Federalism or Anti-Federalism—That is the Question

A federalist is someone who takes the side of the federal government vis-à-vis state governments. When the two are in conflict, such a person sides with the former. The anti-federalist, of course, takes the opposite position. By extension, when it comes to a dispute between state and local levels of government, such as counties or cities, the centralist (federalist proxy) supports the state governments, and the decentralist (anti-federalist proxy), the counties or cities.

The federal and state governments are often at odds with one another as to how to deal with some issue or other. This is a crucially important matter, particularly in this era of the COVID-19 pandemic. One could as well argue about the more current issue of presidential executive orders, especially those where there is a clash between federal and state or local power.

We should, in general, take neither a federalist nor an anti-federalist position. Rather, we should support whichever policy it is, centralist or decentralist, that has the best chance of dealing not just with a disease or executive order but, indeed, with any challenge.

The best way to deal with the coronavirus or executive order controversies, however, is beyond the scope of our present considerations. The bottom line, here, is that we should, in general, take neither a federalist nor an anti-federalist position. Rather, we should support whichever policy it is, centralist or decentralist, that has the best chance of dealing not just with a disease or executive order but, indeed, with any challenge.

How do the various political factions fall out on this important question? It cannot be denied that there is some correlation: the Left, or the Democrats, tend in the direction of centralization, while the Right, or the Republicans, tend toward decentralization. However, there really is no right answer. It all depends upon whose ox is being gored. In past decades, the conservatives favored states’ rights (mainly in support of the South), while the liberals opposed it. Nowadays, the tables have turned, and progressives are looking to states such as California to override federal immigration programs vis-à-vis what they see as unwarranted federal incursions. Similarly, when President Reagan threatened New York City with a cutoff of funds unless it eliminated its prized rent control law, the shoe was suddenly on the other foot.

Similar goings-on occur at the state versus city level. In Parkland, Florida, after the deadly shooting that took place there, local citizens demanded stricter gun control laws. However, a law passed in 2011 in Florida gave that state the right to override such policies implemented at the more local level. These preemption laws hold city and county officials personally responsible for enacting local strictures that conflict with state firearm laws.

So, which is the rational position for the various contending political advocates to take? Federalism or anti-federalism—that is the question. The correct view is: neither. If you favor rent control, then you should be an anti-federalist, at least in that instance when Reagan wanted to quash it. If you are an open-borders opponent, then at least under the present administration, you should veer in the direction of federalism.

Presumably, if there is a tie, or if nothing much is at stake, anti-federalism should win out. After all, with regard to practical issues such as job, homeschool for the children, etc., it is a lot easier to pull up stakes in a city and move elsewhere in the state than it is to transfer from one state to another; and it is very much more convenient to leave Georgia for Wyoming or vice versa than to emigrate to another country. But with regard to all other issues, the rational position is to jettison the federalism-anti-federalism controversy and stick to one’s principles.

There is one caveat to the above, however. If one or the other side of the centralism/anti-centralism is supported, it may well have aggregative effects: it may well tip the balance in one direction or the other. What then? There is thus no clear answer to this conundrum, at least not from the libertarian perspective.

Editor’s note: This article was first published on CIOStory.com, which is no longer extant, and is reprinted here at the behest of and with the permission of the author.

Related Posts:

1. Transcript: Podcast with Economist and Anti-Lockdown Activist Gigi Foster
2. Professor Gigi Foster on the Savvy Street Show
3. The Economics of Aging: Living Longer versus Living Better

   

About the Author: Walter Block

Walter Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Economics at Loyola University, senior fellow of the Mises Institute, and regular columnist for LewRockwell.com.