1. Reflecting on the different systems of government and how they shape the role of citizens is an interesting exercise. In a federal system, such as the one we have in the United States, I’ve always appreciated the way power is shared between the central government and individual states. As a citizen, this dual structure gives me the opportunity to influence both national policies, through voting for federal representatives like the president and members of Congress, and state-specific policies by electing local governors and legislators. This division makes me feel more connected to the governance at different levels, and I can see the direct impact my votes have on issues that affect my state and community. On the other hand, thinking about a confederation system, where the central government has limited power and states hold most of the authority, the role of citizens seems more focused on state governance. I imagine that, in such a system, my interaction with the central government would be minimal, and most of my concerns would be addressed at the state or regional level. This is quite different from what I experience in the federal system, where the federal government plays a significant role in many aspects of daily life. In a unitary system, like in France, where power is concentrated in the central government, citizens primarily engage with national-level governance, with local governments functioning as administrative branches. I think I would feel less connected to local government under such a system because most decisions would be made centrally, leaving less autonomy for local adaptation.
  2. The division of power in a federal system ensures a balance that prevents one level of government from becoming too dominant. I appreciate this, especially when I see collaboration between state and federal governments on issues like healthcare or education. Each level has distinct responsibilities, but they also must work together. This balance of power is essential because it allows states to have control over issues that are specific to their regions while still being part of a unified national framework. For instance, education is mostly a state responsibility, but federal guidelines and funding often play a crucial role in shaping policies.
  3. The federal government’s influence on state and local governments was particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. I remember how federal guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shaped New York’s public health response. The federal government provided critical resources such as medical supplies, ventilators, and financial support through programs like the CARES Act. This federal assistance was key in helping New York manage the overwhelming pressure on its healthcare system. However, I also noticed that New York state took a leading role in implementing stricter lockdowns and public health measures compared to the broader federal guidelines. This dynamic between state and federal authority during the pandemic showed me the strength of a federal system. While federal support was crucial, New York’s government was able to adapt its response to meet the needs of its population. It highlighted how states can take initiative while still benefiting from federal resources and guidance, striking a balance between local autonomy and national unity in times of crisis.

One thought on “Discussion Board 7.1”

  1. Hello Nan, your response gives an excellent analysis of how the U.S. federal system allows citizens to interact with many levels of government, creating a sense of community and power over local and national issues. You also highlighted on the unique flexibility of federalism, which was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic when collaboration between the federal government and states enabled customized solutions. It is true that the balance between national unity and regional freedom is a strength, enabling governments to modify policies to suit their unique requirements. Wonderful Job

Leave a Reply