The coronavirus pandemic has tested American government like no crisis before it. In contrast to the national responses launched by most countries, the American response to coronavirus has played out in the shadow of our federal system of government. Conceived by the framers as a bulwark against tyranny, the age-old institution of local decision-making has been thrust into the heart of a heated political battle between the Trump administration and state governments about how best to respond to the crisis. The political system has its merits and drawbacks, but if it is to operate effectively in the face of the coronavirus epidemic, we must renew our commitment to social solidarity and cooperation across state and regional identities.
At the start of the outbreak, it looked like federalism was working as intended. President Donald Trump’s hands-off response to the virus stood in stark contrast to the widely hailed efforts of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, whose initiative on lockdowns and daily press conferences quickly became a foil to White House briefings criticized for conflicting messages and medical misinformation. (However, Cuomo’s response is beginning to come under scrutiny.) On the other side of the aisle, Republican governors such as Mike DeWine in Ohio and Larry Hogan in Maryland have won bipartisan praise for diverging from Trump to impose restrictions early in the course of the pandemic. The United States’ clumsy federal response also stood in apparent contrast to that of China, whose response was initially hailed by some observers — including, controversially, the World Health Organization — but later came under international fire for human rights violations and a lack of transparency.
As we enter the next stage of the outbreak, however, federalism’s success seems more mixed. The same centralized authoritarian system that led officials in Wuhan to downplay initial reports of the virus also enabled China to bring its outbreak under control, while American cases skyrocketed due to agonizing delays in testing and social distancing measures. Local decision-making created a patchwork of regulations in individual states, which quickly affected health outcomes nationwide. After all, a federalist response is only as strong as its weakest link: One state’s success won’t amount to much if other states fail to impose social distancing. The late lockdowns and premature reopenings in some states have led to progressive criticisms of federalism for relying too much on individual state leaders to take the crisis seriously.
Taken to its extreme, a decentralized federalist approach can be devastating for coordinating relief. Trump’s steps to shift responsibility for pandemic relief almost entirely on the states — described by Martin O’Malley as Darwinian federalism — enables the worst elements of federalism to emerge as states scramble to protect their interests and secure limited resources. The predictable result of hostile bidding among states for necessary personal protective equipment is price gouging, missed opportunities to use economies of scale, and further supply chain shortages. While some states have created regional partnerships to overcome these problems, only the federal government has the resources and standing to coordinate a national response that keeps poor states and vulnerable populations from being left behind in the recovery.
Some might dismiss calls for a centralized federal coronavirus response as a justification for the illiberal measures adopted in China and Vietnam. Yet democracies such as Taiwan and South Korea have successfully flattened the curve with strong national responses without resorting to the tactics of their authoritarian neighbors. That’s in part because their citizens were willing to tolerate personal sacrifices for the sake of the collective national wellbeing, a tradeoff Americans tend to recoil from. Federalism, premised on the classical liberal notion that institutional antagonism will prevent the concentration of power, encourages individualist mentalities that lead to self-interested actions and erode national unity.
While America has witnessed firsthand how federalism can limit effective responses to the pandemic, the nation would do well to recognize the benefits of federalism done right. State and municipal leaders are much better positioned than the federal government to engage local stakeholders like the nonprofits, faith organizations, and universities that will be critical for a safe re-opening. Relief efforts will need to be individually tailored to address the needs of diverse communities impacted differently by the pandemic, a task that local governments have the most information to undertake. And the institutional friction between states and the federal government may ultimately be more conducive to civil liberties under threat in centralized regimes elsewhere.
So how should we think about federalism in the age of coronavirus? The answer is to emphasize the importance of building social solidarity — the belief in a shared fate for all Americans that transcends state or regional identities — not just for citizens, but for state and federal governments too. Social solidarity among the states would remind them that one state’s outbreak can quickly become the downfall of the republic. A healthy vision of federalism needs to involve cooperation between state and federal actors, not the supremacy of either of them.
The task of encouraging solidarity among Americans has been made vastly more difficult by the hyperpartisanship that has beset relief efforts. But like a war, pandemic response is not the responsibility of any one state or party. Our ability to get back to normal depends on collective sacrifices from everyone, governments included. We must not accept a version of federalism that pits states against the national government and against each other: The stakes are too high to fail.
Image Credit: Unsplash / Renan Kamikoga