It’s a challenge to be a libertarian in Washington because you have to swim against the tide.
The vast majority of people in town are looking for excuses to spend money and amass power, and a small band of us are trying to convince them that the federal government should be limited in size and scope.
It may seem like a hopeless task.
*Libertarians argue against big expensive entitlement programs like Medicaid, explaining that it’s not a proper function of the federal government.
*Libertarians argue against stupid little publicity stunts like steroid hearings, explaining that it’s not a proper function of the federal government.
*Libertarians argue against emotional gestures such as disaster relief, explaining that it’s not a proper function of the federal government.
*Libertarians argue against the entire Department of Transportation, explaining that it’s not a proper function of the federal government.
I could provide more examples, but you get the idea. It seems as if libertarians are stuck with a Sisyphean task, urging “no” in a town filled with people who want to say “yes.”
But I don’t think our work is hopeless. I’ve already shared many reasons to be hopeful, and we now have some new polling data that should make us more optimistic. According to the folks at Pew, Americans have very low opinions of the federal government.
Here are the key details from a Washington Post story about the poll.
…28 percent of the public views the federal government favorably, down five points from a year ago and also the lowest percentage ever in a Pew survey on the topic. The lowly rating for Washington compares to 63 percent of people holding a favorable opinion of their local governments and 57 percent expressing a favorable view of their state governments. Even among Democrats, who tend to show more support for government, the numbers have dipped on the federal side. Fewer than half of Democrats– 41 percent– said they hold a favorable opinion of the federal government, representing a 10-point drop from the previous year.
These numbers should be very good news for anyone who wants to push a “federalism” agenda. And Gallup also has found considerable – and growing – hostility to the federal government.
In other words, the American people are on our side. Or, to be more precise, they broadly realize that Washington has too much power and money.
Our job is to translate that sentiment into public policy.
By the way, Switzerland has the strongest system of federalism, and it is doing very well by world standards. Canada also has a decentralized system that has produced some very good policy in recent years.
P.S. For those who care about the Constitution, it’s worth noting that America’s Founding fathers explicitly limited the powers of the central government.
[…] I’ll close by noting that this map is another example of the advantages of genuine federalism. […]
[…] I’ll close by noting that this map is another example of the advantages of genuine federalism. […]
[…] I’ll close by noting that this map is another example of the advantages of genuine federalism. […]
[…] I’ll close by noting that this map is another example of the advantages of genuine federalism. […]
[…] Ultimately, of course, block grants should be phased out as part of a comprehensive federalism agenda (including big tax cuts). Then states can choose how much to tax and how much to spend. Just […]
[…] me, this suggests that a “federalism” agenda could be […]
[…] me, this suggests that a “federalism” agenda could be […]
[…] me, this suggests that a “federalism” agenda could be […]
[…] is very desirable because it allows different parts of the country to make different decisions, and this helps to […]
[…] is very desirable because it allows different parts of the country to make different decisions, and this helps to […]
[…] is very desirable because it allows different parts of the country to make different decisions, and this helps to […]
[…] I’m a big fan of federalism. […]
[…] I’m a big fan of federalism. […]
[…] P.P.S. This is also why federalism is both good politics and good policy. […]
[…] P.P.S. This is also why federalism is both good politics and good policy. […]
[…] I’m a big fan of federalism in large part because good fiscal policy is more likely when state and local governments are forced […]
[…] I’m a big fan of federalism in large part because good fiscal policy is more likely when state and local governments are forced […]
[…] couple of years ago, I praised federalism in part because state and local governments would be less likely to adopt bad policy(such […]
[…] first topic is federalism, which is the sensible principle that deciding things at the local level, or even state level, is better than being ruled by […]
[…] first topic is federalism, which is the sensible principle that deciding things at the local level, or even state level, is better than being ruled by faraway […]
[…] couple of years ago, I praised federalism in part because state and local governments would be less likely to adopt bad policy(such […]
[…] was a big fan of federalism (to the extent it still exists) before any of us ever heard of the […]
[…] was a big fan of federalism (to the extent it still exists) before any of us ever heard of the […]
[…] Which is why we need genuine federalism. […]
[…] Which is why we need genuine federalism. […]
[…] common feature of the U.S., Canada, and Australia is that all three nations have some degree of federalism, which means that some government policies are handled at the state/provincial […]
[…] couple of years ago, I praised federalism in part because state and local governments would be less likely to adopt bad policy (such as […]
[…] because of my support for jurisdictional competition, I’m a big fan of […]
[…] indicated by one of my columns last week, I’m a big believer in […]
[…] Here’s what I said on the topic of federalism. […]
[…] Esperemos que Donald Trump se dé cuenta de que el federalismo es el enfoque correcto. […]
[…] Let’s hope Donald Trump realizes that federalism is the right approach. […]
[…] a big fan of federalism. After all, compared to what happens when Washington screws up, there’s a lot less damage if […]
[…] of which, we need a caveat for nations with federalist systems, such as the U.S., Switzerland, and Canada. In these cases, the top income tax rate is calculated […]
[…] And, as Jonah explained, the “platoons” of “civil society” are more likely to thrive in an environment where the central government is constrained. […]
[…] don’t support choice. They don’t like federalism. The bottom line is that they know their intended victims will opt […]
[…] And, as Jonah explained, the “platoons” of “civil society” are more likely to thrive in an environment where the central government is constrained. […]
[…] couple of years ago, I praised federalism in part because state and local governments would be less likely to adopt bad policy (such as […]
[…] couple of years ago, I praised federalism in part because state and local governments would be less likely to adopt bad […]
[…] couple of years ago, I praised federalism in part because state and local governments would be less likely to adopt bad policy (such as […]
[…] Federalism is great for a wide range of reasons, but I especially like that people have the freedom to escape when […]
[…] bottom line is that federalism is good because it means people can easily move when a government imposes bad policy. This is also a recipe […]
[…] is one of the reasons I’m a big fan of federalism. When there’s decentralization, people can escape bad policy. And that helps to discipline […]
[…] a big fan of federalism because states have the flexibility to choose good policy or bad […]
[…] a big fan of federalism because states have the flexibility to choose good policy or bad […]
[…] a big fan of federalism because states have the flexibility to choose good policy or bad […]
[…] a big fan of federalism because states have the flexibility to choose good policy or bad […]
[…] a big fan of federalism because states have the flexibility to choose good policy or bad policy. And that’s good news […]
[…] a big fan of federalism because states have the flexibility to choose good policy or bad […]
[…] why I view federalism as a much better approach. Get Washington out of the redistribution racket and allow states to […]
[…] but not least, we can rely on the competitive impact of federalism to encourage better macroeconomic policy by state and local […]
[…] Though it leaves me even more convinced that the best approach is to eliminate all DC-based redistribution and let states decide how much to tax and how much to spend. In other words, federalism. […]
[…] this underscores why federalism and decentralization are vital features of a good system. Governments are more likely to do bad things when the costs can be imposed on an entire nation […]
[…] against federal involvement. There’s a fiscal argument against federal involvement. There’s a diversity argument against federal involvement. And there’s a demographic argument against federal […]
[…] against federal involvement. There’s a fiscal argument against federal involvement. There’s a diversity argument against federal involvement. And there’s a demographic argument against federal […]
[…] against federal involvement. There’s a fiscal argument against federal involvement. There’s a diversity argument against federal involvement. And there’s a demographic argument against federal […]
[…] federal involvement. There’s a fiscal argument against federal involvement. There’s a diversity argument against federal involvement. And there’s a demographic argument against federal […]
I used to consider myself a Libertarian, back when I conflated “big” government with “bad” government. I’m certainly all for eliminating corruption, profiteering, and self-interest, but I consider the programs and functions you mention to be vitally important, and doing away with them entirely to be certainly the wrong thing to do; so if the Federal government doesn’t do things like Medicaid and disaster relief, who will?
I hope Libertarians aren’t assuming private organizations will step up; they’re no better than government, in terms of “power first, profit second, service third (if at all)”: even the Red Cross is primarily a money-funneling machine that does little actual good, these days. The millions or billions of dollars they collected to build homes for the displaced survivors of the big Haitian earthquake, for example, managed to build a total of *six* houses. *Six.*
State governments might do it, but – – what a nightmare. Imagine *fifty separate* Medicaids, FEMAs, etc. Managing interstate reciprocity, alone, would slow everything to a crawl. The Founding Fathers learned that lesson 240-some-odd years ago, when every state had its own currency. No, for certain broad classes of functions, centralization is the only sane way to go. The other direction leads to Balkanization.
So if I’m no longer able to consider myself a Libertarian, what does that make me? I don’t know. I never paid attention to, much less participated in, any form of politics for nearly forty years – – literally until the alarming participation of Donald Trump dragged me, kicking and screaming, into the fray – – so I don’t have much by way of reference points. I’d say I simply want people, and government, to do the decent thing, the right thing, but I’m increasingly aware that people have very different ideas of what that is. The standard division into Repubkicans vs Democrats, or roughly equivalently into conservatives and liberals, strikes me as hiding the reality: the real fundamental difference is between those who consider it important to help their fellow man (seemingly liberals/Democrats) and those, who consider only their own self-interest (seemingly Republicans/conservatives). Can you confirm or deny that? In either case, I clearly side with the fellow-man-helpers, whatever you end up calling them. To me, *that* is “the right thing.”
[…] should be limits on the power of the federal government and they’re acknowledging that maybe federalism isn’t such a bad idea after […]
[…] should be dismantled for the simple reason that we’ll get better roads at lower cost with the federalist approach of returning responsibility to state and local governments. …Washington involvement is a recipe […]
[…] should be dismantled for the simple reason that we’ll get better roads at lower cost with the federalist approach of returning responsibility to state and local governments. …Washington involvement is a recipe […]
[…] But maybe full-blown secession isn’t necessary. If Californians don’t like what’s happening in Washington (or, for that matter, if Texans aren’t happy with the antics in DC), that should be an argument for genuine and comprehensive federalism. […]
[…] should be dismantled for the simple reason that we’ll get better roads at lower cost with the federalist approach of returning responsibility to state and local governments. …Washington involvement is a […]
[…] of liberty generally are big fans of federalism. In part, this is simply an issue of “good governance” since both voters and lawmakers at the […]
[…] of liberty generally are big fans of federalism. In part, this is simply an issue of “good governance” since both voters and lawmakers at the […]
[…] of liberty generally are big fans of federalism. In part, this is simply an issue of “good governance” since both voters and lawmakers […]
[…] means the freedom to adopt good policy…but also the leeway to commit fiscal […]
[…] So the moral of the story, from both the video about Switzerland and from all the other evidence in the world, is that federalism is good policy. […]
[…] So the moral of the story, from both the video about Switzerland and from all the other evidence in the world, is that federalism is good policy. […]
[…] So the moral of the story, from both the video about Switzerland and from all the other evidence in the world, is that federalism is good policy. […]
[…] So the moral of the story, from both the video about Switzerland and from all the other evidence in the world, is that federalism is good policy. […]
[…] may not even realize that federalism is a key issue for advocates of limited and constitutional […]
[…] I’m a big fan of federalism, this isn’t because I have a starry-eyed view of non-Washington politicians. Of course there […]
[…] also a good idea because states are laboratories that teach us about the benefits of good policy and the costs of bad […]
[…] other words, the answer is federalism. State and local governments should be solely responsible for state and local […]
[…] other words, the answer is federalism. State and local governments should be solely responsible for state and local […]
[…] other words, the answer is federalism. State and local governments should be solely responsible for state and local […]
[…] I’ll close with one additional observation that this story is yet another example of why federalism is good. […]
[…] is great for many reasons. When you have dozens of states with the freedom to choose different policies, you get lots of […]
[…] who cares? The beauty of federalism is that states are free to make their own decisions so long as they’re playing with their own […]
[…] this is what’s good about federalism and why decentralization is so important. The states should be the laboratories of democracy. And […]
[…] I’ve already argued that federalism is good politics and good policy. […]
[…] one of the reasons why I favor tax havens and federalism. Simply stated, politicians are less likely to do bad things when they know economic activity can […]
[…] from welfare reform in the 1990s is that blank-check welfare entitlements are greatly inferior to a federalism-based approach that allows states to innovate and experiment to see what works […]
[…] I’m a big fan of federalism for both policy and political reasons. […]
[…] I’m a big fan of federalism for both policy and political reasons. […]
[…] I’m a big fan of federalism for both policy and political reasons. […]
[…] a strong believer in federalism, but not because I think state and local governments are competent. Politicians and interest groups […]
[…] a strong believer in federalism, but not because I think state and local governments are competent. Politicians and interest groups […]
[…] P.P.S. If you think decentralization and federalism is a better option than secession, the good news is that more and more Americans have unfavorable views of Washington. […]
[…] Federalism is a very valuable way of protecting people from statism. We see it when people move from New York. We see it when they […]
[…] Federalism is a very valuable way of protecting people from statism. We see it when people move from New York. We see it when they […]
[…] Federalism is a very valuable way of protecting people from statism. We see it when people move from New York. We see it when they […]
[…] Federalism is a very valuable way of protecting people from statism. We see it when people move from New York. We see it when they […]
[…] a strong believer in federalism, but not because I think state and local governments are competent. Politicians and interest groups […]
[…] a strong believer in federalism, but not because I think state and local governments are competent. Politicians and interest groups […]
[…] So the ideal cartoon would show lots of surfers from all industries exercising the freedom to pick the waves with the smallest and least destructive sharks. Some might even call that federalism. […]
Quite a nice talk on federalism.
All means testing programs should be pushed out to the states, in conjunction with an increased progressivity in the tax code. Cash payments to all citizens plus a flat tax will allow for a safety-net for the poor [negative income tax] and a smoothly increasing effective tax on those paying net taxes. We must rid ourselves of the mal-incentives in the current system and at the same time treat every citizen equally.
See:
Let’s allow the blue states to be blue, as they feel the brunt of the cost of social programs. Red states might opt to give aid to the truly needy, or they might opt out of social programs completely, in favor of charitable organizations.
Federalism works best, when it allows the states to incubate a variety of approaches to the same problem.
[…] Dan Mitchell says “Federalism For the Win!” […]
WHile I agree with you 100%, I fear we have put so many people in a position of accepting money from the government (their own money to start with), that it may be nearly impossible to convince them to “sacrifice” the “freebies” for the good of our constitutional republic.
We want sacrifice to start with the other guy first, and many of them have been convinced that they have paid for this stuff. For instance, if you start to discuss Social Security or Medicare, every one of them argues that it is their money that they put there, and now they expect to receive it back. They fail to recognize that it is called SSI (Social Security Insurance) for a reson. It was never meant to be a retirement savings account, just a net for those who outlive their own retirement plans. They also fail to recognize that they expect to receive bak much more than they ever paid into the system. A system that is now bankrupt, and will never be paid for by the dwindling youth population.
The argument to make to liberals is that local&state governments are under more “democratic” control in many senses than a vast federal government (since they claim democracy as a major value, even if many libertarians think it is merely the least evil form of government). A mayor of a small town with a budget of $100,000 and 1 employee exercises more democratic control in a sense than a mayor of a small city with a $100 million budget and 1000 employees, some of whom may hand favors to friends in industry, and none of whom were elected. A state or federal government is even harder to keep under “democratic control”.
Federalizing things is a gift to crony capitalist special interests who get easy 1 stop shopping in DC. An individual citizen is more likely to go to a city council meeting or worst case to drive to a state capital than fly to DC.
More on this page:
http://www.politicsdebunked.com/article-list/representation
including a graph showing how a century ago about 60% of total government spending was at the local level,and half that at the federal level. Now local spending is half of federal spending.