New York. -- For decades, federalism was a boring subject that, whenever it came up, inspired pundits to dust off their copies of "The Federalist Papers" and motivated readers to rush off to the sports section. Yet, for three reasons, the issue holds our interest today.
First, governors are making news as they besiege Washington with their demands for more autonomy. Republican chief executives, filled with federalist fervor, now preside over 30 capitals with 72 percent of the U.S. population, including eight of the nine largest states.
Although some GOP governors, such as New Jersey's Christine Todd Whitman, are "liberal" on social issues such as abortion, almost all are fiscal conservatives, eager to run their own show without interference from Washington. The new gubernatorial clout was on display when the Senate, 86-10, and the House, 360-74, passed the "unfunded mandates" bill. Soon, Washington pols will no longer be able to take credit for "solving" problems, from water pollution to voter registration, even as they stick state governments with the bill.
The biggest issue on the table is welfare reform. As the chairman of the National Governors' Association, Howard Dean, D-Vt., observed, the only debate now is over the degree of decentralization. Whether or not the more activist governors, such as Tommy Thompson, R-Wis., succeed in their campaign to "block grant" 350 federal social programs into lump-sum payments, the new states'-rights movement will gain momentum.
Which leads us to the second reason things are changing: The states are changing. From the 1930s to the '60s, people believed that America's greatest domestic objectives -- from Keynesian pump-priming to interstate highways and racial integration -- could be fulfilled only from Washington. The persuasiveness of that argument diminished in the '70s. Inflation, gas lines and "malaise" seemed to be caused, not cured, by the feds -- and it's been downhill since then.
Moreover, the states are no longer the bastions of troglodytic reaction they had been before the Supreme Court's "one man-one vote" decisions of 1962-64. These rulings ended gerrymanders that had reinforced rural power to the detriment of urban power.
In addition, the 1965 Voting Rights Act opened up the franchise to minorities. Since then, the number of black elected officials nationwide has more than quintupled. As a result of these reforms, the states have become more responsive to the popular will even as Uncle Sam has become more bureaucratically remote.
Third, what centralized, monopolistic institution faces a bright future in the Information Age? If knowledge is power, then ordinary people are becoming a lot more powerful.
A single innovation -- C-Span -- has pierced the haze of smoke-filled rooms, revealing federal officials in all their . . . er . . . glory. Soon, all congressional proceedings will be on-line, and so people calling their favorite radio talk show will have been able to scrutinize all Washington legislation, looking for outrages.
The de-monopolization of information always has vast consequences. Centuries ago, John Wycliffe and William Tyndale had the idea that everyone -- not just priests -- should be able to read the Bible. They translated Scripture into English, so that even the humble farm boy could know the Word of God directly. Johann Gutenberg provided the technical support -- printing with movable type.
The result was the Reformation and the rise of Protestantism. In the late 20th century, as in the late 15th century, cutting-edge technology accelerates the overthrow of established authority.
Today, devolution is less traumatic than revolution. Yet if everyone is empowered to think for himself or herself, then the paternalistic operating system of Big Government, run from the Washington mainframe, is headed for a crash. The efforts of the 50 governors to develop their respective replacement models should hold our attention well into the next century.
James P. Pinkerton is a columnist for Newsday.