The Short Life and Sudden Death of Faux Federalism

After more than a century in exile, or maybe banishment would be a better word, the founding principle of Federalism came roaring back into fashion in many Democrat-dominated states in the Trump era, with California and Colorado leading the rebellious pack. The transformation came miraculously and instantaneously on the day Donald J. Trump took the oath of office. It seemed like a sea change of sweeping significance.

Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, the party that spent the last century methodically concentrating power in the grasping claws of central government, the party that long dismissed and denigrated conservative support for "states' rights" as a sinister echo of slave-era thinking, the party of one-one-size-fits-all, as long as that size is XXL, rediscovered "states' rights" and even "local control" as rallying cries.

These newly-neofederalist states weren't going to just take orders from the hated Trump administration. They weren't going to follow federal laws and regulatory diktats with which they disagreed. These states now wanted the autonomy and sovereignty they were due under our federalist system of governance. A strong whiff of secessionism filled the air, especially in California. 

Some went even further down the road toward open rebellion by forming a state-led cartel, with California at the helm, to establish stricter-than-federal vehicle emissions standards. Members of this new "Cali cartel" weren't just seeking autonomy under this unworkable two-tiered regulatory scheme; they were (and still are, since this power struggle is now before the courts) hoping to leverage their clout as car markets to make their standard the de facto national standard, effectively turning the federalist idea on its head.

This wasn't federalism but reverse federalism, in which a subgroup of states attempts to impose its emissions standard on all the other states, in textbook wag-the-dog fashion.   

Some rebel states further tested established boundaries my engaging in foreign policy. They vowed to abide by terms of the never-ratified Paris Climate Accord, for instance, a treaty Trump ran against.  California further upped the ante by negotiating a cross-border cap and trade scheme with Canada. 

Such shows of defiance delighted liberals and turned certain Governors (like California's Gavin Newsom) into instant celebrities. But they also constituted a challenge to federal power and prerogatives without parallel in recent history, prompting the Trump administration to push back. The provocateurs then posed as the "victims" of Trump's aggression and iron rule. It was a simplistic morality play some in the press eagerly played up. 

But then -- BAM! -- COVID19 hit and the zebras began showing their statist stripes again. 

Suddenly, America's most Trump-defiant states are the states bleating loudest for federal help, federal bailouts, federal guidelines, federal "leadership" -- even for federal force against states that won't impose Constitutionally-dubious lockdowns of various sorts. And suddenly, states unwilling to join the stampede to trample civil liberties become rogue "holdout states" that must be brought to heel. Trump now finds himself under fire from the neofederalist left for not imposing a national lockdown; for not ordering states to comply; for granting governors the latitude to tailor responses that meet their circumstances.

We're learning a lot about ourselves and our country, good and bad, during this crisis. It's become a gut check that was probably overdue. We're seeing the world more clearly and soberly as a result. True colors become much more vivid in a midst of tough times. Now we can put to rest any notion that Democrats suddenly have seen light on the merits and virtues of the federalist system of governance. We can see that faux federalism was just another pose they struck for partisan purposes.

They are what they've always been; statists to the marrow. 

Seeing The Crisis Clearly

After a wobbly start, governments at all levels seem to be doing a better job of tracking and reporting Covid19 infection rates and deaths. That's clearly a top priority right now. You can't peruse the news, in print or online, without seeing the tragic tally creep higher each day, sometimes by fits, sometimes by starts. Statistics are tricky little devils so an alert reader must parse the numbers with care and put them in context. But at least they're out there now. It's a good way to remind us that human lives are riding on how we weather the storm and get back to "normal," whatever that means now. 

But the relentless focus on just one set of stats, as important as they are, also can tend to encourage a certain tunnel vision, or maybe it's more like myopia, obscuring our ability to see the "big picture" and know entirety of what we're dealing with. We understandably want to know who is sick, who has died, how the outbreak is evolving, where the "hot zones" are. But too tight of a focus on just that data may blind us to the wider but also real repercussions that stem not just from the virus but from our response to the virus.

There's been an earthquake. We're looking almost exclusively at the epicentre, however, trying to triage the temblor's immediate casualties, while forgetting or ignoring the aftershocks rippling through wider society. Some naturally prefer a narrow focus. It feeds the sense of urgency and crisis that helps hasten the public and private sector response. They frankly may not want to look at secondary or tertiary impacts indicating that we cured the disease but killed the patient, which is a topic of growing debate right now. They want to focus on the benefits of their actions, while ignoring or discounting the equally real costs, as if it's creepy, cold-hearted or inhumane to even consider a cost-benefit analysis in times of such duress.

Plunging tax revenues, spiking unemployment claims, a change in state GDP; these commonly used metrics all will help us grasp the larger implications. These are "lagging indicators" that will roll in over time, like waves on a beach, but they're also reasonably reliable. Other social impacts are harder to find metrics for, unless you make a special effort. And I think Colorado should make that effort.

Therefore, my suggestion is for Governor Polis to begin tracking and reporting an additional set of metrics as we move forward, aimed at measuring the wider social repercussions not just of the virus, but of the state's response to the virus, so that we don't fall prey to tunnel vision and can grasp the situation comprehensible. Here's my starter list of suggested indicators, which I may amend over time. I believe all these, except for the homelessness number, are there for the unearthing if you dig for them.

• Business closures
• Bankruptcies (business and personal)
• Divorces
• Suicides
• Domestic Abuse Calls
• Crime trends 
• Homeless trends 

Please email me at SeanPaige@msn.com if you can suggest measurable metrics I overlooked.

I really believe the Governor will be doing Coloradans a disservice if these metrics aren't as closely monitored as COVID19 infection rates and fatalities.