Lori Walsh: Since SARS-CoV-2 was first confirmed in the US, state governors have often taken the lead in the response to the virus. They hold daily press conferences, they bid against other governors for personal protective equipment, they make sweeping or nuanced decisions about the closure of businesses in their individual states, decisions that are celebrated, decisions that are ridiculed. The federal government stumbled out of the gate with a failed CDC test and a hesitation to mount a federal response. Is that a hallmark of the Trump administration or is it something more revealing? Emily Wanless is an Associate Professor in the Government and International Affairs Department in Augustana University. She holds a PhD in political science with an emphasis in American government, and she's joining us today to talk about federalism and the role of state governments in a pandemic. Professor Wanless, thanks for being here. We appreciate your time.
Emily Wanless: Always happy to be here, Lori. Thank you.
Lori Walsh: So it must be an interesting time to be teaching American government or political science to college students as these examples sort of unfold before your eyes on a daily basis. How much have you sort of incorporated current events into your coursework, in your conversations with students, virtual conversations with students?
Emily Wanless: So often we talk about a lot of these concepts very abstractly, but what the students are witnessing now is really policy unfolding right before their eyes, the process unfolding right before their eyes, and the struggle that has always been around when it comes to federalism and states versus the federal government jurisdiction. And so what they normally don't see as a very kind of intriguing or sexy topic. I think they're seeing a lot of controversy and are very intrigued by the process.
Lori Walsh: Often when we think of states' rights, we think of controversial topics like abortion, or gay marriage, and what state lawmakers can push a bill that's going to end up going and being unconstitutional and going to the Supreme Court. And there is these battles on these very important things, but they can feel if they don't affect you personally, distant and academic. This is incredibly real, and it touches everyone, with whose responsibility is it to respond to a pandemic? Tell people a little bit, when we say the word federalism, what are we talking about there and how far back does this debate go?
Emily Wanless: Well, it goes back to the very beginning. If you recall, our country was first founded as a Confederation under the articles of Confederation, which basically means that the national government derived all of its power from the states, very much different than what we've seen it evolve to today.
The alternative to that would be that you have a unitary government where all power is centrally located with a federal government. The United States, because of various needs that they had to satisfy when they created the country, was basically to set up a system of federalism where state's rights were protected from any sort of federal encroachment. But they also recognize that there are times, maybe things like a pandemic where you need a national coordinated response. And so a system of federalism basically is where states and federal governments are supreme in their own sphere of power, meaning that there are certain areas that they have the right to regulate where the other level of government does not.
And I think where the debate comes in is, what exactly are those jurisdictional boundaries? Where should power reside? And unfortunately, the Constitution is quite a source of conflict for this discussion. It has numerous provisions that are either left open to interpretation, or in direct contrast with each other, can support more a state's rights point of view versus a more federalist point of view. And so for example, states rightists will often refer to the 10th amendment and the reserve powers saying that anything that isn't in the Constitution, those powers are reserved to the states. But then it follows it up by saying that the federal government has powers necessary and proper to achieve powers listed in the Constitution. So basically you are limited, federal government, to powers that are not listed in the Constitution except for when you need them to achieve any other powers that you might have listed in the Constitution.
So for years this debate has gone on over what exactly the role of the federal government should be versus the state. So that's the history behind it. Where we are today is basically two points of view. We have what is known as dual federalism, which is where states and the federal government are seen as equal. So it really emphasizes that 10th amendment and limits the government to enumerated powers. And then we've got the other side of the coin, those that believe in cooperative federalism where states and federal governments work collectively to solve these problems that might exist across the country. And so a broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause or the commerce clause, and it's a little bit more hierarchical where the federal government orchestrates, allocates, money but then wants the oversight that comes with that.
And so over time, the courts have supported both of these perspectives on federalism largely due to the need of the federal government. So for example, from the founding of our country, up until the Great Depression, we very much valued dual federalism and states' rights because we were wary of a large, powerful government. But when the Great Depression occurred, we were more interested in the federal government stepping in and assisting the states, and so we championed cooperative federalism up until about the 70s and then we start to see, with a series of Republican presidents, more conservative viewpoints that are returned to this devolution and state's rights. And that's where we've been up until very recently, where we're seeing more and more involvement with the federal government.
Lori Walsh: So one of my questions, and we are in an election year and one of the questions that we're trying to sort of untangle here is when we look at the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic, especially because we have a president who has a different communication style than what many people are satisfied with or what other people are used to, is the response and evidence of one president, one administration, the failures and successes of that administration, or even in an aptitude if you feel highly critical of the federal response? Or is it more like this is just a political ideology and an ongoing argument about who is really supposed to be doing those things? In other words, would it be different if Ronald Reagan was president or if George W. Bush was president, or if George H. Bush was president versus Donald Trump? Or is it just we've never had to really look at something this sweeping since the Great Depression or since World War II and we're all grappling with this at the same time? Can you help me parse out performance versus ideology?
Emily Wanless: Sure. I think one of the things that might be going on with the Trump administration is exactly what you just said, which is that the ideology of a conservative point of view would be that very much we need to honor the states and the states should have the authority and they should be responsible that the federal government really should take a back seat to the needs and the wants of the States. But at the same time I think that we see, especially with this pandemic, that it's crossing state lines and so it might not be a situation most suited for deference to the states.
In terms of communication, I think that it wouldn't surprise many that the Trump administration has been inconsistent in communication both in terms of its national response and messaging, but also in coordination with the states. And I think if you look back most recently, that something that's applicable here would be the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act under President Obama. And a lot of people are starting to draw comparisons between the response there and the states versus the federal government and the response of the state here. And one of the key differences that seems to be, at least to me, missing with the Trump administration, is the coordination and communication amongst the governors. I mean, I think when we watched the daily press conferences from the White House, they're always talking about ... Vice President Pence was talking about, we're going to have a call later with the governors and talk about specific things. But I think if you listen to the governors, they're not very impressed maybe with the level of communication that they're receiving from the White House and then the subsequent coordination that comes as a result of that communication. And so I think part of it is a tension between ideology and necessity and then a part of it is the communication style of this administration.
Lori Walsh: And should state governors ever be bidding against each other for emergency supplies? That seems on the outside like a tremendous of the United States, is it?
Emily Wanless: I think the key there is exactly what you just highlighted, which is emergency equipment. And I would say that under normal circumstances and even under abnormal circumstances, competition is a vital component of our federalist system. States are constantly competing with each other for federal funding, whether it be an area of education or technology, they set up grant money based solely on competition at times. And so states compete all the time for money. And in part that's a good thing because it does promote innovation. It makes states take stock of what is unique to their population and what they can offer, what they need, and figuring out creative solutions to problems. And so I think when Trump pushes back and says, this is where governors need to figure it out on their own, in a sense he's saying, you guys do this all the time, this isn't our responsibility, we need you to come up with what works best for your population.
But again, I would say you can only really encourage this competition to a certain level. And when you have that price gouging and scarce resources, that's where it becomes extremely troubling when lives are at stake. But if the federal government were able to improve the communication and the coordination efforts where states provide them with the information, here's where we are seeing a lack of resources or here's where our health system is really being taxed, and the federal government acquires all of that information from the 50 states, it can then coordinate a way to deal with these scarce resources. In a way it's still competition, but it's not an unfair competition because of a lack of information being widely distributed.
Lori Walsh: As I said, we're in an election year, and as people were thinking broadly about their candidates, are they also thinking broadly about the role of federal government? And I ask this question because the presumptive democratic nominee is Joe Biden at this point, but Bernie Sanders recently dropped out and he had vastly different ideas about the role of a federal government than, say, the current president does. Do you think people are thinking about what they expect from their government in a new way, especially because we've seen all these governors' press conferences carried nationally, which who could name five governors of the United States four months ago and now it just seems like they're all center stage. From your experience, what do you sort of predict voters are going to be tuned into in November?
Emily Wanless: Well, I think, historically this debate of state's rights versus the federal government and the role of government has always aligned with the liberal and conservative competition in an election. And so this is just another manifestation of that ideology. So in one way, I don't think if you're somebody who has always been a champion of state's rights you're all of a sudden going to abandon that. So I think that that's one thing.
And then in terms of how voters are going to evaluate the politicians that are in office, historically, we've seen that voters, when looking at a national level, are willing to place blame everywhere but their backyard. And so those that are in power typically are going to probably be benefited in a situation like this just because of the amount of coverage that they're getting, the name recognition that voters will have, the familiarity with performance. And really if you think about the messaging of these governors of these states, even down to the local level with mayors, you see these politicians saying like, I'm here sticking up for my constituents, I'm making sure my people are protected and really advocating for their citizenry. I mean, that message sounds great to voters. If I'm looking and I'm seeing that I'm being pitted against other states or I'm seeing a federal government that isn't listening to my state or my needs. And so I think the messaging is ripe for incumbent success in the upcoming election.
Lori Walsh: Sure. Before I let you go, Emily, what are some of your students asking about this time as they're young, they're thinking about their futures and they're also, as we said in the beginning of our conversation, really watching these centuries old debates play out in a real time with real lives and livelihoods at stake. What kinds of questions are they asking you that you find particularly insightful?
Emily Wanless: Well, I think they're as uncertain as everybody else in terms of what their future holds, so I think that we've been talking quite a bit just about what life will look like going forward, what will government regulations look like moving forward. I think that they're very much intrigued lately with this idea of not just the Trump administration versus the governors, but governors versus mayors, both locally here in Sioux falls, but also in states like Georgia. I think they're very much interested in applying this debate that's going federal versus state and seeing how it transitions state into locality. And so that's something that's really captured their attention as of late.
Lori Walsh: Yeah, there had been some interesting lessons there, haven't there? As well as we've watched that-
Emily Wanless: Well, you would think that this argument doesn't really change, it has been something that has been around for forever, but this new ripple with the governors versus mayors, this is something that's also very fascinating and unusual up until now.
Lori Walsh: Bottom line, elections have consequences.
Emily Wanless: Yes.
Lori Walsh: Every office seems suddenly very, very important, I guess, is what I'm saying, from the lawmakers who [inaudible 00:17:46] and what they were able to do or where they struggled, to your local mayor, to your governor, to your school board. All of a sudden it just, I think if nothing else, there must be a clarity among young people today that we vote not just because we like someone's, the way they talk or their personality, we vote and it can affect our lives in very real ways and in a blink of an eye.
Emily Wanless: Yeah. And I would add to that that so often, because of the national media attention on the more federal offices, they all thought that that's where governing was happening and that's where policy decisions were really being made and decisions that affected their daily life. And what they're finding is that local government and state government has much more of an impact on their daily lives than anything they're seeing on national cable news.
Lori Walsh: Yeah. Dr. Emily Wanless, thank you for being here today. We appreciate your time.
Emily Wanless: Thank you so much.