The belief that locals know best what their community needs is compelling—until the federal government, for its own interests, decides otherwise.
Every nation is, at its core, an aggregation of countless smaller communities. Their borders shift as people move, economies fluctuate, and climates change. The long-standing argument that small, local government is superior to distant, centralized power is often taken as self-evident. Local leaders adapt quickly, drawing on resources, traditions, and the lived experience of those they serve. They sense the moral, cultural, and economic pulse in ways no outsider can.
By contrast, Washington moves slowly, buffeted by shifting political winds. Federal agencies bring expertise and funding, but too often those come with strings attached—mandates, conditions, or partisan leverage.
Local governments—cities, counties, states—are closest to the people and should be empowered to govern on issues most immediately affecting them. Immigration, gun control, abortion, emissions, education standards, or building codes are best addressed where conditions are specific. One state may prioritize sanctuary protections because it sees both humanitarian and economic value. Another may impose stricter gun laws to curb violence. Coastal and seismically prone cities may demand tougher building codes, while a rural state may focus on education standards rather than curbing gun violence. The point is not uniformity, but responsiveness.
Once a community has chosen its path, federal interference should be rare, reserved for extraordinary circumstances and backed by a vast consensus, requiring a supermajority to overrule the state. Congress too often legislates to the lowest common denominator, imposing one-size-fits-all rules that lower standards in some places while raising costs in others. If a community accepts the burden of stricter laws, it should also have the right to live with the consequences of its decision.
Here lies the contradiction: advocates of small government often champion decentralization only until local choices cut against their own ideology. Then, suddenly, they turn to Washington to override what they dislike. Add the influence of corporate lobbying, and state sovereignty erodes further.
Still, there are functions only a strong federal government can perform. Disaster relief, national defense, international diplomacy, monetary policy, and drug standards cannot be parceled out state by state without chaos. Imagine fifty separate armies, currencies, or foreign embassies. Some responsibilities must be assigned to the center.
The truth is both inconvenient and straightforward: local government is more nimble and responsive, but it cannot stand alone. The federal government has the scale to manage what transcends borders, but it should not micromanage what can be handled more effectively on the ground.
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” James Madison, Federalist No. 45
The challenge—and the opportunity—is to lean into the strengths of each. Let local government govern where local knowledge matters most. Let the federal government act where unity is essential. The balance, not the dominance of one over the other, is what will preserve both liberty and effectiveness. However, this then raises a large, unspoken, and glaring question: How will local governments pay for the services they want without asking the federal government for assistance? #NeverFearTheDream
NeverFearTheDream simplebender.com @simplebender.bsky.social Stand For Truth
If you’re looking for daily thoughts and insights you will want to start the morning with:
If you know someone who is facing any facet of Alzheimer’s they might gain some insight from:
Please consider following simplebender, you’re reading makes my writing more fun..…
Comments and thoughts are always welcome and feel free to re-post …..
simplebender 