The symbolic politics behind why sane people vote for (seemingly) insane things

The 2016 election provided ample evidence that voters often support candidates who put forward policies which will be of little benefit or may even be detrimental to them. But why do voters support such policies? Using Texas as a case study, John Kincaid writes that the Republican Party was able to reframe debates over school finance reform by linking concern over the redistribution of resources from wealthier to poorer districts to threats to dominant forms of economic, cultural, and racial privilege from a “politically correct” liberal elite

Contemporary U.S. Federalism: Coercive Change with Cooperative Continuity

L’actual sistema federal dels EUA és una complexa barreja d’elements del federalisme coercitiu, del federalisme cooperatiu i del federalisme dual. Des d’un punt de vista constitucional i polític, el sistema federal des de la dècada de 1960 ha tendit cap a un sistema coercitiu arran de l’àmplia expansió del govern federal en els àmbits dels estats . Aquesta coerció implica, entre altres coses, un augment de les regulacions vinculades a subvencions federals, mandats imposats als estats i invasions federals de les competències dels estats. Actualment, ni el Senat ni la Cort Suprema ni el president actuen com a garants de les competències estatals. No obstant això, des d’una perspectiva administrativa les relacions intergovernamentals entre el govern federal, el dels estats i els governs locals es mantenen en una situació de forta cooperació; de fet, els responsables de l’administració local implementen i compleixen amb les polítiques federals i de vegades aconsegueixen que l’administració federal els faci concessions i els permeti ajustaments a l’hora d’implementar-les. Al mateix temps, els estats mantenen, malgrat tot, importants competències residuals, les quals, juntament amb les seves substancials capacitats fiscals, els permeten endegar en un ampli número de camps, unes polítiques públiques independents i innovadores. Així doncs, la forta activitat dels estats en àmbits com ara la protecció dels consumidors, justícia, protecció mediambiental, sanitat i drets dels treballadors, ha estat en part una reacció en contra del federalisme coercitiu i, a més, ha posat sovint en evidència la debilitat de les polítiques federals en aquests mateixos àmbits.El actual sistema federal de los EEUU es una compleja mezcla de elementos coercitivos, cooperativos y del federalismo dual. Desde una perspectiva constitucional y política, desde la década de 1960 el sistema federal se ha convertido en un sistema coercitivo por la amplia expansión del gobierno federal en los ámbitos estatales. Tal coerción implica, entre otras cosas, un aumento de las regulaciones vinculadas a subvenciones federales, mandatos impuestos a los estados e invasiones federales de las competencias de los estados. Actualmente, ni el Senado ni el Tribunal Supremo ni el presidente actúan como garantes de las competencias estatales. Sin embargo, desde una perspectiva administrativa, las relaciones intergubernamentales entre el gobierno federal, los gobiernos estatales y los gobiernos locales se han mantenido altamente cooperativas; de hecho, los responsables de la administración local implementan y cumplen con las políticas federales y, en algunas ocasiones, consiguen que la administración federal les haga concesiones y les permita llevar a cabo ajustes en el momento de la implementación. Al mismo tiempo, los estados todavía mantienen importantes competencias residuales, que, junto con sus substanciales capacidades fiscales, les permiten llevar a cabo unas políticas públicas independientes e innovadoras en un buen número de campos. Así pues, la importante actividad de los estados en ámbitos tales que la protección de los consumidores, justicia, protección medioambiental, sanidad y derechos de los trabajadores, ha sido, en parte, una reacción ante el federalismo coercitivo y, a su vez, ha puesto en evidencia la debilidad de las políticas federales en estos mismos ámbitos.Contemporary U.S. federalism is a complex mixture of coercive, cooperative, and dual elements. Constitutionally and politically, the federal system has become coercive because there has been a vast expansion of federal-government power over the states since the 1960s. This coercion involves, among other things, increased regulations attached to federal grants-in-aid, mandates imposed on the states, and federal preemptions of state powers. Neither the U.S. Senate nor the Supreme Court or the president serves as a protector of state powers today. Administratively, however, intergovernmental relations between the federal, state, and local governments remain highly cooperative. State and local officials implement and comply with federal government policies and occasionally obtain concessions and adjustments in implementation from federal officials. At the same time, the states still retain considerable residual powers, which, along with their substantial fiscal capacities, allow them to engage in independent and innovative policymaking in a large number of policy fields. State policy activism in such fields as consumer protection, criminal justice, environmental protection, health care, and worker rights has, in part, been a reaction against coercive federalism and, in turn, has often highlighted weaknesses in comparable federal-government policies

Courts in Federal Countries

Courts are key players in the dynamics of federal countries since their rulings have a direct impact on the ability of governments to centralize and decentralize power. Courts in Federal Countries examines the role high courts play in thirteen countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Nigeria, Spain, and the United States. The volume’s contributors analyse the centralizing or decentralizing forces at play following a court’s ruling on issues such as individual rights, economic affairs, social issues, and other matters. The thirteen substantive chapters have been written to facilitate comparability between the countries. Each chapter outlines a country’s federal system, explains the constitutional and institutional status of the court system, and discusses the high court’s jurisprudence in light of these features. Courts in Federal Countries offers insightful explanations of judicial behaviour in the world’s leading federations

In US COVID-19 responses, party polarization has trumped cooperative federalism

From the beginnings of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, the administration of President Trump left much of the task of responding to COVID-19 to the states, largely eschewing cooperative measures between the federal and state and local governments. John Kincaid and J. Wesley Leckrone write that while some commentators have lamented that there was not a more centralized response, cooperation between the federal and state and local governments was restricted by partisan polarization and a president ideologically opposed to many COVID-19 mitigation measures

Courts in Federal Countries

Courts are key players in the dynamics of federal countries since their rulings have a direct impact on the ability of governments to centralize and decentralize power. Courts in Federal Countries examines the role high courts play in thirteen countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Nigeria, Spain, and the United States. The volume’s contributors analyse the centralizing or decentralizing forces at play following a court’s ruling on issues such as individual rights, economic affairs, social issues, and other matters. The thirteen substantive chapters have been written to facilitate comparability between the countries. Each chapter outlines a country’s federal system, explains the constitutional and institutional status of the court system, and discusses the high court’s jurisprudence in light of these features. Courts in Federal Countries offers insightful explanations of judicial behaviour in the world’s leading federations