Republican GOP debate should focus more on the states, less on Washington

At Wednesday night’s Republican debate in Alabama, many will be looking for the candidates to say more about what they plan to do if elected. But that actually gets things backward. It’s better if they say less — less about what Washington can do to solve the country’s problems and more about what states can do to come up with innovative solutions.

Americans don’t need to hear how one person plans to solve all the nation’s problems, but rather how candidates will empower states to tackle the pressing issues of the day. For in an era when Americans seem more divided than ever, one thing everyone can agree upon is that Washington is broken. And that’s exactly why America’s founders wrote the perfect prescription for its current political stasis: federalism.

Federalism is all about giving the states more power and control over policy. And it makes sense.

States are closer to their citizens, which allows them to better represent them politically and better serve them in general. It’s far easier to have one’s voice heard in the halls of power in Des Moines or Albany than in DC. Plus, competition brings out the best in us.

When states can compete against one another on issues like education or taxes, the people benefit. Competition rewards innovation and punishes complacency. I can relate this from my experience as a legislator. In Michigan, lawmakers looked to other states that had found ways to balance protecting healthcare services for accident victims while saving drivers money. The result was landmark bipartisan legislation that lowered auto insurance rates.

This never would have happened were it not for other states finding solutions and, quite frankly, making Michigan look bad with the most expensive rates in the nation.

In short, everyone wins when states compete on the best solutions, with the possible exception of Washington’s permanent political class.

Federalism was perhaps best exemplified during the pandemic, when states had significant latitude to manage their own responses. That fostered intense competition, with each state trying to outdo the others. Sometimes, they learned from one another and made adjustments. Other times, they simply presented different visions of what the ideal looked like to them — or what fit their own populations best. Florida and California offer two of the most obvious examples here. Their divergent approaches on everything from COVID-19 to taxes and environmental policy was on full display when Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) held their own long-awaited debate last week.

While I greatly favor Florida’s vision, it’s important that candidates resist the temptation only to allow states to innovate when it helps “their team.” If California wants to impose prohibitions on drilling for oil, that is its prerogative, but Florida should also be free to use its own resources as it sees fit.

Let’s let Florida be Florida, and let’s also let California be California. Repeated attempts to impose one-size-fits-all solutions on a vast and diverse nation are what got the U.S. into this political mess in the first place.

Thankfully, federalism offers a way out. The key is simply to say less and let the states do more.

So, if the presidential candidates are actually serious about “getting things done,” they’ll ditch the canned slogans and focus on what states can do instead. Which state policies inspire them? In what areas are states already taking the lead? In what other areas can states be empowered to do more, or given more flexibility to manage policies too politically toxic for Washington to handle? 

These are things Americans want to hear. The U.S. is not in need of a commander-in-chief who micromanages every decision in education, healthcare, and the environment. Instead, it’s time for someone who trusts the American people to make their own decisions — to work in their states and communities on solutions that fit them best.

That’s how America was designed, and it’s still how it works best.

Steven Johnson, a former member of the Michigan House of Representatives, is a fellow with the Center for Practical Federalism at State Policy Network.