Introduction
Although governments globally have adopted varying responses to mitigate the spread of Covid-19, the fragmented approach in the United States due to federalism has complicated the country’s proposed interventions. In the article “One Virus, Two Americas”, Ashish Jha illustrates how the pandemic has manifested the strengths and weaknesses of a two-tier government system. Jha notes that Covid-19 has extensively tested the robustness and complementarity of the states and the national administration, ultimately creating an impression of two nations combating one viral infection. With the national government largely abdicating its responsibility towards responding to Coronavirus through delayed interventions and disputing sciences, some states acted promptly and embraced the insights of health experts and succeeded in controlling the spread. In the publication, Jha observes that the infection rates soared in the jurisdictions that were reluctant to leverage their resources and compensate for the inefficiencies occurring at the federal level. This scenario is an example of federalism since it demonstrates the division of power between the two government levels, which contradicts the unitary administrations.
Issues Discussed and Why it Exemplifies Federalism
The United States’ response to mitigating the spread of Covid-19 has been characterized by divergent and conflicting interventions between the federal government and the states. In his article, Jha argues that federalism complicated the country’s efforts, actions, and policies designed to address the rising cases of infections, ultimately leading to the realization of mixed outcomes. He notes that the fragmented and disjointed interventions between the two governmental tiers have laid bare the weaknesses of federalism while simultaneously manifesting its strengths, asserting that two nations were responding to one viral infection. Arguably, the national government abdicated its responsibility, was lethargic in its approach, and reluctantly implemented the various containment measures, thereby increasing infection rates (Jha). However, Jha contends that federalism provided an opportunity for the states to formulate and enact their individual responses, particularly those that embraced science and health experts’ advice. In this regard, the United States’ policies on Coronavirus exemplifies federalism since different jurisdiction responded independently and developed customized strategies that reflected the unique characteristics of the local population.
Additionally, the article “One Virus, Two Americas” illustrates the existing constitutional boundaries on the obligations and responsibilities of the federal and state governments. Jha notes that the federal system explicitly apportions the national government’s specific powers, rights, and functions while others are reserved for the states. The latter enabled the individual states to determine their applicable policies through the pandemic, resulting in the realization of disparate outcomes within the United States. For instance, such states as Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey adopted aggressive daily testing, tracing, and isolating strategies, which facilitated the effective control of the daily infection rates (Jha). Conversely, jurisdictions such as Florida, Arizona, Texas, South Carolina, and Georgia chose an anti-scientific stance and largely ignored expert advice, ultimately resulting in a spike in the infection rates (Jha). This scenario where different states are at liberty to adopt a particular approach regardless of the strategy taken by the national government exemplifies federalism and the associated disparities in the outcomes at the state level.
Federalism in the Covid-19 era in the United States is manifested in the diverse responses and interventions between the federal governments and states and the different jurisdictions. The mitigation and containment measures adopted by the national government were conflicting with the experts’ advice and the scientific community, promoting state governors to decide on the best plans to enhance public health in their regions. For instance, most states departed from the federal administration’s position and swiftly imposed stringent measures, including statewide lockdowns and mask mandates. This fragmented, disjointed, and decentralized response epitomizes a federalist form of government where the two administrative levels have distinct rights to make policies and regulate diverse areas of governance.
Resultant Problems from the State-National Policy Conflict
The United States’ interventions toward mitigating the coronavirus pandemic have been characterized by mixed, heterogeneous, and often conflicting state-national policy positions. Jha contends that in the absence of the rights reserved for the states, America would have had one unitary response to the pandemic. Similarly, without the authority to independently formulate and implement state-specific public health strategies, the ability to mitigate the spread of the virus in some jurisdictions would have been severely impeded. For instance, ex-President Donald Trump firmly believed that such containment measures as stay-at-home orders and mask mandates hurt workers and businesses and adversely affected the economy (Jha). The resultant implication is that there was general confusion across the United States. From this perspective, the policy conflicts between the national and state governments and the fragmented approaches significantly complicated the country’s ability to effectively contain the virus in its early stages than its European counterparts.
Additionally, the piecemeal strategies endangered the health of residents of neighboring states. Notably, ex-President Trump continuously resisted the calls to craft a unitary order, which would harmonize the approaches and interventions, even alluding to the states’ primacy in controlling the general health, safety, and the public’s welfare. In this regard, federalism in the United States aggravated the infection rates as the national and state governments struggled to develop containment measures applicable and enforceable countrywide.
Moreover, Covid-19 demonstrated the uncertainties shrouding federalism, particularly regarding the boundaries of constitutional obligations. This was a major impediment to the country’s interventions since the collective fate of Americans relied on the efficiency, speed, and unity of purpose in mitigating the spread. This implies that federalism engendered divided governance and created unnecessary challenges, slowing down the response strategies, complicating their adoption, or jeopardizing their effectiveness. For instance, the efficacy of limited movements and mandatory masks in one state could be eroded by the infiltration of residents in a neighboring jurisdiction where no measures were imposed. Therefore, federalism hampered the development of a unitary and harmonized approach, ultimately leading to a spike in cases.
Governance Efficiency in the United States Federalism
The federal nature of the United States government creates two tiers of administration, which share power at the state and national levels. This implies that the country’s sovereignty is constitutionally subdivided between the constituent political units and the central governing authority. According to Ogunnoiki, federalism’s most distinctive feature is the division of authority and sovereignty between the federating units and a centrally organized institution (52). Although the primary objective of this political structure was to safeguard the states against the excessive influences of the federal government, it has significantly contributed to the prevalent governance inefficiencies in the United States. These inadequacies are manifested in policy conflicts, uncertainties, ambiguousness, and other issues lacking distinct and precise boundaries. Benton notes that these fault lines are inherent in federalism, with their associated challenges being reflected in the country’s failure to effectively mitigate the spread of Covid-19 (537). In this regard, America’s federalism impedes effective governance by creating various points of policy conflicts due to disparate interests and the intrinsic intergovernmental strains. Therefore, this structure of government creates more problems than it solves.
Further, the United States is characterized by punitiveness and extensive polarization. According to Goelzhauser and Konisky, the country’s vertical power-sharing creates a scenario where the national government suppresses the states when the latter’s actions are contrary to the federal policy preferences (311). As a result, the regional jurisdictions may be compelled to adopt policy positions that do not reflect their interests or are inapplicable. For instance, the states which proactively implemented mask mandates, lockdowns, and other containment measures were reprimanded for running afoul of the federal government’s position of protecting the economy first. Notably, American federalism has progressively become uncooperative, resulting in the coercion of the states to adopt and implement the federal policies. From this perspective, the competing nature of the two tiers of government generates more problems than they can effectively resolve.
Conclusion
Conclusively, federalism creates a governmental structure where the sovereignty and power are constitutionally divided between the federal and regional units. Although the system was initially designed to enhance governance through intergovernmental relations and cooperative engagements, its shortcomings outweigh the benefits as manifested by America’s inefficient response to Covid-19, leading to spiraling infections and widespread deaths. However, the absence of a unitary, nationally binding policy allowed some states to craft and develop their autonomous containment measures, which enabled them to significantly control the spread of the virus and save many lives.
References
Benton, J. Edwin. “Challenges to Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations and Takeaways Amid the COVID-19 Experience.” The American Review of Public Administration, vol. 50, no. 6−7, 2020, pp. 536−542.
Goelzhauser, Greg, and David, M. Knonisky. “The State of American Federalism 2019−2020: Polarized and Punitive Intergovernmental Relations.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism, vol. 50, no. 3, 2020, pp. 311−343.
Jha, Ashish. “One Virus, Two Americans.” Foreign Affairs, 2020.
Ogunnoiki, Adeleke Oluminde. “Federalism as a Political Ideology and System of Government: The Theoretical Perspectives.” International Journal of Advanced Academic Research, vol. 3, no. 9, 2017, 52−80.