WASHINGTON - News from U.S. state capitols does not often make it across the Atlantic, but over the past month the actions of several U.S. governors have been featured in the European press, from last month's coverage of the decision of three governors to reject federal high-speed rail funding to last week's coverage of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's now successful effort to strip his state's unions of their collective bargaining rights. This recent interest is a welcome development, but even more attention is merited at a time when a new political culture among governors is shaking up Washington.
Perhaps the inner workings of U.S. statehouses have not been matters of great interest in Europe because there is no real parallel in European governance structures. Even in Germany, the country whose federal structure is most similar to the United States, the minister-presidents of the Länder are by necessity deeply involved in federal politics due to their dual position as members of the Bundesrat, Germany's second federal chamber. U.S. governors, on the other hand, have an unusual degree of autonomy within the American federal system and have often used this independence to stand apart from Washington's political battles. But recent events suggest that this may be changing.
Governors are, in the words of Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institution, "leaders grounded in place rather than rooted in ideology." As such, they have often been perceived as a moderating influence in our political system - often steering clear of the more bitter federal political battles and, at times, reaching across party lines as potential allies for presidents. For example, in 1989, under the first President George Bush, a bipartisan group of governors reached an accord with him on education reform goals to the dismay of some in Congress who felt they had been bypassed in the process. Even at a time of great political polarization during President Barack Obama's first term, four Republican governors publicly and strongly supported the stimulus bill against the views of their Congressional party allies. Among these governors was then-Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, who explained his position by saying: "It really is a matter of perspective... As a governor, the pragmatism that you have to exercise because of the constitutional obligation to balance your budget is a very compelling pull."
To be sure, even among governors, crossing party lines has been the exception, not the rule. While four Republican governors openly supported the stimulus act, 25 states with Republican governors joined lawsuits against Obama's health care bill. But the willingness of a small but prominent group of governors to cross party lines nevertheless bolstered the image of governors as moderates willing to get things done on-the-ground without relying on ideology.
But this long-held view of governors is now being challenged. The new class of governors can hardly be viewed as a moderating force. Quite on the contrary, they are taking controversial stands that have a direct impact on federal funding and policy, such as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's decision to cancel one of the State's most significant infrastructure projects despite strong federal support, the decisions of the governors of Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin to reject federal funding for high-speed rail that had already been awarded to their states under their predecessors, and Alaska Governor Sean Parnell's announcement (now recanted) that he would not implement the federal health care law. And while Wisconsin Governor Walker's battle with the unions might not have a direct impact on federal policy, it could have a strong impact on federal politics due to the position of unions among the Democrats' base.
Are these governors just exhibiting a new pragmatism, driven by unprecedented financial strain, or are they exercising their ideological muscles, buoyed by the Tea Party populism that brought many of them into office? The answers will vary from case to case, of course. And what is considered pragmatic is undoubtedly colored by ideology, particularly in hard economic times requiring tough budget decisions. But the fact is that we are witnessing a new willingness for governors to jump into the federal political fray, not as promoters of compromise but as political standard bearers. As Ronald Brownstein wrote recently in the National Journal, "American politics increasingly resembles a kind of total war in which each party mobilizes every conceivable asset at its disposal against the other. Most governors were once conscientious objectors in that struggle. No more."
If there was ever a time for proactive problem-solving rather than politics, this would seem to be it. With all levels of government struggling with ballooning deficits, both the states and the federal government would benefit from an active, pragmatic partnership and an openness to compromise. Perhaps such a partnership can be encouraged by placing the onus for providing answers back on governors - as appears to be the goal of a recent proposal allowing early opt-out from the health care law for states that pass their own legislation. Isn't this what Justice Louis Brandeis was talking about when he famously stated "that a single courageous state may, if its citizen choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country"? (New State Ice Company vs. Liebmann, 1932) Let's hope our new governors begin using the autonomy they have in our federal system not simply to reject funding and oppose legislation, but to propose solutions. After all, this has long been considered their strength.
