American Federalism in 1990s.
While it would be an overstatement to suggest that the
average American has a clear concept of meaning of federalism in 1994, there is
some evidence than issues, involving locus of governmental power are important
to many. For example, polling organizations frequently ask citizens - which
level of government most enjoys their trust and confidence. The results
consistently indicate, that people trust their local governments most and their
national government least. The states drift along in the middle. So, most
Americans view local government the
most favorably.
However, as is the case in most areas of our political
life, attitudes change significantly when citizens are faced with specific
issues. Even though Americans appear to
be committed to federalism in the abstract, they always seem to have lengthy
list of problems which they want the federal government because state and local
governments have failed to resolve them, or a list of services which are
perceived as poorly provided or not provided at all. It is common for
individuals and groups to respond to such perceptions by demanding that the
national government create new standards or mandates or provide direct or indirect expenditures of money. Sometimes,
they seek both.
While it is traditional to expect demands for
increased national government activity from more liberal, so-called «big
government», elements in American society, conservatives, who see themselves as
a defenders of state’s rights and local self-government also may jump on the
bandwagon and demand national action.
Thus it is quite unsurprising
that recently liberal elements in American society have sought national
legislation controlling access to firearms, as reflected in recently-adopted
Brady Bill, which requires dealers to run checks on purchasers. On the other
hand, it seems unusual, from a federalism perspective, that conservative
elements have sought national government action to eliminate or restrict access
to abortions or to permit the introduction of prayers in the public schools.
Perhaps the best recent example of such a demand for
national action may be found in public safety area. There is a general
perception, that high levels of criminal activity made the persons and property
of the average citizen in this country unsafe. In general, however, the
definition and control of criminal behavior has historically been a state and
local responsibility. Our national officials sense that there is a demand for
them to do something in response to state and local failures. The result is
anti-crime legislation at the national level which has been proposed by the
President and which is largely supported by members of Congress. While many of
us doubt the effectiveness of the specific legislation, few people have
seriously objected to this activity as destructive of basic fabric of our
federal system.
The result is an inconsistent and often confusing
approach to solving governmental problems in a federalist concept. In terms of practical politics, the system
provides multiple forms of access. Various groups, no matter what ideological
view of the federal system, take a
pragmatic approach. That is, when their preferred level of government fails to
produce policy results, that are satisfactory, they seek action at another
level. None of the models of the
federal systems seems to describe this state of affairs very well.
There is also confusion about federalism at another
level in the US. We often observe this best when trying to teach about the
system in our American Government classes. For some, federalism is equated with democracy. This is to say that they
believe that unitary systems are by definition undemocratic. These patriotic
souls are skeptical of evidence which
demonstrates that some unitary systems are quite democratic, and that some
federal systems are quite autocratic in nature.
Still, others confuse federalism with the concepts of
separation of powers and checks and
balances which are so important in understanding American government. While
federalism does indeed divide governmental powers and involve some checking and
balancing, separation of powers is a term, normally reserved to discussions of
the relations between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our
governments. This distinction is troublesome for many of our students.
Due to my limited time I would like to state some most
nuisance problems, that became a heavy burden for every American, involved in
active politics in any way. First, we
should mention the so-called «unfunded
mandate», that became the biggest bone of contention in American
intergovernmental rules. An unfunded mandate can be said to exist when the
national government requires new or improved services or level of regulation,
but leaves funding largely to state and local governments. This permits
national level officials and institutions to establish their own policy without
any considering costs. While that seems a poor way to operate, it fits in well
with some traditional American political attitudes in which costs of government
services are either ignored or assumed to be borne by someone else.
Some examples may illustrate the reasons for state
complaints. In 1993, the Congress passed a law requiring the states to provide
a system of voter’s registration which was
Список
литературы
Для подготовки
данной работы были использованы материалы с сайта http://www.referaty.com.ua/