Two years after the government of
Texas in the U.S. began transferring migrants to other states and to Washington
D.C., the government of Hungary announced that it too would bus migrants, but
rather than transporting them to other states, the destination would be Brussels
exclusively. Although the respective political strategies differ, the two
policies both represent the same pressure point in federal systems. The cost of
united action at the federal level on public policy is that the states are not
as free as otherwise to manifest their respective ideological and cultural
views in public policy at the state level. That federal policy or law is often
a compromise between the preferences of the states means that political
pressure exists not only between states, but between a given state and federal
law. This is inherent to federalism because it provides benefits from united
action and some ability of states to enact legislation reflecting their respective
distinct dominant ideology. Enabling both is one of federalism’s best features,
yet it comes with a cost in terms of political tension that is endemic rather
than merely episodic. Simply put, no system of government is without drawbacks
or downsides. The trick is perhaps in how to manage them so they don’t get so
out of control that the federal system itself collapses. In 2024, Viktor
Orbán, governor of the E.U. state of Hungary, was testing the limits much more
than was Greg Abbott, governor of the U.S. state of Texas, even as Orbán was
using Abbott’s playbook.
The full essay is at "Hungary and Texas."
