As politicians and pundits try to move public opinion on an extremely close presidential election, much of that discussion posits that the presidential election creates an existential crisis for the nation. But, voters, pundits, and elected officials themselves should embrace a healthier and more constitutionally grounded alternative to the current rhetoric — one that recognizes the important impact the election has while elevating the principle of federalism as an antidote to electoral existential dread.
The U.S. Constitution, properly understood, presents just such an alternative. In this way, the president’s power is limited because the federal government itself is limited in its functions. The essential feature of the Constitution is its specific enumeration of the powers and responsibilities of the national government, which are “few and defined.” This leaves the others to state and local governments or to the people themselves.
There are many reasons this description seems far removed from current experience. Presidents of both parties champion expansive government programs, as do members of Congress, and a large federal bureaucracy has developed to administer them — in fact, a “multitude” of officials. The last president to admit that this growth could be deleterious was then-President Bill Clinton in 1996 when he promised “the era of big government is over.” That hasn’t materialized, and Clinton and his successors have done very little to make it more likely.
In the face of such strong pressure to expand federal authority, even when doing so is frankly unconstitutional, we might wonder why the framers of the Constitution had a different vision. Why is allowing state, local, and community initiatives to flourish a better alternative to continued (or even accelerated) centralization?
Some of the civic virtues that seem to be in short supply were precisely those that the framers knew would be fostered by a society where government power is limited, distributed, and balanced.
Federalism, the division of powers between different layers of government (and, in our system, the assignment of the bulk to local authorities), promotes self-government, neighborly cooperation, and consensus-building.
When most important decisions are made by officials, we are likely never to see and whose names we may never know, working for a president chosen by the votes of millions of people (and that is assuming the president is even capable of meaningfully giving direction on a host of disparate issues and programs), a feeling of powerlessness is understandable.
This, in turn, can distort individual attitudes. When a group of neighbors pitches in to help meet a need, the beneficiary naturally feels some accountability for how they respond to the assistance. When assistance is given at a national level, far removed from the beneficiary, it will not be surprising that feelings of entitlement and even efforts to game the system are likely to result, along with dependence.
The day-to-day proximity of local officials to those affected by their decisions not only promotes accountability but can also promote a less contentious style of decision-making. Interacting with people you have to live around is a good incentive to be careful about those interactions. It is far easier to express contempt toward or about people one will likely never meet. (Unfortunately, as we have seen, contentious national discussions can begin to seep into even neighborhood and family relationships.)
Making decisions near the people affected by them also allows for appropriate consideration of local circumstances and differences. One reason many federal initiatives flounder is that they do not address the realities on the ground. As one example, school policies mandated by officials far removed from a school are rarely going to reflect the actual needs of students in a particular community.
Having decisions made closer to those involved has other advantages. It allows like-minded people to choose a community that reflects their needs and opinions while allowing others with different opinions to try something different where they live. As that happens, each can learn lessons, both positive and negative, from the outcomes of the other.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
It is exceedingly unlikely that the important questions facing a large, disparate nation will be answered when voters find that one remarkable individual who can somehow navigate the cesspool of modern presidential politics and win — and then not use the power he or she has been given.
Rather, we should return power to where it was intended to be: in states, communities, and neighborhoods.
Bill Duncan is a constitutional law and religious freedom fellow at Sutherland Institute. Tony Woodlief is the senior executive vice president and senior fellow at the State Policy Network’s Center for Practical Federalism.
This article was originally published at www.washingtonexaminer.com
