The debate over deploying federal vs. state troops to fight crime is less about the tactic's effectiveness and more about political credit. Democratic governors like Wes Moore are now using their own state troops to achieve the same results, co-opting the policy to frame it as a state-level success.

Related Insights

The president's pardon power applies only to federal crimes. However, a president can issue a symbolic "pardon" for a supporter convicted on state charges. While legally void, this action serves as a powerful political signal to followers that the president stands with them, demonstrating a use of the pardon power for pure messaging.

By labeling a problem with a single, highly emotional term (e.g., 'insurgents,' 'fentanyl'), leaders can create a public mandate to act decisively, often ignoring accountability, due process, and congressional oversight.

A political party might intentionally trigger a government shutdown not to win policy concessions, but to create a public narrative of a dysfunctional opposition. The true victory isn't legislative but reputational, aiming to sway voters in upcoming elections by making the ruling party look incompetent.

States can increase congressional representation and electoral votes by boosting population counts for the census. This creates an incentive to attract residents, including illegal immigrants, and fund their needs by leveraging federal assistance programs, often through fraudulent means, effectively offloading the cost of gaining political power.

A unified US AI strategy is being undermined by politicians with state-level goals. A senator aiming for a governorship will prioritize the interests of a key local industry (like Nashville's music lobby against AI) over federal preemption, leading to a fragmented, state-by-state regulatory nightmare.

When a politician suddenly makes a previously ignored issue intensely important, they are likely employing misdirection. The goal is to control the news cycle and public attention, either to distract from a more significant action happening elsewhere or to advance a hidden agenda unrelated to the stated crisis.

Viewing politicians as athletes in a game reveals their true motivation: gaining and retaining power. This framework explains seemingly inconsistent actions, like flip-flopping, as strategic plays for short-term public sentiment rather than reflections of moral conviction or long-term vision.

Congress uses its spending power to enact policies in areas where it lacks direct authority, like education or local transport. By offering "conditional spending," it creates powerful incentives for states to comply with federal standards to receive necessary funds.

The conflict between state and federal governments is moving beyond rhetoric into "soft secession." This involves states actively refusing to cooperate with the federal government on a practical level, such as withholding tax revenues, representing a significant escalation in political brinksmanship.

A key lesson Steve Kerr learned was to reframe the debate from "gun control" to "gun violence prevention." This linguistic shift avoids sounding like government overreach and focuses on a shared public safety goal, making the message less polarizing.

State Governors Co-opt Successful Federal Crime Policies to Claim Political Victories | RiffOn