From a governance perspective, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the forefront a major feature of the American political system: the federal nature of our government and debate over the appropriate relationship between the National Government and State Government

 

Former President Trump’s strategy for combating the coronavirus involved a combination of national and state administration. Broad federal recommendations for combating the spread of the virus were developed, but implementation of these guidelines was on the shoulders of the state governors. The national government under President Trump funded the development of a vaccine and planned on allowing governors to develop priorities for distribution of the vaccine, along with a general recommendation that those “highest at risk” should be given priority. This split-responsibility approach was met with a wave of criticism because of a lack of a singular and clear national response. In addition, there were accusations that the Trump administration was implementing this strategy solely so it could take credit for successes while blaming setbacks on governors and state governments.  Others, however, have stated that because the virus has hit different regions of the country with differing levels of severity, it makes sense that the national government would not attempt a one-size-fits-all strategy.  They argued that a more centralized approach takes power away from the states to experiment with different ways to deal with the virus in an area — public health –  where states have significant responsibilities and resources.

 

On the other hand, the new administration under President Biden has attempted to take a more nationalized approach, believing that the nature of the problem of a pandemic requires a more centralized administration or at least a clearer singular national strategy and national set of tactical approaches. They have raised concerns that racial minority groups have experienced a disproportionate share of COVID-19 infections for a variety of reasons, including higher prevalence of underlying conditions due to institutional lack of access to preventative healthcare, higher rates of those who are uninsured, a disproportionate percentage of minorities who are "essential workers" with higher levels of exposure, among other factors.  Additionally, during the initial phases of the vaccine rollout, recipients of the vaccine were disproportionately white.

 

Which strategy was right — a more centralized, national approach or a decentralized, state-led approach? Are these strategies constitutionally grounded, even if they might not be the right strategy for dealing with a pandemic?  Would a national, uniform strategy blunt the disproportionate impact on racial minorities or is the state-led approach more effective? Using 

your knowledge of the constitutional principles that inform federalism (e.g. 10th amendment, necessary and proper clause) and the historical benefits and disadvantages of centralization and decentralization of programs in the United States. write a 400-500 word memo assessing both strategies.