States: Laboratories For Autocracy?
The focal point of this discourse is New Mexico, where Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham's temporary gun ban in response to escalating gun violence sparked nationwide debates.
The United States, with its diverse political landscape, provides a fertile ground for states to act as experimental hubs for various policies and ideologies. Historically termed as "laboratories of democracy," states have portrayed a vast array of governmental approaches. However, recent events have prompted a discourse questioning if these laboratories could also nurture authoritarian tendencies. The focal point of this discourse is New Mexico, where Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham's temporary gun ban in response to escalating gun violence sparked nationwide debates.
Perceived by many as a stark infringement on the Second Amendment, this move showcased the broad spectrum of power vested in a state's governor. While some argue the necessity of Governor Grisham’s decisive action, others view it as an overreach encroaching on constitutional rights. The ensuing legal tussle between the state and federal judiciary underscores the delicate balance of power.
At the heart of this discourse is the question: How much power should a state governor wield? The skirmishes between state and federal governments often end up in courts, sometimes reshaping the interpretation of the 10th Amendment. Each state, with its unique constitution, operates within the federal framework while retaining a level of autonomy. This autonomy, however, can be stretched or contracted.
A hypothetical yet plausible scenario could arise where a governor, leveraging a wave of popularity and political backing, decides to amend or even abolish the state constitution, consolidating power to become the sole elected official. This radical transformation could be justified as long as the governance remains within the contours of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. But it opens a Pandora's box: would the electorate willingly relinquish their power in favor of a strong governor, especially during times of federal government frailty? I think it is very possible.
The scenario becomes more complex in states with a dominant political color, where the lack of opposition could pave the way for an unprecedented centralization of power. In such instances, states could rally around strong leaders to challenge federal authority, a notion reminiscent of historical empires yielding to strongmen amidst declining central control.
Recent examples include Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida challenging the Biden Administration's authority over Central Bank Digital Currencies. Although in no way authoritarian, DeSantis Anti-CBDC bill shows a willingness of a State leader to challenge the Federal Government on behalf of their claimed electoral territory.
On the other end of the political spectrum, during the Trump administration, governors of progressive states like California and New York often challenged federal policies. For instance, California's stance against Trump's environmental deregulation showcased a state's ability to uphold different standards.
This stands in contrast to the growth of modern day City States in America like Los Angeles, New York City, Atlanta and Denver, which often use their oversized influence to control State decisions. The increasing influence of large corporations like Apple in California, Amazon in Washington, and others across different states, is akin to carving out modern-day fiefdoms. These entities wield enormous power, often overshadowing local governments.
The dynamic nature of political power, coupled with evolving societal norms, suggests that the traditional federal-state power equilibrium may undergo substantial shifts. The case of New Mexico serves as a stark reminder of the potential for State actions to reverberate across the nation, stirring a dialogue on how much the current power structures may soon be changing in the United States, with States leading the way.