An American Republic of City/States

Let's allow federalism to cure the partisan polarization

---

The following is an excerpt from my second book Promoting Progress: A Radical New Agenda to Create Abundance for All. You can order e-books at a discounted price at my website, or you can purchase full-price ebooks, paperback, or hardcovers on Amazon.

Other books in my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:

See also more articles on Cities:

1. Cities are where innovation takes place

2. Book review: "Triumph of the City" by Edward Glaeser

3. A Republic of City/States (this article)

4. more

   ---

Our current political system is undermining progress because it violates many of the concepts within the Five Keys to Progress and How Progress Works. The current American political system:

• Concentrates political power into the hands of very liberal Democrats and very conservative Republicans

• Highly restricts competition between political parties

• Makes it very difficult for new parties to be formed and become competitive

• Overcentralizes power into the hands of the federal government

• Restricts the ability of local and state governments to experiment with different policies

• Makes it very difficult to identify and implement policies that actually work.

Many Americans think that the situation has gotten so bad that we need a “National Divorce” (i.e. some sort of split up of the United States up to and including succession).

This is a really bad idea!

We need to come up with a better solution to enable Red America and Blue America to live in peace within our current borders. A far preferable solution would be to decentralize domestic policy (i.e. not foreign policy, the military, foreign trade and immigration) down to the state level wherever possible.

Our Decentralized Past

I believe that the traditional American solution (federalism) to the problem needs to be given a chance to work.

Our current over-centralization is a radical departure from the first 150 years of American history. Until 1930, virtually all government took place on the local and state level. Outside of the military and the post office, the federal government played very little day-to-day role in people’s lives.

The American political system was based upon the concept of federalism. Most power resided with state and local governments, and it was expected that they would each experiment with different policies based upon local conditions. When a policy proved successful, it was quite likely that other neighboring districts and states would learn of the results and copy them. Gradually, what worked would spread from state to state, and policies that were not perceived to work as well would not.

In this article, I sketched out how that might look. In this article, I push the idea of federalism even further.

Enable Metro Areas to Compete

While 50 states experimenting independently and copying whatever works from those experiments would be a vast improvement, perhaps we can do better.

The Commercial societies from European history, such as Venice, Florence, Bruges, Antwerp, and Amsterdam, give strong evidence that individual city/states competing against each other and copying what works can lead to greater progress. As I claimed in my first book, these Commercial societies essentially invented progress. We need to find a way to copy what worked from them within the confines of modern nation-states.

There is currently one small-scale political movement that has proposed making those Commercial city/states their model for political reform: the Charter City movement. The Charter City movement seeks to find new cities that are “granted special jurisdiction to create a new governance system and enact policy reforms.”

As I see it, the Charter City movement essentially wants to implement libertarian principles on the local level. While the Charter City movement is trying to establish city/states in developing nations (without much success so far), no one has tried to do this within the United States. It seems like a utopian and unconstitutional idea, but it is not.

Even if the Convention of States that I mentioned above never comes to pass, state constitutions allow cities to secede from the state to form their own states. So far only Maine (in 1820) and West Virginia (in 1863) have done so. Unfortunately, no one has thought through the great benefits of secession at scale.

States are not allowed to secede from the Union, as Abraham Lincoln made clear in 1861. The Civil War was the result of the last attempt to do so. Fortunately, the Union was preserved and the slaves were freed. I hope that the United States never has to go through anything like that again. I agree with Abraham Lincoln that state-level secession from the Union is a bad idea.

I also do not think that it is a good idea for individual cities or counties to secede from a state. This level of government is too small in geographical scope to work in practice, and most city and county borders are meaningless when it comes to everyday economic interactions.

A Republic of City/States

I believe that metropolitan governments are the best level of government for solving problems in a decentralized manner. Metropolitan governments are not the same as city governments. Metro areas include the downtown, all the surrounding suburbs, and all nearby satellite cities and their suburbs. Metro areas do not include the sparsely populated rural areas that are technically within city or county borders. So metro areas are based upon population density and economic interactions, not county or municipal borders.

Men in smoked-filled rooms created our current state, city, and county borders sometime in the past.  Metro areas evolved organically due to the economic forces that economists call “agglomeration” effects.

The U.S. Census Bureau has created a geographical concept called Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) to capture their agglomeration.  By analyzing commuter patterns, MSAs lump together the geographical areas that interact with each other daily.

---

As a quick note, I think the borders of MSAs as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau have some problems. They are defined by county lines, so they often include vast stretches of sparsely inhabited land within their borders. Plus some large metro areas, like the SF Bay area, are split into multiple MSAs.

In my mind, the key metric is population density, not county borders. I would prefer MSAs to be:

• much more compact

• ignore current country borders.

• link together two different MSAs that are geographically contiguous, where possible.

---

MSAs are de facto metro areas. Metro areas include a very high level of interaction between many different people in one small geographical area. This is exactly what you need for progress to work.

To give one example, the San Francisco Bay area is one metro area. It consists of the city of San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and all the nearby suburbs. Nearby Sacramento is a different metro area. So are the Los Angeles and San Diego metro areas. Altogether, the vast majority of Americans live in a metro area, and most live in one with a population of over two million.

Metropolitan-level governments are common in Europe and the rest of the world. Unfortunately, they are almost non-existent in the United States. Given that the metro area is the only level of government that has evolved rather than being established centuries ago, this is a major oversight.

While creating yet another level of government in the United States would probably fail and could well do more damage than good, perhaps we can upgrade entire metro areas into fully-fledged states. The United States has a robust tradition of federalism with a relatively clear division of responsibility between local, state, and federal governments. We should leverage this federalist tradition to create a workable decentralization of power that radically increases decentralized policy experimentation.

Not surprisingly, the metropolitan level is roughly analogous to the old Commercial city/states of European history. This level of government is very common in Europe, but, because Europe has much more centralized governance, those metro areas do not have much leeway for independent experimentation.

State governments in the United States have much more leeway for policy experimentation, and that leeway is enshrined in the Constitution. Unfortunately, the United States is almost completely lacking in metropolitan-level governments.

Create New States

I believe that I have figured out a way to effectively recreate the old European city/states within the current American federal system. Rather than trying to create a new level of metropolitan government, we should expand the number of states. The United States has had 50 states for so long that we forget that this has not always been the case.

One of the most important achievements of the Founding Fathers was to ensure that new western territories did not become colonies of the original 13 states. Instead, as the population migrated westward, territories were gradually transformed into self-governing states. As pioneers gradually migrated westward, the United States grew from 13 states to the current 50.

86 states, not 50

I propose that we “crank up the volume” of American federalism by creating 36 new states. If all 36 metro areas in the U.S. with a population of over 2 million seceded to form their own states, they would each have their own governor, their own state legislature, their own tax system, their own court system, and a great deal of constitutional leeway to experiment with different policies. These new states could maintain the same city governments that were already in existence if they chose to do so.

Together, these 36 metro areas comprise a total population of 161 million in 2020, or 49% of the United States. The largest metro areas that could receive statehood are New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, and Houston. The smallest metro areas would include Las Vegas, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Indianapolis and Cleveland.

Is this Constitutional?

Under the U.S. Constitution Article IV Section 4, state-level secession within the Union is permitted by “the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” The wording is a little vague, and to the best of my knowledge the U.S. Supreme Court has not offered an official interpretation of this clause, but the Constitution clearly allows for the creation of new states.

What is not clear is whether states can initiate the process without final Congressional approval. Remember that the U.S. Constitution was written to define the powers of the federal government only. The U.S. Constitution was never intended to define the powers of state governments.

Presumably, there would need to be some sort of proof that the affected metro areas want such a change, such as a referendum. So this would be either a two-step or a three-step process:

1. Referenda or legislative action within the counties or cities affected.

2. A majority vote of all affected State Legislatures (because some metro areas cross state boundaries).

3. (Likely also necessary) Majority vote by both the U.S. House and Senate.

If Congressional legislation is required, it could presumably be done in one simple majority vote granting all metro areas with a population over 2 million the right to form a new state. New states might be created as each census reveals more metro areas with other 2 million people. Few pieces of legislation would do more to lower the levels of partisan conflict within state legislatures than a clean separation of liberal metro areas from the conservative remainder of the states.

The push for creating new states could come from voters in metro regions who want their metro to secede from the state. Or the push could come from rural voters outside the metro area who want to kick them out of the state. Currently, the partisan divide is so strong that I could see either movement gaining traction fairly quickly once the idea becomes part of the political discourse.

Under my proposal, the 50 states that are currently in existence would remain. They would, however, be restricted to rural areas and cities with populations under 2 million people. To use Illinois as an example, the entire Chicago metro area would secede from the state of Illinois to form its own state. The state of Illinois would remain, but with fewer people.

Some of these states might decide to start with a clean slate that did not automatically duplicate all existing legislation and regulation from their previous state. This would allow them to take a look at massively reducing policies that no longer make any sense. Because they would have to hire new metro-level bureaucrats, there would be far less resistance to fundamental reform. This is exactly what the Charter City movement is trying to do abroad, but has so far failed to achieve.

Without the more liberal Chicago voters, the state of Illinois could implement sweeping changes that they otherwise would not be able to pass. The fledgling state of Chicago might be able to do the same but in the opposite direction. The new state of Chicago might resemble the new state of Seattle more than the updated version of Illinois.

Redrawing state borders would lead many governments to have a massive rethink of current policies, regulations, programs, and processes. Some might be more favorable to liberals, while others might be more favorable to conservatives. Some would prefer to pursue pragmatic centrist policies. If federal regulations and mandates were simultaneously reduced to allow states more freedom, this would create even more opportunities for local experimentation.

Given this redefinition of the concept of states, liberal voters who previously thought of states’ rights as an excuse to oppress Blacks might see things in a very different way. After four years of living under Trump with the possibility of four more in the future, Los Angeles and New York City voters might become hard-core advocates of state rights.

Opinion polls consistently show far more confidence in local and state government than in the federal government. While trust in the federal government is at or near all-time lows (24%), state (65%) and particularly local government (74%) gain net positive support from voters (Deloitte, Gallup).

I believe that having 86 states, all with much smaller populations, would give people a much greater connection with their government. Each state would be more homogeneous, but the ability to go its own way would empower greater diversity between states.

Decentralization, not partisan conflict

The great diversity of America could be represented on the state level rather than trying to force an epic zero-sum conflict on the federal level. It would also give us far more policy variations to experiment with.

Given that the United States has worked out the powers of the state and federal government, I do not see any long-term problems with creating more states. The biggest complication would be in the U.S. Senate, which would suddenly grow from 100 Senators to 172. Both parties would be very nervous about accidentally empowering the other party with more states. Each would weigh the partisan consequences carefully.

It would take some sophisticated mathematical computations to see which party would benefit from 72 new Senators. I admit the possibilities of a partisan shift, but we should not assume that the change will be big until we have better data. Particularly when the creation of new states is combined with the slimmer federal government that I proposed earlier, the consequences of new Senators would be much less extreme.

I believe that greater decentralization and the creation of more states will greatly power down the intensity of conflict between the two parties. With many more states that are all more homogeneous, we could let them experiment with different policies without huge partisan conflict on the federal level.

Let each metro area choose it own path

With lower federal taxes and spending, the federal government would become less important, except in natural security issues. This would dampen down the consequences of losing federal elections.

Liberals might shift to implementing vastly increased welfare states in the biggest metro areas without the encumbrance of Republicans. Republicans might not feel like liberals were trying to impose their will on them and be less worried about experimentation in liberal states.

Republicans might shift to cutting taxes, spending, and regulations in their states. Liberals would be less worried about the negative effects on poor people, because poor people could move to states with expansive benefits. Fewer people would be forced to accept policies that fundamentally conflict with their beliefs.

The very ideological elected officials of cities would be forced to modify their stances somewhat, because they would now have to appeal to far more moderate suburbanites. This would probably not have a big effect in the very large metro areas on the Pacific Coast and Northeast, but it would in the rest of the nation.

My proposal would also help to solve the problem of gerrymandering. Because states would be much smaller in both population and land area, there would be fewer opportunities for gaming the system. This would not eliminate the problem, but it would probably reduce it simply because voters within states would become more homogenous.

Make local politics meaningful again

In addition to the federal government giving states greater autonomy by eliminating regulations and mandates, city governments within metro areas should transfer many of their powers up to the new states. Currently, most metro areas are a labyrinth of mayors, councils, county governments, school boards, utility districts, water districts, and other authorities and special districts. Because each of them is so small and many are specific to a small policy domain, voter turnout is very low. They also receive very little media attention.

The combination of low turnout, low media coverage, and focus on one small policy domain, makes these local entities ripe for capture by special interests. It also means that it is hard to implement change across an entire metro area. By handing over some or all of these powers to much smaller state governments, we could make the new states more efficient and representative. City, municipal, and country governments within rural states would remain the same.

My proposal would effectively meld local and state governments together within metro areas and remove federal restrictions on autonomy and experimentation. More power to more states would make the government more representative, more effective, and more willing to experiment. This type of decentralization is exactly the kind of condition that makes progress possible.

Which metro areas would be states?

If my proposal were implemented, the following metro areas would become states (using the 2020 census):

• From the current state of California:

  • Los Angeles/Riverside

  • San Francisco Bay Area, including San Jose/Silicon valley

  • San Diego

  • Sacramento

• Seattle

• Portland (mainly from Oregon, but also a sliver of Washington

• Las Vegas

• Phoenix

• Denver

• From the current state of Texas:

  • Dallas-Fort Worth

  • Houston

  • Austin

  • San Antonio

• New Orleans

• From the current state of Tennessee:

  • Nashville

  • Memphis

• From the current state of Florida:

  • Miami

  • Orlando

  • Tampa

• Atlanta

• Charlotte

• Washington DC (from parts of Maryland and Virginia)

• Baltimore

• From the current state of Pennsylvania:

  • Philadelphia

  • Pittsburgh

• New York City (from parts of New York, Connecticut and New Jersey)

• Boston

• From the current state of Ohio:

  • Cincinnati

  • Columbus

  • Cleveland

• Detroit

• Chicago

• Indianapolis

• Minneapolis/St. Paul

• From the current state of Missouri:

  • St. Louis (also from parts of Illinois

  • Kansas City (also from parts of Kansas)

---

Most of the above was an excerpt from my second book Promoting Progress: A Radical New Agenda to Create Abundance for All. You can order e-books at a discounted price at my website, or you can purchase full-price ebooks, paperback, or hardcovers on Amazon.

Other books in my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:

See more articles on Cities:

1. Cities are where innovation takes place

2. Book review: "Triumph of the City" by Edward Glaeser

3. A Republic of City/States (this article)

4. more