As the midterm election nears, relations between Washington and the states are growing increasingly testy. The disconnect between the country and its capital has not been so pronounced in a long time.

Part of it, of course, is politics. The Bush administration and Congress both are in the dumps in the polls, and potential presidential candidates, both from Washington and among the governors, are positioning themselves for the best shot at the White House two years from now. But it would be a mistake to attribute the sour mood just to political maneuvering. There are real issues involved, basic issues that the vast majority of citizens want to have addressed. And there are sensitive questions of federal vs. state prerogatives, as well.

The anger among state leaders spilled out at last month’s annual meeting of the governors in Charleston, S.C., when it was learned that Republicans had surreptitiously slipped a provision into the House’s annual defense authorization bill that would make it easier for the president to take control of state National Guard units without the consent of governors. The heavy use of the Guard in the Middle East was already a sensitive issue, and Arkansas’ Mike Huckabee, a Republican and the leader of the National Governors Association this past year, didn’t try to hide his frustration.

“I think you’re going to find a universal disdain among governors, Democrat and Republican, with this attitude that the federal government continually has . . . that the states are mere satellites of a centralized federal authority,” he told an opening news conference. “To be blunt, I sometimes wonder whether people in Washington ever passed ninth-grade civics.”

Huckabee is known to be considering a bid for the presidency, and his anti-Washington views could help position him well. But he isn’t alone among Republican governors.

A month ago, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and British Prime Minister Tony Blair signed an agreement to cooperate on cutting greenhouse emissions and sharing research to combat global warming. The absence of anyone from the federal government was glaring, and the Republican governor wasn’t too subtle about it: “California will not wait for our federal government to take strong action on global warming,” he said. “California has a responsibility and a profound role to play to protect not only our environment, but to be a world leader on this issue, as well.”

He must have meant it, because last week he reached a deal with the Legislature to cut greenhouse gases coming from all sources in the state by 25 percent by 2020. The plan will have enormous impact on most industries. California has already passed legislation capping greenhouse gas emissions from auto exhaust; 10 more states will follow its lead if the law survives a court challenge. Almost half the states have enacted bills covering utility emissions.

This gap between the states and the national government is widening across a range of issues. Six more states increased their minimum wage rates this legislative session, bringing to 23 the number that now exceed the federal limit of $5.15 an hour. A number of states have taken various approaches to ensuring that more people have some sort of health care insurance. The California Assembly passed legislation (which the governor is sure to veto) allowing the state to run a single-payer health care system doing away with the role of private insurers. Absent congressional action, the National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 57 laws related to illegal immigration were enacted in 27 states this year.

You could go on: stem cell research, consumer protection, regulation of commerce. In each case, Congress and the White House have been either unwilling or unable to take action, so states have stepped in to form their own patchwork of policies.

Superficially, it appears that the liberal or progressive cause —whatever you want to call it — now resides in many of the state capitals, while conservative power has concentrated in Washington. But it’s more complicated than that. There are plenty of Republican governors who are frustrated with their congressional brethren, both for their inaction and their willingness to defy decades of GOP tradition of defending the prerogatives of states.

Dick Nathan, perhaps the leading academic expert on federalism, offers a useful way to make sense of all this. He sees four characteristics of the ebb and flow in intergovernmental power: It is opportunistic (you exercise power at the level you control it). It is dynamic (the balance changes with the political tides). It is cyclical (what goes around comes around). And it generally promotes more government activism and spending.

So it’s not surprising that New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who has emerged over the past few years as the key regulator of our securities, mutual fund and insurance industries, now proclaims that “states’ rights are the future, and we want to do everything we can to promote them. Because if they in Washington, out of some foolish theory . . . are silly enough to be giving away power, I’m not silly enough to reject their kind offer.”

Indeed, he hasn’t, and he’s likely to become his state’s next governor.

Peter Harkness is the editor and publisher of Governing magazine, published by Congressional Quarterly Inc.