Written Version of My Talk on "How Federalism Promotes Unity Through Diversity"

This speech, which I gave at a Federalist Society conference, is now available in a written version on SSRN. It will be published by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

(NA)

In March, I gave a talk on "How Federalism Promotes Unity Through Diversity" at a panel that was part of the Federalist Society National Student Symposium. The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy asked me to convert the text into a short written article, which I was happy to do. It is now available for free download on SSRN. It will be published sometime in the next few weeks. Here is the abstract:

Does federalism promote unity? In one obvious sense, the answer is surely "no." Federalism necessarily reduces unity because it leads to divergence on at least some policy areas. If there were no significant policy differences between the various state and local governments, then there would be little point in having federalism in the first place.

But the diversity federalism creates can also help promote unity, by reducing the conflict that arises when the federal government has the power to impose one-size-fits-all policies throughout the country. Decentralizing authority can mitigate that conflict. It can also empower people to make better choices by "voting with their feet." As a result, more people can live under policies that they prefer, and the choices they make are likely to be better-informed. There are some limitations to the idea that federalism can promote unity and better decision-making through diversity. But it has tremendous value, nonetheless.

I developed some of the points made in this article in greater detail in various longer works, most notably my book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom.

And here is the video of the panel on which I originally gave the talk. The panel was entitled "Does Federalism Lead to a More United or Disunited Democracy?" The other participants were Prof. Jud Campbell (Univ. of Richmond) and my George Mason University colleague Michael Greve. Judge Andrew Oldham (5th Circuit) moderated.

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Always great to hear calls for diversity from a four-clinger panel sponsored by the Federalist Society.

You need to find better playmates, professor.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Your stupidity is amusing, I must use it in Logic class sometime. So if Hitler says 2+2=4 it can't be right because Hitler like people whom Federalist Society are dependably and certainly wrong. How stupid you are Kirkland. 🙂 I will get some laughs in class with this

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These guys can't quit whining about Heterodox Academy; about how strong, mainstream is insufficiently hospitable to movement conservatives; and about how ideological diversity is important.

Then they retreat to the clingerverse (separatist organizations, separatist publications, separatist events, etc.) . . . .until the next time they start complaining about ideological uniformity.

[shawn_dude]

Elected federal politicians will not stop trying to legislate their agenda nationwide no matter their position on federalism. Consider, for example. the new Speaker's stated preference for a national anti-abortion law. Further, a nation where citizens gain and lose rights as they travel state to state leads to more division. If a same-sex married couple or a trans person found their legal status changing depending on the state they're driving through at the moment, it would create national "no-go" zones for the citizens impacted.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

Shawn, assuredly you are mindless. So to substantiate an across the board opinion on the worthlessness of all public officials, you picked one. That is like me saying all Reason commentators are stupid because you are 🙂

[mulched]

Will there be foot voting? Ooh, I hope there's foot voting.

[bernard11]

There are very few actual federalists running around. Mostly it's used as an excuse - an ostensibly neutral principle to be applied when it leads to things you like. When it doesn't, too bad.

[JD85]

True only if there is no gerrymandering, otherwise polarization is promoted.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

But polarization is the result whenever there is difference esp on important issues. Gerrymandering then in your view is whatever ends in any division of opinion ! I mean, REALLY ??

[mydisplayname]

Perhaps surprisingly, I agree that "the diversity federalism creates can also help promote unity, by reducing the conflict that arises when the federal government has the power to impose one-size-fits-all policies throughout the [federation]. Decentralizing authority can mitigate that conflict."

Also surprisingly, this is the reason that a single-federal-state model -- albeit an unpopular choice -- is likely to be the only working model in the Middle East (particularly Israel and its Occupied Territories). In 1982, Ronald Reagan acknowledged that "it is clear to me that peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian state in those territories, nor is it achievable on the basis of Israeli sovereignty or permanent control over the West Bank and Gaza. So, the United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel." So what is left? Either Israel reverses its illicit occupation of extra-national territories -- something that Israel has shown no interest in doing -- or we, as Israel's funding source and protector, impose the envisioned land-for-peace surrender. The terms of such imposed surrender would include restatement of the Jewish State's 1967 (or 1948, or 1931) borders and would then deem the entirety of the UN Resolution 181 (1947) property a federalist nation subdivided into states: Robert E. Lee's writings (which are quire good) could guide the reconstruction -- the Mulligan in the never-ending Levantine Game of Thrones.

Fair to all, yes... popular with all, no, as federalism requires sincere negotiations rather than unilaterally-imposed mandates. Again quoting Reagan " We base our approach squarely on the principle that the Arab-Israeli conflict should be resolved through negotiations involving an exchange of territory for peace. Tragic turmoil in the Middle East runs back to the dawn of history. In our modern day, conflict after conflict has taken its brutal toll there. In an age of nuclear challenge and economic interdependence, such conflicts are a threat to all the people of the world, not just the Middle East itself. It's time for us all -- in the Middle East and around the world -- to call a halt to conflict, hatred, and prejudice. It's time for us all to launch a common effort for reconstruction, peace, and progress."

Reagan's recognition that a Middle Eastern Jewish State is a fate accomplished -- that regardless of the manner in which it began its existence "Israel exists; it has a right to exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders; and it has a right to demand of its neighbors that they recognize those facts" -- is essential: even after our own intra-federal war, the invaders from the North had to be reminded that the southern states existed and were equals in every respect. Reagan, borrowing slightly from Lee, wisely made a plea to both sides: "I call on Israel to make clear that the security for which she yearns can only be achieved through genuine peace, a peace requiring MAGNANIMITY, vision, and COURAGE. I call on the Palestinian people to recognize that their own political aspirations are inextricably bound to recognition of Israel's right to a secure future."

Federalism isn't easy!

[David Nieporent]

Stop enlisting Reagan in your fantasies. What Reagan was actually saying was not that Israel should be dissolved, but that the disputed territories should be given (or given back, in the case of the West Bank) to Jordan.