State-centric power develops authoritarian regimes that decimate democracy

In the American political tradition, federalism is a hallowed institution. It’s a bulwark against tyranny, it allows for policy experimentation, it creates competition for voters and businesses that incentivizes better performance, and it brings government closer to the people and holds it accountable.

But take a look at some of the research on federalism in the field of comparative politics and for each virtue of federalism you’ll find a flaw. The many levels of government meant to guard against authoritarianism often lead to the shifting of blame and credit being claimed where it’s not earned, muddling accountability. The various institutional layers often make government impossible to understand, leading to increased corruption. States competing with each other for business by lowering taxes can lead to a race to the bottom that exacerbates inequalities across the country.

Jacob Grumbach’s impressive book Laboratories against Democracy: How National Parties Transformed State Politics forcefully shows that the United States is not immune to these flaws. Grumbach questions the conventional wisdom around federalism, providing an argument for why federalism in the United States is precipitating democratic backsliding and creating inequalities across states that have a measurable impact on the day-to-day life and wellbeing of citizens.

Grumbach argues that the nationalization of politics has resulted in Congressional gridlock, where slim majorities make policymaking difficult if not impossible. National-level gridlock has shifted policymaking to the states, where parties often command comfortable majorities. Most states have government trifectas, with one party controlling the governorship and holding majorities in the legislature, making policymaking a lot easier than in a divided and polarized Congress. As Grumbach points out, interest group activists have followed this trend and focused their efforts on states.

Implicit in this argument is the role of the country’s winner-take-all electoral rules and the geographic distribution of the base of Democrats and Republicans. This combination helps explain why congressional delegations are dominated by one party, creating gridlock at the national level, and single-party government in so many states, opening up opportunities for swift policymaking at the state level.

“The United States is not immune to these flaws [of federalism].”

In the book, Grumbach marshals an array of evidence to illustrate the consequences of the shift of policymaking to the states. He shows that across many policy outcomes — whether it’s abortion, the environment, gun control, immigration, LGBT rights, labor relations, healthcare, or taxation — Democratic and Republican states are on widely divergent paths: In Democratic states it is easy to vote; in Republican states there are many barriers to vote. In Democratic states fewer people are uninsured; in Republican states there are more uninsured people. In Democratic states access to abortion is easier; in Republican states it is harder, if not criminalized. The few exceptions are outcomes related to education, criminal justice, and policing and I found myself wanting to read more on why this is the case.

The great divergence also applies to indicators of democracy: Democratic states have expanded their state-level democracies while Republican states have taken an authoritarian turn. A memorable observation from the book is that while federalism might — for now — protect the country from presidents amassing power in dictatorial ways, anti-democratic figures are able to emerge in the first place because of the resurgence of state-level policymaking that has transformed Republican states into the titular laboratories against democracy.