Daniel J. Elazar

Opening the Third Century of American Federalism: Issues and Prospects

Strong forces for centralization continue to operate in the American federal system; however, especially since the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980, countervailing forces have worked to promote decentralization and even restore noncentralization in the federal system. Furthermore, the states have reasserted themselves as polities, becoming stronger and more vigorous than ever. The potential for greater noncentralization is being reinforced by changing socioeconomic conditions that place a greater emphasis on networks of relationships rather than on traditional hierarchies. The condition of American federalism today, therefore, is ambiguous but promising.

The Shaping of Intergovernmental Relations in the Twentieth Century

The American federal system has always been characterized by the co-operative interrelationship of federal, state, and local governments which serve the same people, generally share the same goals, and are faced with the same demands. Co-operative federalism as we know it is not de centralization but noncentralization, predicated on broad na tional legislative and fiscal powers joined with a traditional penchant for maintaining maximum local control over govern mental activities. The pattern of intergovernmental relations in the twentieth century has remained within the co-operative tradition established earlier, modified only as necessary in light of the great expansion of government activity in American so ciety since 1913. Because of the present pervasiveness of government in the United States, this means that every level of government is involved in virtually every governmental ac tivity. Intergovernmental relations may involve informal co operation, contracts for simple sharing, interchange of person nel, interdependent activities, grants-in-aid, tax offsets, and shared revenues. The precise character of the co-operative relationship is tailored to fit each program through the politi cal process in which representatives of the federal, state, and local governments and concerned private interests all partici pate. Intergovernmental relations in the twentieth century have evolved through four periods and into a fifth, each of which has contributed something important to the present pat tern of American federalism. Noncentralized government has been maintained in the face of many centralizing pressures only because its mechanisms have been sufficiently flexible to respond to the changing interests of the American people.

Religious diversity and federalism

The idea of federalism was initially a religious one, applying the idea of a covenant to political organisation. It was from this religious understanding that the modern political understanding of federalism emerged. Some of the critical decisions of the founders of the United States of America were those dealing with the question of religious diversity: in addition to religious ideas of governing by covenant, there was a strong element of separation of church and state, so that no denomination would be favoured over another. In other federal systems, federalism has been used to protect religious diversity in a variety of ways. The period since World War II has been marked by the emergence of new forms of federalism, such as the post-modern confederation. In many cases the constituent states of these confederal arrangements have had dominant or even established religions of their own differing from those of their associates co-existing under the religiously neutral framework of the confederation. As the relationship between religion and state continues to undergo re-evaluation, federalism adds to the range of possibilities for accommodating

The Generational Rhythm of American Politics

I n 1963, James Macgregor Burns, the noted commentator o the contemporary American political scene, published a book titled The Deadlock of Democracy (1963). In it, he developed a cogent and fully elaborated theory to explain why the federal government, particularly Congress, was paralyzed and could not respond to the needs of the time. Barely a year later, the American people were treated to a display of federal activity-and particularly congressional legislation-paralleled only by FDR’s &dquo;100 days&dquo; after March 1933. Why did Burns’ forecast miss the mark so badly? What brought about a shift from the apparent stalemate of the 1950s to the veritable revolution of the mid-1960s? Furthermore, why did the burst of activity in the latter period fizzle out by 1968 to be succeeded by a decade of consolidation and a virtual collapse of leadership in the federal government-a collapse embracing the presidency as well as Congress? Finally, why was this experience paralleled by a spate of similar phenomena throughout the world? The answers to these questions lie in a proper understanding of the temporal rhythm of political life in the United States and the relationship of that rhythm to the cycles of human