If you listen long enough to modern American politics, you might think our biggest problem is that the “other side” has too much power. But talk to enough Americans, and a different picture emerges: Many believe everyone in power has too much of it and isn’t using it particularly well.
That’s not just instinct. According to the Pew Research Center, only a small fraction of Americans consistently trust the federal government to do what is right. Increasingly, voters aren’t choosing between two parties they love; they’re choosing between two they trust less. We are no longer just divided between left and right; we are increasingly united in frustration.
Recommended Stories
Which raises a fair question: If both sides keep winning elections and losing the country, maybe the problem isn’t just who’s in charge. Maybe it’s how the system itself is operating.
TO FIGHT CIVIC IGNORANCE, DON’T JUST TEACH STUDENTS. TEST THEM
That brings us to federalism.
For some, the word federalism comes with historical baggage. It can conjure images of states’ rights asserted to defend some of the darkest chapters in our history. That reality shouldn’t be ignored. But stopping there is like judging a symphony by a single instrument — you may hear something real, but you miss the music.
The fuller story is more complicated and far more hopeful.
Federalism, properly understood, has been one of the most powerful engines of American progress. It was the evolving relationship between states and the national government that made possible the abolition of slavery, the guarantee of equal protection, and the expansion of voting rights. When some states got it wrong, the nation, through the states collectively, had the tools to make it right.
That’s not a failure of federalism. That’s functional federalism.
Like the Constitution’s separation of powers, federalism isn’t self-executing. It requires active balance: governing partners that check, counter, and improve one another.
The problem today isn’t federalism. It’s that we’ve turned it upside down.
The founders envisioned a national government with “few and defined” powers, leaving “numerous and indefinite” ones to the states. Today, Washington often claims the “numerous and indefinite” category and leaves the states to fill out the paperwork.
This inversion has consequences. When every issue becomes a national issue, every election becomes a national crisis. And when policy is decided 2,000 miles away, it’s no surprise half the country feels governed by strangers.
We’ve effectively built a system where 330 million people are expected to agree on everything from education policy to zoning philosophy. That’s not unity — it’s gridlock with better branding.
Nowhere is this dysfunction clearer than in the intergovernmental grant system. Federal dollars flow to states with strings attached, mandates pile up, and accountability disappears. When something works, everyone takes credit. When it fails, everyone points somewhere else. It’s the political equivalent of a group project: lots of participation, very little ownership.
And that’s the deeper problem. We’ve blurred the lines of responsibility so thoroughly that no one is clearly in charge or accountable. Washington sets broad priorities, states implement them, and somewhere in between, ownership gets lost.
As Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts put it, “the states are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.” The implication isn’t just that Washington should step back, it’s that states should step up.
But today, neither side consistently does. The federal government often reaches too far, and states are often too willing to let it, accepting funds, conditions, and shared responsibility that make it harder to draw clear lines when things go wrong.
That’s not federalism at its best. That’s dysfunctional federalism.
Meanwhile, the federal government continues to spend at levels that only make sense if math is optional. Annual deficits are approaching $3 trillion. In Washington, it’s called deficit spending. At home, it feels like everything is getting more expensive.
Families don’t need an economics degree to understand what’s happening. They see it at the grocery store, at the gas pump, and in their monthly bills. We can call it monetary policy or stimulus. But when your dollar buys less every year, most people call it what it feels like: a pay cut they never agreed to. Who would?
Congress, for its part, isn’t exactly imposing discipline. Lawmakers directly vote on only a fraction of federal spending each year, while the rest runs on autopilot. It’s like managing your household budget by reviewing one out of every five bills and hoping the rest work themselves out.
Unsurprisingly, they don’t.
That’s why efforts like Rep. Blake Moore’s (R-UT) Comprehensive Congressional Budget Act matter. The idea is simple: Require Congress to vote on the entire federal budget each year, not just the portion it currently reviews. That’s accountability.
Warnings about the long-term outlook are getting louder. The Congressional Budget Office projects that major trust funds associated with Social Security and Medicare will face insolvency sooner than expected, triggering automatic benefit reductions. The longer we wait, the sharper the adjustments will be.
In other words, we are drifting toward a future where promises remain, but the math simply doesn’t pencil.
Public frustration reflects this reality. Many Americans report feeling worse off financially, even as leaders insist things are improving. Confidence in leadership is low across party lines. At some point, voters stop arguing over which party has the better plan and start wondering whether anyone is actually steering the ship.
This is where federalism offers something more than a civics lesson; it offers a way forward.
A healthier system would rebalance responsibilities, so states once again handle the “numerous and indefinite” issues that require local knowledge and flexibility. Education, infrastructure, public safety, and much of healthcare policy are not one-size-fits-all problems and shouldn’t have one-size-fits-all solutions.
At the same time, the national government should focus on what only it can do: national defense, foreign policy, interstate commerce, and protecting constitutional rights. Fewer responsibilities don’t mean less importance; it means greater clarity and better execution.
Think of it less as shrinking government and more as right-sizing it.
When authority aligns with responsibility, accountability improves. When decisions are made closer to the people, trust can recover. And when Washington tries to do fewer things, it might even manage to do some of them well.
Reinvigorating federalism isn’t about returning to the past. It’s about fixing what clearly isn’t working in the present. A country as large, diverse, and opinionated as the United States cannot be effectively governed from a single point of control, no matter which party is in charge.
It may also offer something we desperately need: a lower political temperature. Not every disagreement needs to be a national showdown. Not every policy needs to be settled in Washington. Sometimes, the best way to hold the country together is to loosen the grip at the top.
CONGRESS WASN’T DESIGNED TO WORK THIS WAY
In a moment when Americans agree on very little, one thing is becoming clear: the system isn’t working the way it should, or the way it was intended.
Federalism won’t solve every problem. But it might solve one of the biggest: our habit of trying to solve everything the same way, all at once, from the same place. And that alone would be a meaningful step forward.
Rep. Jason E. Thompson serves District 3 in the Utah House of Representatives.
