The wrong people at the wrong level
One reason America just can't function
Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about how many of the problems facing the United States are structural, not just political. Of course, we have political problems. With few exceptions, we’re governed by corrupt, thieving, cowardly, and power-hungry dullards. But restoring — and strengthening — the federalism under which our country was originally organized would blunt much of the damage those fools can do. If we simply delegated responsibility to the proper levels of government, we could get more done, reduce infighting, and maybe even save America.
The purview of government is naturally expansive. Giving ambitious subhumans — who think they’re superhumans — power only makes them hungry for more. In short order, they expand their dominion horizontally and vertically, seeking to control more, from ever-higher levels of authority. Instead of focusing on the tasks that got them elected, they chase pet projects and exert greater control over things they have no business touching. It’s why nothing gets done at the local level, and the wrong things get done at the national level.
Local disaster recovery
Let’s start with an example that’s painfully personal for me — wildfire recovery. Relying on the federal government for disaster response has been, unsurprisingly, ineffective. California's involvement has been minimal, though arguably a bit better. But the real failure has been at the county level — the layer of government closest to the people actually living through this disaster.
The county, representing millions of diverse people with wildly divergent interests, has proven incapable of meaningfully improving Los Angeles in at least my semi-aware adulthood. With so many issues and so few brain cells, it’s no wonder wildfire recovery isn’t their top concern.
But it’s everything to me and my neighbors. This is the first — and hopefully last — time all of us have needed to rely on the beneficence of an inept government. So much depends on their ability to waive fees, raise money, expedite processes, and hold others (and themselves) accountable. We need leadership urgently. Instead, they’ve operated business as usual.
What if accountability, policy decisions, and the rebuilding process were pushed even further down — to the city level? Recovery would likely be faster, more responsive, and better tailored to those affected. The obvious counterpoint is that Altadena is too small — and too poor — to recover on its own. That’s true. Creative strategies to mitigate those limitations are probably a topic for another blog. But the principle is simple:
The level of government closest to encapsulating those most affected by an issue should exercise the greatest jurisdiction.
Yes, that’s federalism.
Greater local autonomy in situations like this just makes sense. The federal government still has a role to play — providing resources, maybe even funding — but management and decision-making should be as local as possible. If necessary, cities should be empowered to borrow directly from the state to fund their recovery, repaying over time, rather than waiting for some distant bureaucracy to figure it out.
The important caveat here is that Altadena isn’t even a city. I hope it will be. Someone needs to step up and fill the leadership void we’ve suffered under for the last six months.
State immigration policy
Yes, crossing a national border is a federal crime — but immigrants don’t really use federal services. Where do they ultimately live? In specific states and cities. Unable to utilize most federal benefits, their impact is felt almost entirely at the state and local levels, not in some abstract "national" sense.
In reality, states are affected differently. California, with its massive economy, benefits from immigration — legal and otherwise — far more than it pays. Yes, there’s a cost on hospitals, schools, and some social services. But immigrants' contributions to the tax base and the economy more than offset that. They pay non-payroll taxes. They fill the need for low-wage work. They drive demand in local economies. Their benefit would be doubled if their status allowed them to contribute even more to the services they utilize.
Contrast that with states like Oklahoma or Arkansas — economically stagnant, with far less need for additional labor. It’s reasonable to assume their immigration policies, if left to them, would look much the same as federal immigration policy today.
And under true federalism, that would be okay. California can decide to welcome immigrants, and Arkansas can do… whatever Arkansas wants to do.
If states had real authority over immigration — the ability to set their own rules within certain federal frameworks, and the responsibility to fund the services immigrants use — the system would function far better. The state is the lowest level of government that actually encompasses those affected.
At the very least, it would be preferable to the chaotic mess we have now, where immigration policy is a political football, enforced (or not) depending on who occupies the White House, then wantonly imposed on the states that actually bear the economic and cultural consequences.
Federal military policy
Should the federal government attack Iran?
Well… should they? Probably not, because policing the world offensively has, on net, been a losing endeavor for the last 70 years.
But if there were a legitimate, imminent threat to the American homeland, then yes — the federal government should be the one to engage militarily. If we apply the same principle as above — that the government closest to the all-encompassing group of constituents on a specific issue should take responsibility for that issue — then of course, it’s the federal government’s job.
Why, then, shouldn’t they attack Iran (or defend Israel, if you prefer)?
Because America is not the world government. And since the United States doesn’t represent the full group of people affected by such an action, it shouldn’t be granted the task of supervising that group.
But they just don’t care
Whether it’s disaster recovery, immigration, or foreign policy, America suffers when the wrong level of government — or authority — calls the shots. And in some cases, non-Americans suffer too.
We need to return to a more functional version of federalism:
Local governments are empowered to handle local crises.
States have meaningful authority over issues that primarily affect them, namely immigration, environment, and economics.
A federal government focused on genuine national concerns, not global policing or internal politicking.
It’s not perfect. It never will be. But it’s a hell of a lot better than the centralized, bureaucratic mess we have today — the one that leaves wildfire victims stranded, immigration policy in shambles, and our military embroiled in endless conflicts that have nothing to do with defending Americans.
The founders, per usual, were onto something.
Unfortunately, all political will has taken us in the opposite direction. The leeches we elect seek more power. The bureaucrats they designate seek dominion over further reaches of their purview. They neglect what their constituents say they care about in favor of more notable pet projects.
Until we demand that each level of government stay in its lane, we will continue to be disappointed.