How Can National Politics Be More Powerful Than Local Politics

In 1787 some of the leading founding fathers signed the Constitution with the vision that smaller local and state politics would lead the way in decision making. There was a belief among many of the founders that local politics would never be more powerful than national politics. However, that vision did not configure correctly; as nowadays national politics dominate over local. The idea that America’s progression as a whole justifies the dominance of national politics is incorrect. Progression does not mean positive change, only change through time. America has progressed as a nation politically, socially and economically, but those changes do not justify change in the levels of power or dominance in politics. Local and state governments should have the power to make decisions that will ultimately impact the lives and living standards of its inhabitants. The embodiment of federalism and political parties throughout American history help visualize the importance of stronger local governments. The fact American history tends to place emphasis on more dominant national politics rather than local politics is a common mistake. Stronger local politics are more efficient, more democratic and better suited to accommodate the diversity in modern America. In Relation to Federalism According to lecture, federalism allows innovation, experimentation and diversity (Ashcroft, 2016) which government officials sometimes use to justify constantly increasing the powers of national politics. Federalism at its cooperative (or “marble cake”) stage should be a mixture of equal powers that promote the previous characteristics. However, current national politics have become so strong the ability for American society to follow cooperative federalism has whittled away. In addition, even general requirements for federalism such as both levels having some leverage over each other (Ashcroft, 2016) has been negatively affected by dominant national politics. Currently, national politics dominate over local with leverage for local politics diminishing. As the national government increases in dominance, democracy and diversity accommodations sink. Despite equal representation within both sectors, without enough leverage for them to check each other, the separation is useless. In government, if the perceived head of politics and affairs increases their delegated power, politics rise nationally and sink locally. There becomes less input needed or wanted at the local level, discouraging democracy and proving less efficient in accommodating diversity in America. For instance, the increase in presidential war powers allowed presidents to declare war without congressional approval. The last time the United States declared war with congressional approval (as stated in the Constitution as the requirement to declare war) was in 1941 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. Since then the US has been in “extended military engagements” with Korea, Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan (Koroma, 2014). all of which have cost substantial amounts of money and American lives. Neither casualties nor war costs were voted upon or asked for by the American people; one single person made these choices and that action was less efficient, less democratic, and failed to suit American diversity. However, initial expression of local politics was in place as American bodies voted the president into power, entrusting the leader with the decision making on behalf of all within the nation. Local politics in 2016 primaries were given an upper hand with a heightened level of power to choose the presidential candidates. But, local politics followed the trend of national politics when choosing their candidates (Kernell, 108); supporting the claim that national politics at its largest is still democratic, efficient and accommodating the diversity of America. Despite the impact of local politics and Americans choosing a President so similar to that …show more content…
For example, the governor of Georgia changed the state flag without consent from any citizen, or other local political official then pushed the blame on citizen’s lacking the ability to “vote correctly” (Gonella, 2002) and was not held as the reason for public dismay or disapproval. The idea of collective accountability did not show any better in Georgia’s local politics however, once the introduction of money came into the equation, accountability for actions did rise. The citizens continued to support bills that increased the city budget, which became an unwanted action of the