1. LEVERAGE---it suspends all cooperation, not just on intellectual property. That takes immigration, drugs, infrastructure, and environmental policy off the table, forcing the fed’s hand.

But if progressives can simply look outside the Beltway, they will find that they still have access to one of the most powerful weapons in politics: federalism. Using the power they wield in states and cities across the country, progressives can do a good deal more than mourn and obstruct. They can resist Washington overreach, shape national policies, and force the Republicans to compromise. Cities and states have long been at the center of the fight over national values. And it’s time progressives recognized that federalism isn’t just for conservatives.

Unfortunately, the moment one mentions federalism many progressives stop listening. The language of “states’ rights” has an ugly history, invoked to shield slavery and Jim Crow. Federalism’s checkered past led political scientist William H. Riker to remark in 1964 that “if one disapproves of racism, one should disapprove of federalism.” Even today, many progressives think of federalism as a parochial anachronism, better suited for stymieing change than for effecting it. But they are making a mistake. This is not your father’s federalism. These days, state and local governments are often led by dissenters and racial minorities, the two groups progressives think have the most to fear from federalism. And this has allowed them to not only take advantage of the enormous power that federalism confers within their own cities and states, but to affect national debates, influence national policy, and force national actors to the bargaining table. Their success shows that federalism is a neutral and powerful tool for change, not an intrinsically conservative quirk of U.S. government.

The call for progressive federalism is not a new one. In 2004, Duke law professor Ernie Young invited liberals to come to the “Dark Side” and embrace the power of the states. (And one of the authors of this essay has spent more than a decade arguing—including in the pages of this journal— that federalism doesn’t have a political valence.) But having a Democrat in the White House was just too tempting for most progressives. They turned their attention to Washington while neglecting what was going on in California, Massachusetts, or New York City. We suspect that most progressives aren’t even aware that the Democrats have lost 27 state legislative chambers since 2008. But perhaps the 2016 election will help progressives shake loose the notion that D.C. is the center of the political universe.

Needless to say, though, the devil is in the details. So below we offer a “user’s guide” that identifies four ways that progressive leaders—from Jerry Brown and Bill de Blasio to small-city mayors—can push back against federal policy and force compromise. And, in doing so, we hope to persuade even the most fervent nationalist to become a fan of federalism. While we fashion this as a progressive user’s guide, it could, in theory, work just as well for conservatives should they lose the presidency in 2020. That’s precisely the point.

Types of Resistance

We often forget that the federal government’s administrative capacity is modest, relatively speaking. Excluding the military, it employs just short of three million personnel. Its 2015 budget (excluding defense, Social Security, and mandatory spending obligations) was less than $600 billion. Together, state and local governments dwarf these figures, with more than 14 million workers and a combined budget of more than $2.5 trillion.

Because of this, Washington can’t go it alone. When Congress makes a law, it often lacks the resources to enforce it. Instead, it relies on states and localities to carry out its policies. Without those local actors, the feds cannot enforce immigration law, implement environmental policy, build infrastructure, or prosecute drug offenses. Changing policies in these areas—and many more—is possible only if cities and states lend a hand. This arrangement creates opportunities for federal-state cooperation. But it also allows for “uncooperative federalism”: State and local officials can use their leverage over the feds to shape national policy.

This means that states can shape policy simply by refusing to partner with the federal government. This form of resistance involves more than mere obstruction. It allows progressive states to help set the federal agenda by forcing debates that conservatives would rather avoid and by creating incentives for compromise. When states opt out of a federal program, it costs the federal government resources and political capital. That’s why President Trump has a lot more incentive to compromise with Democrats in Sacramento than with those on the Hill.