I Got Pawlenty O' Nuttin'
Before John McCain selects Tim Pawlenty as his running mate, he should keep in mind that it is very unlikely that Pawlenty will flip Minnesota. Patricia Lopez of The Star-Tribune raised some tough questions about whether Pawlenty had the follow-through to succeed as a policymaker. At one point, Lopez quotes Larry Jacobs, a well-regarded left-of-center political scientist, who raises an intriguing point.
Another view of Pawlenty is that he is not so much a headline-grabber as an instinctive innovator trapped in his own small-government, low-tax ideology.
“What we’re seeing here is Tim Pawlenty at war with himself,” said Larry Jacobs, director of the Humphrey Institute’s Center for the Study of Politics and Governance. “He’s taken strong, bold positions that the political marketplace has a hard time digesting. Then he retreats.”
It is very tough to be truly innovative at the state level, particularly when you’re facing a Legislature dominated by the opposition, a tough economic climate, and a toxic national political climate. Pawlenty, lest we forget, barely won reelection. So we shouldn’t be too harsh with the guy. More than anything, Pawlenty’s experience reinforces John Kitzhaber’s notion that what the states need most is greater flexibility — a loosening of the federal straitjacket. I often sense that liberals are making a mistake when they push strong federal policies on climate change, for example. Better to provide frameworks that will allow the states to race ahead, rather than have the feds preempt promising policy innovations.
“I often sense that liberals are making a mistake when they push strong federal policies on climate change, for example. Better to provide frameworks that will allow the states to race ahead, rather than have the feds preempt promising policy innovations.”
But it’s not in the interest of any single state to begin an ambitious and expensive climate change program, because it will receive only a vanishingly small percentage of the benefits. This is a classic externality problem, and it isn’t just at the individual level. States have less of an incentive to combat global warming than the federal government, which has less of an incentive than a hypothetical world government. (Which, if it existed, would be the only organization that would properly internalize the costs of environmental destruction from climate change…)
Of course, the federal government can improve its lot by making emissions reductions conditional upon other nations achieving similar reductions in an international framework. It will take lots of heavy diplomatic lifting, but ultimately I think it will happen. In theory, smaller units like states can do this too, but the federal government exists precisely so that this kind of crude and ineffective bartering isn’t necessary to solve collective-action problems that arise among states.
— Matt Rognlie · Jul 9, 03:09 AM · #
Hi Matt:
Well, there are different pressures and constituencies acting at different levels — the danger is federal preemption, i.e., bad, weak policies imposed at the federal level that forestall better policies. Aha, so we can have strong, good policies at the federal level and impose them everywhere! How likely is that in reality? If you can make it happen, more power to you.
— Reihan · Jul 9, 04:04 PM · #
As flaming lefty pinkos go, I’m a pretty strong supporter of federalism. But neither Reihan’s original post nor his response to Matt Rognlie are very convincing.
Practical federalism relies on a principle of subsidiarity: decisions should be made at the lowest possible level. Subsidiarity, for example, argues that most water pollution should be left to the states (rivers aside.) But global warming? Based on subsidiarity, I can’t think of a better candidate for One World Government.
Faced with Matt’s variation on this argument, Reihan’s response was particularly weak. In effect: “all gummint is evil/weak/stupid.” Fine. I’ll buy it, or at least rent it. But it proves to much. Accepting this point, what is Reihan’s response to global warming? Moving to Northern Canada?
— Joe S. · Jul 10, 07:38 PM · #