Two states, two very different attitudes. On August 25, California banned the sale of gasoline-powered cars beginning in 2035, a move that will reshape the auto industry, cut carbon emissions and strain the state's power grid. That same day, in Texas, an activation law prohibited abortion from the moment of conception, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Those who practice such interventions face up to 99 years in prison.
The two events may seem unrelated, but they are symptoms of a major trend. Washington (D.C.) may be largely paralyzed; however, states are engaged in policy making at a dizzying pace. In theory, it's not a bad thing. With 50 states, the United States has 50 laboratories to test which policies work and which don't. People can choose to live and businesses decide to operate in places where their preferences are reflected in local norms; it's what many did during the pandemic, when they typically relocated to states with fewer restrictions. Each state can establish its own balance between tax burden and generosity of public services. Any state can learn from neighbors with better schools or better business regulations.
Unfortunately, it is not this constructive form of federalism that state politicians are pursuing today. Rather, they are mired in a national culture war: They prescribe what can be discussed in the classroom, how easy it is to buy and carry a gun, what medical interventions are available to teens who identify as transgender, and what type of benefits that illegal immigrants can apply for. Those issues infuriate supporters of both parties in a way that, say, repairing roads or reforming tax policy doesn't. Moderates would prefer less rage and more road fixes, but many state politicians can safely ignore them.
That's because 37 of the 50 states (where three-quarters of Americans reside) are governed by a single party. In the last 30 years, the number of states in which one party controls both legislative chambers and the governor's residence has nearly doubled. Those one-party states are self-perpetuating, as the winners redraw the electoral maps for their own benefit. And politicians with fully secured seats have perverse incentives. They are not worried about losing in the general election, but rather in the primaries, where the most ardent supporters make the decisions because they are more motivated to vote. And the way to attract those supporters is to avoid commitment.
Hence the proliferation of extremism. Most Texans find their new abortion laws too draconian, for example; however much the majority also considers that the old national norms were too permissive. Had Texas not been a one-party state, its legislators would have found a compromise.
Hence also a new policy of confrontation. Some states seek to punish those who seek an abortion or transitional surgery in another state; others offer shelter to those same people. Blue states encourage lawsuits against gun manufacturers; red states put them up to prevent California from setting its own emissions standards. To a large extent, some partisan fights are pure showmanship. To publicize his view that blue states are too lax on illegal immigration, Texas Governor Greg Abbott sent buses of immigrants to New York. Now, the incessant attention to national controversies is, at best, a distraction from the local problems that state politicians are elected to solve. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis, a likely presidential hopeful, has endorsed a "Stop WOKE" law to restrict the way racial issues are discussed in classrooms; in his press release, of the ten examples of wokista excess, none were from Florida. And all those battles are divisive, all entrenching the notion that in America red and blue can't understand each other despite their differences.
This makes the national debate more unpleasant and more bitter. It also makes it more difficult to conduct business. Where the country was once roughly a giant single market, now California and New York are pushing businesses to go green, while Texas and West Virginia penalize them for favoring renewables over oil and gas. . Texas recently blacklisted ten financial groups for being too green.
The biggest concern is that partisanship will undermine American democracy itself. Many Republicans can't win a primary if they don't endorse Donald Trump's Big Lie that he beat Joe Biden in 2020. That year, a Republican coalition of state attorneys general sued other states seeking to get their votes invalidated. . Regardless of what happens in the midterm elections in November, those kinds of skirmishes could proliferate. The United States is not going to descend into another civil war, as some heated voices speculate, but it has already had to endure political violence, and the situation could get worse.
American dysfunction poses a risk to the world, which depends on the United States to maintain the rules-based order (or what remains of it), deter military aggressors, and provide an example of democratic governance. It is doing quite poorly, especially in this last aspect. What can you do?
The federal government must stop neglecting its responsibilities. Policies on immigration and climate change, for example, are better set at the national level than at the local level. Reforms to break gridlock in Washington, such as abolishing filibustering in the Senate, could help. More than all that, though, America needs electoral reform.
It must end the redrawing of electoral constituencies, which allows politicians to choose their voters and not the other way around. States should conduct redistricting through independent commissions, as Michigan does, to depoliticize the process. This will make it difficult for a party to entrench itself in power. Furthermore, the creation of more competitive constituencies will force more politicians to appeal to the center.
Allowing multi-member constituencies might also help. Instead of divvying up constituencies and allowing only a single representative to be elected, that measure would increase the diversity of voices in state legislatures and in Congress. Ranked-choice voting, in which voters' second and third choices count if no candidate wins an outright majority in first preferences, could promote moderation. (On August 31, Alaska's ranked-choice vote prevented Sarah Palin from reaching Congress.)
Voters also have a responsibility. It may not be easy in the age of social media to ignore the gales of ready-made fury and vote for leaders who want to get things done. The alternative, however, is ever-increasing disunity, and that doesn't lead anywhere good.
© 2022 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved
Translation: Juan Gabriel López Guix
