mandate for change.

Since 1988, no president has won more than 365 electoral college votes. Ad Hoc Federalism developed in conjunction with the telecommunications and information technology boom (information economy) of the late 1990s. Infotainment stars from talk radio, cable television, and the internet shaped voter expectations requiring career politicians to follow along.

Our current epoch is thus guided by clickbait headlines and ratings as President Trump recognized.

Recall that the Anti-Federalists opposed a strong federal government due to the increased risk of tyranny (use of official powers to advance personal interests unrestrained by the rule of law). With Ad Hoc Federalism, tyranny is in the eye of the beholder. Recent events have shown that devolving substantial federal power to the states is necessary to minimize the existential risk to our democratic republic.

Presidents Biden and Obama were both labelled tyrants by Republicans. Obama for imposing the Affordable Care Act and issuing executive orders on immigration, Biden for imposing vaccine mandates on certain types of employees.

Similarly, Democrats objected to President Trumps blanket refusal to cooperate with congressional oversight efforts. He was also impeached for attempting to coerce a foreign nation into helping his re-election efforts and again for orchestrating violence to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after continuously deriding the legitimacy of an election without producing any credible evidence of alleged fraud.

So, this is where we are now. The federal government operates as a monolith in the 20th century industrial model. The 21st century information economy created and fosters the malign impact of Ad Hoc Federalism.

The risk of a tyrant destroying our democratic republic is no longer hypothetical. Polls indicate a substantial majority of Americans from across the political spectrum believe our democracy is in jeopardy. The question then is whether to blindly defend the worsening status quo hoping for a return to a lost past or put our faith in each other by charting a new path for the future.

As always, democracy offers the best way, the only way, to choose where we want to go.

Brian Bengs is an enlisted U.S. Navy veteran and retired U.S. Air Force officer. He has lived and worked all over the U.S. and the world but now calls Aberdeen home. He previously taught an array of law and policy topics at the U.S. Air Force Academy, International Institute of Humanitarian Law, NATO School Oberammergau, and Northern State University.

Read more:

The ongoing political struggle continues a debate first started in 1781: Who will make decisions for America? The South Dakota Standard - The South...