From America at 250 to the Civic Decade: The Work of Preserving a Republic

As the United States marks 250 years of independence, the question is no longer simply
what the founding generation created, but what Americans today are prepared to reserve, strengthen, and pass forward.

By Ryan Heimer, NCAC Board Member

In November 2026, the United States finds itself at an intersection of history and politics. The nation has celebrated the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, yet the questions that animated its founding remain strikingly familiar. What makes the government legitimate? How should political power be distributed? What responsibilities accompany liberty? And what happens when citizens begin to lose confidence in the institutions established to represent them? These questions confronted the delegates who debated independence in Philadelphia, the framers who gathered for the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and the generations of Americans who struggled to define the meaning of citizenship. They remain central to the American experiment.

The anniversary of independence is therefore more than a historical milestone. It is an
opportunity to examine the distance between the nation’s founding ideals and its present circumstances. As November brings another midterm election, Veterans Day, and Thanksgiving, Americans are reminded of three essential dimensions of republican government: participation, service, and civic responsibility. Elections reaffirm that political authority ultimately rests with the people. Veterans Day honors those who have
served in defense of the nation and its constitutional order. Thanksgiving offers an occasion to reflect on the bonds of community and shared responsibility that extend beyond political disagreement.

Together, these observances provide a fitting transition from America at 250: The Ideas
That Built a Nation toward a broader period of national reflection. In 2037, Americans will commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Constitution’s signing, followed in 2041
by the 250th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. These milestones establish the framework for what we call the Civic Decade, an opportunity to move beyond celebrating independence toward examining the institutions, traditions, and constitutional principles that will shape the next 250 years. Its central question is not simply what the founding generation accomplished, but what the present generation intends to preserve, improve, and leave behind.

Liberty and the Unfinished Promise of 1776

When representatives of the thirteen colonies approved the Declaration of Independence in July 1776, they did more than announce their separation from Great Britain. They offered a justification for government grounded in natural rights, equality, and popular consent. The Declaration’s assertion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed challenged the prevailing assumptions of a world dominated by monarchies and inherited privilege. It placed political legitimacy, at least in principle, within the community rather than above it.


In Proclaiming Liberty, Timothy Sandefur examines the Declaration as a statement of
political philosophy whose significance extends far beyond the Revolutionary War. His interpretation emphasizes the influence of Enlightenment thought and the founders’ belief that individual rights exist independently of government. From this perspective, government does not create liberty; it is established to secure it. That distinction remains central to American constitutionalism. Public institutions possess substantial authority, but that authority is neither unlimited nor self-justifying. It must remain grounded in law and directed toward the protection of individual rights.


Yet the Declaration also exposed the contradictions of the society that produced it. The colonies proclaimed equality while slavery remained entrenched, women were excluded from formal political participation, and Indigenous peoples faced dispossession. These contradictions would become defining struggles in American history. The Declaration’s language nevertheless provided later generations with a standard against which to measure the nation’s conduct. Abolitionists invoked its principles, advocates for women’s suffrage challenged their exclusion from citizenship, and civil rights leaders used its promises to confront systems of segregation and discrimination.


The significance of 1776 lies partly in this continuing tension between principle and practice. The founding generation established ideals that it did not fully realize, leaving future Americans to determine how those commitments should be understood and applied. The Declaration became both a statement of national purpose and an enduring instrument of national self-examination. Commemorating it requires more than admiration for the past; it requires considering how the promise of liberty has been defended, denied, expanded, and reinterpreted across generations.

The Constitution and the Challenge of Governing

Independence did not automatically produce an effective national government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the young republic struggled to raise revenue, regulate commerce, resolve interstate disputes, and respond to common challenges. The arrangement reflected a deep fear of centralized authority, but its weaknesses gradually demonstrated that political liberty could not endure without institutions capable of governing. By 1787, many American leaders had concluded that the country’s constitutional structure required fundamental reconsideration.


The delegates who assembled in Philadelphia disagreed over representation, executive
power, federal authority, slavery, and the relationship between national and state governments. Their debates reflected competing political philosophies and regional interests, but they shared a central concern: how to establish a government strong enough to serve the nation without creating the conditions for tyranny. The resulting Constitution was an effort to reconcile effective authority with institutional restraint, a tension that continues to define American governance.


Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay defended the proposed Constitution
in The Federalist Papers, a collection of essays that remains among the most influential
examinations of republican government. In Federalist No. 10, Madison considered the dangers of faction, recognizing that citizens would inevitably organize around competing economic, religious, and political interests. Rather than attempting to eliminate disagreement, he argued that an extended republic could make it more difficult for any single faction to dominate the political system. His reasoning remains relevant in an era of intense polarization: disagreement is not necessarily evidence of democratic failure, but institutions must be capable of managing it without sacrificing legitimacy.


Madison expanded this argument in Federalist No. 51, emphasizing the need for separated powers and checks and balances. His constitutional design reflected an understanding that political authority must be restrained because those who exercise it are subject to ambition and self-interest. Hamilton, meanwhile, argued in Federalist No. 70 that an energetic executive was essential to effective administration, accountability, and the faithful execution of the laws. Together, these essays demonstrate that the founders were not simply debating the size of government. They were attempting to establish a system that could act decisively while remaining accountable to the people.

For public administrators, the distinction remains fundamental. Modern government confronts challenges the founders could scarcely have imagined, including artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, environmental protection, advanced infrastructure, and an interconnected global economy. Yet the constitutional principles governing public authority remain recognizable. Government must possess sufficient capacity to fulfill its responsibilities, but it must also operate within the limits of law. A government unable to act effectively risks losing public confidence; one that acts without accountability risks undermining the liberty it exists to protect. Effective administration and constitutional restraint are not competing ideals. In a functioning republic, each sustains the other.

American History: Progress Through Struggle

The American experiment has never developed along a predictable or uninterrupted path. The nation survived a civil war that tested whether a republic founded on liberty could endure while permitting slavery. Reconstruction attempted to redefine citizenship and political equality, only to encounter resistance and the establishment of new systems of exclusion. Industrialization generated extraordinary economic growth while exposing profound inequalities in labor, wealth, and political influence. The twentieth century brought world wars, the Great Depression, the expansion of federal institutions, the civil rights movement, and technological advances that transformed American life.

Jon Meacham’s historical writing frequently returns to the tension between the nation’s
democratic aspirations and the forces of fear, division, and exclusion that have periodically threatened them. His work suggests that American progress has rarely been inevitable. It has depended on individuals and institutions willing to defend democratic principles, often during periods when doing so was politically difficult. This perspective challenges the temptation to view the nation’s history either as an uninterrupted march toward greatness or as a record defined exclusively by failure. Both interpretations overlook the complexity of the American experience.


The country’s history contains remarkable achievements in constitutional government,
scientific advancement, economic development, and the expansion of civil rights. It also
contains slavery, segregation, political violence, corruption, and institutional failures whose consequences remain visible today. Understanding American history requires holding these realities together. The abolition of slavery, expansion of voting rights, and
development of constitutional protections were not automatic consequences of the founding. They emerged through political struggle, public debate, legislative action, and
sustained civic engagement.


David McCullough’s History Matters reinforces the importance of historical understanding in public life. Throughout his career, McCullough emphasized the individuals, decisions, and circumstances that shaped the nation, reminding readers that historical outcomes were rarely predetermined. Leaders acted with incomplete information, competing obligations, and uncertainty about the consequences of their decisions. Their achievements and failures offer lessons not only about national identity but also about judgment, leadership, and responsibility.

For public administrators, history provides perspective on how institutions develop and
why policies sometimes produce consequences different from those originally intended. Government programs are shaped by accumulated decisions, economic conditions, administrative practices, and changing public expectations. Understanding those origins can help distinguish problems requiring immediate correction from those rooted in deeper structural conditions. A society that neglects its history risks treating every crisis as unprecedented and every disagreement as evidence of national decline. The Civic Decade offers an opportunity to restore historical knowledge as an essential foundation of informed citizenship.

Leadership, Character, and the Public Trust

Constitutional institutions provide the structure of government, but individuals determine how those institutions function. The founders understood that written provisions alone could not guarantee responsible leadership. Political ambition, personal loyalty, competing interests, and the desire for power would remain permanent features of public life. Their challenge was to establish institutions capable of restraining these tendencies while allowing the government to fulfill its responsibilities.

Bret Baier’s historical writing on American leadership offers examples of how individual
judgment can shape the development of national institutions. George Washington’s conduct remains particularly significant. At the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, Washington relinquished military command rather than attempting to convert military prestige into permanent political authority. Later, after serving two presidential terms, he
voluntarily left office, reinforcing the principle that executive power should be exercised temporarily and transferred peacefully. These decisions helped establish expectations that extended beyond the written Constitution.


Washington’s example illustrates the importance of political norms in maintaining republican government. A constitutional system can establish legal boundaries, but it also depends on leaders who recognize public office as a responsibility rather than a personal possession. The peaceful transfer of power, respect for lawful opposition, and willingness to accept institutional limits sustain confidence in government. When those practices weaken, even carefully designed constitutional protections may come under pressure.


Leadership, however, is not confined to presidents or prominent historical figures. Every
day, public employees make decisions that influence how citizens experience government. Inspectors enforce safety requirements, contracting professionals safeguard public resources, budget analysts evaluate competing demands, and emergency managers coordinate responses to disasters. These decisions rarely attract national attention, yet they represent the practical operation of constitutional government. Citizens encounter public institutions not only through elections and political speeches but through the fairness, competence, and integrity of those entrusted with administering the law.


A republic cannot depend exclusively on exceptional leaders. It must cultivate professional standards, ethical expectations, and administrative systems capable of serving the public consistently. The strength of government rests not only on the character of those who occupy its highest offices, but on the institutional culture and professional commitments that endure when individual leaders depart.

November 2026: Participation, Service, and Gratitude

The November midterm elections bring these historical questions into the present. Elections are central to representative government because they reaffirm that political authority is temporary and ultimately accountable to the people. They provide opportunities for citizens to evaluate public policy, assess elected officials, and express their priorities through constitutional processes. Yet elections also expose the tensions inherent in a diverse republic, where citizens disagree about taxation, immigration, economic development, national security, education, and the appropriate responsibilities of government.


Madison’s analysis of factions offers a useful reminder that disagreement is unavoidable in a free society. The challenge is not to eliminate competing interests but to establish institutions capable of transforming disagreement into legitimate public decisions. That requires more than voting. It requires reliable information, fair procedures, opportunities for civic participation, and respect for the constitutional rights of political opponents. Democracy is not a single event occurring every two or four years. It is a continuing process of representation, deliberation, accountability, and institutional adjustment.


For career public servants, election cycles carry an additional responsibility. Their obligation is to administer the law faithfully, provide professional expertise, safeguard public resources, and maintain the continuity of government within the constitutional framework. Elected officials provide political direction and remain accountable to voters, while public administrators contribute the institutional knowledge and operational capacity necessary to translate authorized policies into results. Both roles are essential. Democratic accountability without administrative competence can produce ineffective government; administrative expertise without accountability risks undermining public legitimacy.


Veterans Day offers another perspective on the responsibilities of citizenship. From the
Revolutionary War to contemporary military service, generations of Americans have accepted extraordinary obligations in defense of the nation. Their service reflects a constitutional tradition in which military power remains subordinate to civilian authority and exists to protect the republic rather than determine its political direction. Honoring veterans also requires attention to the commitments made to them after their service, including access to healthcare, education, employment opportunities, and benefits established through law.


Thanksgiving provides a different but complementary opportunity for reflection. Its history is more complicated than the simplified narratives often associated with the holiday, encompassing Indigenous experiences, colonial settlement, conflict, and national expansion. Yet the modern observance also offers a moment to consider the bonds of community, gratitude, and mutual responsibility that make collective life possible. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Thanksgiving proclamation encouraged national reflection amid profound division, illustrating how shared observances could help sustain a sense of common purpose even during periods of uncertainty.


Together, the midterm elections, Veterans Day, and Thanksgiving illuminate the relationship between political participation, public service, and civic culture. A constitutional republic depends on citizens willing to exercise their rights, individuals prepared to serve the public, and communities capable of recognizing shared responsibilities despite political differences. These commitments cannot be created through laws alone. They must be cultivated through education, institutional example, and everyday civic engagement.

Public Administration and the Promise of Good Government

The relationship between America’s founding principles and modern public administration is often overlooked. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and
Bill of Rights are frequently discussed in terms of political philosophy, legal interpretation, or national identity. Yet their practical significance is evident in the daily work of government. Constitutional principles establish public authority, statutes define institutional responsibilities, and administrative procedures provide the mechanisms through which laws are implemented, services delivered, and decisions reviewed.

Hamilton’s defense of energetic administration reflected the recognition that the government must possess the capacity to act. Madison’s emphasis on institutional restraints reflected an equally important concern: public authority must remain subject to accountability. Modern public administration operates within this continuing tension. Agencies must respond to complex problems while observing legal, financial, and ethical constraints. They must demonstrate effectiveness without abandoning procedural fairness, and they must adapt to changing technologies while preserving transparency and public trust.


These responsibilities are increasingly important as artificial intelligence and emerging technologies reshape government. Automated systems may improve service delivery, assist with data analysis, and reduce administrative burdens, but they also introduce questions about privacy, fairness, procurement, explainability, and the appropriate role of human judgment. When an algorithm influences access to a public benefit, who is responsible for explaining the decision? When agencies rely on complex technological systems, how can citizens challenge errors or ensure that decisions remain consistent with constitutional protections?


These are modern expressions of longstanding constitutional concerns. Who exercises authority? What safeguards prevent its misuse? How can citizens hold institutions accountable? The answers will require technical expertise, legal understanding, ethical judgment, and leadership. They will also require public administrators who recognize that efficiency alone is not a sufficient measure of good government. A decision may be rapid and inexpensive while still being unfair or inconsistent with the public interest. Conversely, procedures intended to protect accountability can become so complicated that they prevent agencies from fulfilling their responsibilities effectively.


The Civic Decade offers an opportunity to reconsider these tensions through the lens of constitutional government. It can encourage public institutions to evaluate not only what they accomplish but how they accomplish it, strengthening administrative ethics, professional development, transparency, and responsible stewardship. Above all, it can remind public servants that their work forms part of a constitutional tradition extending across generations.

From Commemoration to Civic Renewal

The 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence provides an opportunity to celebrate the nation’s origins, but the historical milestones that follow may prove equally
important. In 2037, Americans will commemorate the Constitution’s signing; in 2041, they will mark the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Together, these anniversaries create an extended period for examining how the nation’s founding principles have developed and how they should guide the future.


The Civic Decade can serve as a framework for moving from historical commemoration toward civic renewal. That renewal need not depend on a single national program or political initiative. It can emerge through schools, universities, professional associations, nonprofit organizations, public agencies, historical institutions, and local communities. Civic education offers an important starting point. Citizens benefit from understanding not only the structure of government but the debates that shaped it, the problems its institutions were intended to address, and the ways constitutional interpretation has evolved.


Public institutions also have a role to play. Agencies can strengthen transparency, improve service delivery, invest in workforce development, and evaluate whether existing procedures effectively serve the public. Professional organizations such as the American Society for Public Administration can encourage dialogue among practitioners, scholars, students, and community leaders. These conversations can connect historical understanding with contemporary challenges, helping the next generation recognize public administration as both a technical profession and a democratic responsibility.


The Civic Decade also invites a broader understanding of citizenship. Voting remains essential, but democratic participation extends to community involvement, public deliberation, volunteer service, civic learning, and engagement with institutions at every level of government. These activities help cultivate the trust, cooperation, and shared expectations that allow representative government to function. The founders established a constitutional framework, but they could not guarantee that future generations would maintain the civic habits necessary to sustain it.

The Next Chapter of the American Experiment

The nation’s 300th anniversary in 2076 may seem distant, but the decisions made during the coming decades will shape the institutions inherited by those who commemorate it. Technological innovation, economic transformation, demographic change, and evolving expectations of government will present challenges that cannot be fully anticipated. Some developments may strengthen democratic institutions by improving public services and expanding opportunities for participation. Others may test existing assumptions about individual rights, political accountability, and the distribution of power.

The durability of American democracy will depend on the ability of its institutions to adapt without abandoning the principles that give them legitimacy. That requires more than political leadership or constitutional interpretation alone. It requires citizens who understand their responsibilities, public servants who act with integrity, and institutions
capable of responding to new challenges while remaining accountable to the people.

The founding generation did not inherit a completed republic. It confronted uncertainty,
disagreement, and the difficult task of establishing a new political order. Subsequent generations faced their own defining challenges, from preserving the Union and ending slavery to expanding civil rights and adapting government to an industrial and technological society. The present generation now faces responsibilities of its own.

The historical perspectives of Sandefur, Baier, Meacham, McCullough, Hamilton, and Madison illuminate different dimensions of that responsibility. Their works emphasize the philosophical foundations of liberty, the importance of constitutional structure, the influence of leadership, and the value of understanding the past. Together, they remind us that American institutions have endured not because they or their leaders were perfect, but because generations of citizens have continued to examine, challenge, and improve them.


As November 2026 brings another election, a day honoring military service, and a national holiday devoted to gratitude, the nation’s 250th anniversary offers a fitting occasion to consider what Americans owe to the republic they have inherited. The Declaration established the principles of independence. The Constitution created the framework of national government. The Bill of Rights strengthened protections for individual liberty. The generations that followed struggled to interpret, defend, and expand those commitments.


Now the responsibility passes forward.


The Civic Decade should not ask Americans to agree on every political question or adopt single interpretation of national history. A free republic will always contain competing interests, different beliefs, and vigorous debate. Instead, it should encourage a renewed commitment to the institutions and civic habits that allow those disagreements to exist within a shared constitutional order. Liberty requires responsibility, effective government requires accountability, and national progress depends on the willingness to learn from both achievement and failure.

America’s 250th anniversary is a celebration of what earlier generations established.
The Civic Decade is an invitation to consider what the present generation will leave
behind.


The founding generation declared independence. The framers established a constitutional republic. Subsequent generations struggled to bring its promises closer to reality. The task now is not merely to remember their work, but to continue it.


The American experiment was never intended to end with its founding. Its future
depends on those willing to carry it forward.
The Civic Decade: Reflect. Strengthen. Carry Forward.

Categories: Federalism, Leadership, Policy, Politics Tags: Tags: , ,

From the States to Washington: How Workforce Innovation Can Strengthen Public Service

ASPA National Capital Area Chapter explores skills-based hiring, physician licensing reform, and what state “laboratories of democracy” can teach the federal government

By Ryan Heimer, NCAC Board Member

Watch the recording of the event here: https://aspancac.org/recording-of-policy-innovation-in-the-states-ncac-webinar/

What can Washington learn from the states?

That question framed a recent ASPA National Capital Area Chapter conversation with Jonathan Wolfson, a public policy developer, legal advisor, policy advocacy strategist, and former senior government executive. The discussion examined an increasingly important idea in public administration: some of the most consequential innovations in government do not begin in Washington. They emerge in states, where policymakers can experiment with new approaches, learn from implementation, and provide lessons that may eventually inform national policy.


Wolfson focused particularly on two workforce challenges with implications far beyond state government: expanding skills-based hiring by removing unnecessary college-degree requirements and creating new licensing pathways for physicians trained and licensed outside the United States.


Together, the two examples offered a broader lesson for public administrators. Workforce policy is not simply an HR function. It is increasingly a question of government capacity: Who can serve? What qualifications actually matter? How can the government reach overlooked talent? And how do we maintain standards while removing barriers that no longer serve the public interest?

States as Laboratories of Democracy

Wolfson began with the familiar description of states as the nation’s “laboratories of democracy.” Across health care, artificial intelligence, procurement, social programs, and workforce policy, states have room to try different approaches to common problems.


That experimentation matters because the stakes of trying something new nationally can be enormous. A state can test an approach on a smaller scale, discover weaknesses, adjust implementation, and give other governments evidence to consider before following its lead.

Wolfson emphasized that this willingness to experiment crosses partisan lines: both Republican-and Democratic-led states have pursued innovative approaches when policymakers identify a problem and see an opportunity to address it.

The result is not that every state innovation succeeds. The value is that experimentation creates knowledge.


During the conversation, Wolfson pointed to Tennessee, Utah, and Washington State as examples of states that, in his assessment, have demonstrated a willingness to test new approaches. He also observed that smaller states can sometimes have advantages as policy innovators because experimentation can occur at a more manageable scale before a policy is considered elsewhere.


That brings the conversation directly to workforce policy.

Breaking the “Paper Ceiling”

For decades, a bachelor’s degree became a default qualification for many positions, even when the work itself did not necessarily require four years of college.


Wolfson highlighted the growing movement toward skills-based hiring, in which employers examine what a person can actually do rather than using a degree as a universal proxy for ability.


One example came from Maryland. Wolfson recounted the case of an experienced IT security professional who had worked for the National Security Agency and came from a military background but lacked a college degree. When he sought a position with Maryland state government, the degree requirement made him ineligible despite his experience. The case raised a straightforward question: if someone demonstrably possesses the necessary skills, why should the absence of a degree automatically close the door?


The concept has sometimes been described as breaking the “paper ceiling”—the barrier workers face when they possess relevant skills gained through military service, apprenticeships, employment, or other routes but lack the credential traditionally used to screen applicants.


The policy does not mean eliminating education requirements everywhere. A physician still needs appropriate medical credentials; an engineer performing work requiring professional engineering expertise still needs the necessary qualifications. The question is whether a degree requirement is actually connected to the work being performed.


Wolfson said states implementing these reforms have increasingly placed the burden on agencies to justify degree requirements rather than treating them as the default.


That distinction is important. Skills-based hiring is not about lowering standards. Properly implemented, it is about making standards more meaningful.

Implementation Matters as Much as the Policy

Removing a degree requirement on paper is relatively easy. Building a hiring system capable of evaluating skills is much harder.


That point became an important part of the ASPA discussion.


Wolfson identified leadership as one of the key ingredients. In states where governors and senior officials treated skills-based hiring as a genuine management priority—not merely an executive order or announcement—agencies began examining open positions, reconsidering job descriptions, and determining which qualifications were truly necessary.


He cited Utah, Virginia, Maryland, and Colorado in discussing this implementation work. Maryland, for example, developed an internal dashboard to track the process of eliminating unnecessary degree requirements.


This gets to the heart of public administration. Policy announcements alone do not produce outcomes. Implementation requires leadership, management capacity, measurement, and people willing to do the less visible work of translating a reform into everyday operations.


It also requires agencies to answer a deceptively difficult question:
What skills does this job actually require?


As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly capable of helping applicants answer traditional knowledge-based assessments, that question will become even more important. Wolfson noted that governments may have to rethink how they verify skills in an environment where AI can generate answers that previously required an applicant to possess the information personally.

A Second Workforce Problem: America Needs Doctors

The same underlying principle—looking beyond traditional pathways while protecting standards—appeared in Wolfson’s second major example: physician licensing.


The United States faces significant physician workforce challenges, particularly in primary care and rural communities. Wolfson argued that one potential source of talent has historically been difficult to access: physicians who are already trained and licensed to practice medicine outside the United States.


Historically, state licensing systems generally required internationally licensed physicians to repeat a U.S. residency before becoming fully licensed, even when they had substantial professional experience abroad. Exceptions existed, but they were limited.


States have begun experimenting with another model.


Wolfson described laws creating pathways through which internationally licensed physicians can work toward full state licensure when sponsored by qualifying health care institutions and practicing under specified supervision. The approach attempts to maintain safeguards while recognizing that a physician’s previous training and professional experience may have substantial value.

He illustrated the human consequences with the story of a Ukrainian refugee in Virginia who had been a psychiatry professor and physician in Ukraine but, because he could not practice medicine under the licensing structure then applicable, was instead advertising power-washing services in his neighborhood.


For public administrators, the example raises a larger question: How much talent already exists in our communities that our institutions simply do not know how to use?

Human Capital Is Mission Capacity

Perhaps the most consequential theme of the evening was that workforce policy cannot be separated from the government’s ability to accomplish its mission.


Wolfson described human capital strategy as increasingly central to governing because the government ultimately needs people with the appropriate knowledge and skills to turn policy into action. At the same time, an aging workforce means experienced employees will continue leaving public service, taking years of institutional knowledge with them. Recruiting and developing the next generation therefore becomes part of maintaining government capacity itself.


Technology—including AI—may change how that workforce operates, but it also creates new challenges.


One participant raised concerns about critical thinking in an AI-enabled workplace. Wolfson responded that experienced professionals often recognize questionable AI output because they already possess enough subject-matter knowledge to know when something does not look right. Someone without that foundation may accept an incorrect answer with much greater confidence.

That makes mentorship, professional development, and knowledge transfer increasingly important—not less important—in an AI age.


Wolfson reflected on his own early professional experiences, when more experienced colleagues invited him into meetings and activities that allowed him to observe how the work was actually done. Those informal opportunities helped build judgment that cannot always be captured in a manual, job description, or AI prompt.

A Stronger Workforce Requires a Wider Door

The two central reforms discussed during the event may initially seem unrelated. One concerns state hiring requirements; the other concerns physician licensing. But they share a common principle.


Government should maintain meaningful standards while continually asking whether yesterday’s barriers are still necessary to achieve today’s public purposes.


Removing an unnecessary bachelor’s-degree requirement does not mean education has no value. Creating alternative pathways for internationally trained physicians does not mean abandoning medical standards. Both policies instead ask public institutions to distinguish between a qualification that protects quality and a qualification that has become an unnecessary barrier.


That is a difficult distinction—and precisely the kind of question public administrators are called upon to answer.


The conversation also demonstrated why federalism remains an important source of policy learning. States can experiment. Federal agencies can contribute data, expertise, and scale.

Local governments can identify where policies meet the realities of communities. Researchers and practitioners can evaluate results and share lessons across jurisdictions.


As the ASPA NCAC discussion showed, the most useful policy innovation may not always be a dramatic new program. Sometimes innovation begins with a simpler question:

What is standing between capable people and the opportunity to serve—and does it still need to be there?


For a public sector confronting workforce shortages, technological disruption, demographic change, and growing demands for effective service delivery, the answer could shape not only how the government hires, but how well the government performs.

Categories: Current Events, Federalism, Leadership, NCAC, Policy, Public Administration Toolbox Tags: Tags: , , ,

We the People: From the Promise of 1776to the Constitution of 1787

America 250 Reflection Series | ASPA National Capital Area Chapter

Written by Board Member Ryan Heimer

There are moments in American history when an idea must become an institution.


In 1776, the Declaration of Independence announced an extraordinary promise: people possessed natural rights, all were created equal, and a legitimate government derived its authority from the consent of the governed. These principles helped justify independence from Great Britain, but declaring them was only the beginning. Winning a revolution could establish a nation. It could not, by itself, determine how that nation would govern.


Eleven years later, the Constitution attempted that more difficult task.

The story of America between 1776 and 1787 is therefore not simply a transition from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution. It is the story of Americans discovering that liberty requires institutions capable of protecting it, that democratic government requires both authority and restraint, and that the ideals proclaimed by a nation do not automatically become the reality experienced by its people.


As America commemorates its 250th anniversary, this period offers an important lesson for public administration: the American experiment has always depended not only on the principles we proclaim, but also on the institutions and public servants responsible for putting those principles into practice.

From Revolution to Government

The Declaration of Independence answered one great question: Who possessed the legitimate authority to govern America?


Its answer was revolutionary. Government ultimately derived its authority from the people. But independence immediately produced another question: How should Americans govern themselves?


The first answer was the Articles of Confederation. The Articles created a union among states that retained substantial sovereignty and joined together in what the document called a “league of friendship.” This reflected understandable concerns following the Revolution. Americans had just fought against what they considered distant and unaccountable authority. Many were reluctant to create another powerful central government.

Experience, however, exposed weaknesses in the arrangement.


Congress lacked independent taxing power. The national government struggled to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. It depended heavily upon the states to meet financial obligations and had limited ability to compel them to do so. Financial problems, disputes among states and questions about the country’s ability to act collectively increasingly demonstrated that independence alone was not enough.


The United States needed institutions capable of governing.


Historian Gordon S. Wood describes the era between the Declaration and Constitution as a transformation in American thinking about sovereignty and republican government. The revolutionary generation had challenged inherited ideas about who possessed political authority. The constitutional generation now had to determine how popular authority could be organized without destroying the liberty the Revolution had sought to protect.


That challenge led delegates to Philadelphia in 1787.

A Government Strong Enough to Govern

When the Constitutional Convention assembled in May 1787, delegates initially arrived under the premise of revising the Articles of Confederation. They soon moved much further.


James Madison’s Virginia Plan proposed a substantially stronger national government divided among legislative, executive and judicial branches. The New Jersey Plan, by contrast, defended equal representation among the states. Behind these competing proposals was a larger disagreement that has remained part of American politics ever since: how should power be distributed within a large and diverse republic?


The Great Compromise offered one answer. The House of Representatives would reflect population, while every state would receive equal representation in the Senate.


The Constitution also divided governmental authority among three branches. Legislative, executive and judicial powers would be institutionally separated while remaining deliberately connected through checks and balances.


Madison later explained the reasoning behind this structure in Federalist No. 51. Government needed sufficient power to govern, but those exercising governmental power also had to be restrained. Institutions therefore needed mechanisms through which each branch could resist encroachment by the others.


In Federalist No. 10, Madison addressed another challenge: faction. Rather than assuming political disagreement could disappear, he argued that a large republic could contain competing interests and make it more difficult for any single faction to dominate the entire political system.

Alexander Hamilton added another important consideration in Federalist No. 70. Republican government needed an energetic executive capable of acting effectively. But executive authority also had to be identifiable enough that responsibility—and therefore accountability—could be assigned.


These debates reveal something important about the Constitution. The framers did not design a government based on the assumption that political leaders would always agree or always exercise power wisely. They created institutions designed to operate amid disagreement, competing interests and human ambition.


That remains one of the Constitution’s most significant contributions to public administration.

The Contradictions of the Founding

Yet any America 250 reflection must also acknowledge that the founding’s language of liberty existed beside profound injustice.


The Constitution’s compromises over slavery demonstrate the distance between American ideals and American institutions at the nation’s beginning.


The Three-Fifths Clause increased the political representation of slaveholding states by counting three-fifths of the enslaved population for purposes of representation and direct taxation, even though enslaved people possessed no corresponding political rights. Another convention compromise prevented Congress from prohibiting the international slave trade before 1808.


These compromises helped secure agreement among delegates and states, but they also embedded protections benefiting slavery within the original constitutional order.


That contradiction cannot be separated from the larger America 250 story.


The Declaration’s assertion of equality created a standard against which American institutions would repeatedly be judged, even when the nation itself failed to meet that standard. Over subsequent generations, Americans would invoke those founding principles while confronting slavery, citizenship, voting rights, civil rights and equality before the law.


The tension between national ideals and institutional reality became a recurring feature of American political development.


Political scientist Samuel P. Huntington later described liberty, equality, individualism, democracy and constitutionalism as central elements of an “American Creed.” Yet Huntington also emphasized the persistent gap between America’s political ideals and the performance of its institutions.

That gap can produce disappointment, conflict and distrust. But throughout American history it has also created pressure for reform.


The country’s founding principles became not only statements about what America claimed to be, but standards citizens could use to ask what America should become.

The Debate Over Power

The Constitution itself did not end disagreements about government. It intensified them.


During the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists warned that the proposed national government might become too distant from ordinary citizens. Having fought against concentrated authority, they feared Americans might inadvertently recreate it at home.


One of their most significant objections was the Constitution’s lack of an explicit bill of rights.


Federalists defended the new framework. Hamilton even argued in Federalist No. 84 that a separate bill of rights was unnecessary. Yet political compromise ultimately prevailed.


The First Congress proposed twelve constitutional amendments in 1789. Ten were ratified in 1791 and became the Bill of Rights.


This debate established another recurring pattern in American government: the tension between governmental capacity and individual liberty.


Americans expect the government to function. They expect public institutions to respond to emergencies, administer programs, enforce laws, protect rights, manage public resources and address problems that cross state and local boundaries.


At the same time, Americans remain deeply concerned about how governmental authority is exercised.


That tension is not necessarily a weakness of constitutional government. It is part of its design.

From Constitutional Principle to Public Administration

For public administrators, the journey from 1776 to 1787 is more than historical background.


It describes the constitutional environment within which public service operates.


A legislature can pass a law, but someone must administer it. Congress can appropriate money, but public institutions must ensure those resources are managed responsibly. Regulations can establish standards, but administrators must apply them fairly. Citizens may possess constitutional and statutory rights, but institutions must respect and protect those rights in everyday interactions with Government.

This is where public administration enters the American constitutional story.


The professional civil service developed long after the Constitutional Convention, but its work performs an essential constitutional function: translating lawful authority into competent, impartial and accountable public action.


Federal employees take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. ASPA’s Code of Ethics similarly calls upon public administrators to advance the public interest, uphold the Constitution and law, promote democratic participation, strengthen social equity and demonstrate accountability.


These are not merely professional aspirations. They reflect the larger challenge that confronted the founding generation.


How do we transform democratic principles into institutions that actually work?


For today’s public administrator, that question may appear in the management of a public program, the implementation of a regulation, the preparation of a budget, the delivery of emergency services, the enforcement of workplace protections, the administration of an election, or the communication of information to citizens.


The circumstances have changed dramatically since 1787. The responsibility has not.

Public institutions must possess enough capacity to fulfill their missions while remaining constrained by law, ethics and accountability.


Competence and constitutionalism are therefore not competing values. Effective administration helps give practical meaning to constitutional government.

“We the People” at 250

The Constitution did not finish the work begun in 1776.


It gave that work a durable place to happen.


The words “We the People” are sometimes treated primarily as an artifact of the founding era.


Yet their continuing importance lies in the responsibility they assign.


They remind us that American government does not belong solely to presidents, legislators, judges, governors, mayors or public administrators. Its legitimacy ultimately rests with the people.


That makes citizenship more than spectatorship.

The Constitution did not finish the work begun in 1776.


It gave that work a durable place to happen.


The words “We the People” are sometimes treated primarily as an artifact of the founding era.
Yet their continuing importance lies in the responsibility they assign.


They remind us that American government does not belong solely to presidents, legislators, judges, governors, mayors or public administrators. Its legitimacy ultimately rests with the people.


That makes citizenship more than spectatorship.

Categories: Federalism, Leadership, Policy, Politics, Public Administration Toolbox Tags: Tags: ,

The Declaration of Independence and Its Lasting Impact on America and the World

America 250 Reflection Series-The Declaration of Independence

There are moments in history when words do more than describe a future—they create one.


In the summer of 1776, a group of imperfect, argumentative, and often deeply divided delegates gathered in Philadelphia and produced just over 1,300 words that would alter the course of human history. They were not merely announcing independence from Great Britain. They were advancing a revolutionary proposition: that legitimate government derives its authority from the people, that liberty is not granted by kings, and that every generation bears a responsibility to preserve freedom for the next.


The Declaration of Independence became America’s first great statement of purpose. It transformed a colonial rebellion into a universal argument about human dignity, self-government, and the rights of humanity. Nearly 250 years later, its influence can be found in constitutions, civil rights movements, democratic revolutions, and public institutions around the globe. Few documents in history have traveled so far, inspired so many, or endured so long.


As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, the Declaration remains more than a relic preserved behind glass in the National Archives. It is a living document whose ideas continue to shape public life, democratic governance, and the responsibilities of citizenship. It remains, as historian Gordon Wood observed, one of the most consequential statements of political thought ever produced.

More Than a Single Day

Popular memory often reduces the Declaration to July 4, 1776, but the story began months earlier. Following years of disputes over taxation, representation, and self-government, colonial leaders increasingly concluded that reconciliation with Britain was impossible.


On June 7, Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution declaring that the colonies “are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.” Four days later, Congress appointed a Committee of Five—Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston—to draft a formal declaration explaining the reasons for independence. Jefferson, only thirty-three years old, became the principal author, while Adams and Franklin revised the text before Congress debated and substantially edited it. The final document adopted on July 4 was therefore not the work of one man but the product of collective deliberation and compromise.


That fact alone offers an important lesson. America’s founding document emerged not from unanimity, but from disagreement, debate, and persuasion. The founders argued intensely about language, philosophy, and strategy, yet they ultimately united around a common purpose. Democracy, from the beginning, was messy. It still is.

The Revolutionary Idea

The Declaration’s most enduring contribution was not independence itself, but the principles used to justify it.


Drawing upon Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, the document argued that all people possess natural rights independent of government.

Governments exist to secure those rights and derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. When governments fail in that responsibility, citizens retain the authority to alter or abolish them.


In 1776 these ideas were revolutionary.

Throughout much of the world, power flowed from kings, hereditary privilege, and divine right. The Declaration turned that model upside down. Sovereignty belonged not to a monarch but to the people.


Its most famous sentence remains among the most influential ever written:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”


Those words did more than justify independence. They established a moral standard against which future generations would measure both government and society.


Historian Pauline Maier noted that the Declaration was both an announcement and an argument. It explained not only why Americans were breaking from Britain, but what they believed government ought to be. That argument would prove more enduring than the war itself.

The Birth of a Nation

The Declaration’s immediate impact was practical as well as philosophical.


Once independence was formally declared, the United States could pursue foreign alliances and diplomatic recognition. French support would ultimately prove decisive in securing victory during the Revolutionary War.
Congress ordered copies distributed throughout the states and read publicly before citizens and soldiers alike. General George Washington had the Declaration read to Continental Army troops, transforming the conflict from resistance against British policies into a struggle for national independence.


The Declaration also accelerated the formation of state governments and helped lay the philosophical foundation for the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and eventually the Bill of Rights. While it was not itself a constitution, it provided the principles upon which American constitutional government would be built.


Yet the founders understood something larger than the immediate needs of the moment. They were not simply creating a new country. They were launching what would become the world’s most ambitious experiment in democratic self-government.

The Creed That Defines America

Political scientist Samuel P. Huntington argued that America’s uniqueness lies not in ethnicity, language, or ancestry, but in a shared commitment to a set of political ideals. Unlike many nations, America was founded on a creed.


At the center of that creed stands the Declaration of Independence.


Huntington observed that throughout American history citizens have repeatedly returned to the Declaration during moments of crisis. Whether confronting slavery, corruption, inequality, discrimination, or threats to democratic institutions, Americans have looked to the founding principles as a standard by which to judge the nation.


He described these periods as moments of “creedal passion”—times when Americans demand that the country live up to its own ideals.


The abolitionist movement invoked the Declaration.


The women’s suffrage movement echoed its language.


The labor movement adapted its structure.


The Civil Rights Movement embraced its promises.


Again and again, Americans have used the Declaration not merely to celebrate the nation, but to challenge it.

For Huntington, this was evidence of the Declaration’s enduring power. Americans may disagree about policy, politics, and priorities, but they often frame those disagreements through the common language of liberty, equality, constitutional government, and democratic self-rule. The Declaration remains the civic glue that binds together an extraordinarily diverse republic.

America’s Unfinished Promise

Yet the Declaration also contained one of the great contradictions of American history.


The document proclaimed equality while slavery existed throughout the colonies. Many of its signers, including Jefferson, enslaved human beings. Congress removed Jefferson’s condemnation of the slave trade from an earlier draft in order to maintain unity among the colonies.


The nation was founded upon ideals more expansive than its practices.


That contradiction has shaped nearly every chapter of American history.


Rather than weakening the Declaration’s significance, however, it became a source of moral leverage for future reformers. Because the founders established universal principles, later generations could demand that the nation honor them.


Frederick Douglass challenged slavery through the Declaration’s language of equality.


Abraham Lincoln made the Declaration the moral center of the Union cause during the Civil War.


Women’s rights advocates adapted its words at Seneca Falls.


Martin Luther King Jr. described America’s founding principles as a promissory note that the nation had yet to fully redeem.

Each movement found power in the same idea: that America’s highest ideals belonged to everyone.


The Declaration became not merely a statement of independence but a continuing challenge to improve the Republic.

A Document for the World

The Declaration’s influence extended far beyond America’s borders.


Historian David Armitage argues that its greatest global impact may have been its role as a model for self-determination. Across Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean, peoples seeking independence drew inspiration from the idea that a nation could separate itself from an existing government and establish its own sovereign authority.


Its influence can be seen in:

  • The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.
  • Latin American independence movements.
  • Democratic reforms throughout Europe.
  • Anti-colonial movements across Africa and Asia.
  • Modern human rights movements.
  • Constitutional democracies around the world.

The Declaration helped launch what historians often call the “Age of Revolutions.” It transformed liberty from a privilege granted by rulers into a claim asserted by citizens.


For the first time in history, a nation announced to the world that the government existed because people consented to it—not because rulers inherited it.

That idea changed everything.

Why It Matters for Public Service

As Americans reflect on 250 years of independence, the Declaration continues to offer lessons for those entrusted with public service.


What gives government legitimacy?


How should public power be exercised?


What obligations do institutions owe the people they serve?


These questions remain central to modern governance.


For public administrators, the Declaration serves as a reminder that government exists to serve citizens, not the other way around.


Transparency, accountability, ethical leadership, and stewardship of public trust all flow from the belief that authority originates with the people.


Whether serving in local government, state agencies, federal departments, nonprofit organizations, or community institutions, public servants continue the work begun in 1776—transforming ideals into action and principles into
practice.


The founders established the framework. Each generation must decide how to sustain it.

The Continuing American Experiment

The founders could not have imagined artificial intelligence, space exploration, global communications, or a nation of more than 340 million people. Yet they understood a timeless truth: free people, governing themselves, possess an extraordinary capacity to shape their future.


That work remains unfinished.

Samuel Huntington once argued that America’s greatest challenge was not preserving its power but preserving its identity. The Declaration of Independence provides the answer to that challenge. It reminds us that being American is not defined solely by birthplace, background, or political affiliation. It is defined by a commitment to liberty, equality,
self-government, and the belief that free people can govern themselves.


For nearly 250 years, Americans have debated, expanded, defended, and reinterpreted the ideals first articulated in Philadelphia. Every generation has inherited the same assignment: to move the nation closer to the
promise contained within those revolutionary words.


Two and a half centuries later, the Declaration remains both our inheritance and our responsibility. It is a testament to the power of ideas, a challenge to complacency, and a reminder that democracy is not a destination. It is a duty. The Declaration did more than create a nation. It created a conversation—about liberty, equality, justice, citizenship, and human dignity—that continues today.


And as America moves toward its third century, that conversation remains the foundation of the American experiment and the enduring call of public service.

Categories: Current Events, Federalism, Leadership, Policy, Politics, Public Administration Toolbox Tags: Tags: , ,

America 250: The Founders, Their Ideas, and the American Experiment

Written by NCAC Board Member, Ryan Heimer

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, Americans are once again reflecting on the generation that created the republic and the ideas that shaped the nation’s beginning. The American Founders were not simply revolutionaries seeking independence from Great Britain. They were statesmen, philosophers, soldiers, writers, diplomats, organizers, and institution-builders attempting something unprecedented in human history: the creation of a durable constitutional republic based on liberty, representation, civic virtue, and the consent of the governed.

The Founding generation understood the magnitude of their undertaking. In The Founding Era is described as one of the great political experiments of human civilization. Alexander Hamilton framed the stakes clearly in Federalist No. 1, arguing that Americans would determine whether societies were capable of establishing “good government from reflection and choice” rather than through “accident and force.”

The Founders did not agree on everything. Some believed liberty depended upon strong national institutions, while others feared centralized power above all else. Some emphasized commerce and industrial development, while others envisioned a republic rooted in agriculture and local self-government. Yet despite these disagreements, they shared a common belief that republican government required civic responsibility, constitutional order, and active public participation. The American Revolution therefore became more than a colonial rebellion. It became a test of whether free people could govern themselves.

George Washington: The Indispensable Founder

No Founder stood higher in public esteem than George Washington. The book describes him as the Founder “without whom there would likely not have been a United States of America.” Washington embodied duty, restraint, discipline, and national unity during a period when the republic’s survival was far from certain.

Washington believed deeply in public service and constitutional government. After leading the Continental Army to victory during the Revolutionary War, he voluntarily resigned his military commission rather than seizing political power. This act astonished many European observers who expected revolutionary leaders to become military rulers. Washington instead established one of the republic’s most important precedents: civilian constitutional authority above personal ambition.

As president, Washington worked to stabilize the fragile new government and preserve national unity amid growing political division. He warned repeatedly against sectionalism, excessive partisanship, and foreign entanglements that could weaken the Union. The preservation of liberty, he believed, depended not only upon institutions, but upon public virtue and civic responsibility.

Washington’s significance extended beyond military leadership. At the Constitutional Convention, his presence gave legitimacy to the effort itself. According to constitutional scholars, Washington’s support for the Constitution helped unify delegates and reassure the public that the new framework could succeed. 

The Founders often disagreed intensely with one another, but nearly all recognized Washington as the stabilizing force capable of holding the republic together during its earliest and most uncertain years.

Benjamin Franklin: The Sage of Civic Responsibility

Benjamin Franklin represented another side of the American character: innovation, practicality, self-improvement, and civic-mindedness.

Printer, inventor, scientist, diplomat, and writer, Franklin embodied the Enlightenment ideals that heavily influenced the Revolutionary generation. Yet Franklin’s political philosophy remained grounded in practical public service. He believed liberty required educated, industrious, and engaged citizens willing to contribute to their communities.

Franklin emphasized “economic self-reliance and public-spirited citizenship.” He helped establish libraries, fire departments, educational institutions, and civic organizations because he believed strong communities depended upon active citizen participation.

Franklin also understood compromise better than many of his contemporaries. During the Constitutional Convention, he acted as a mediator among competing factions and recognized that imperfect agreement was necessary to preserve national unity. His famous remark at the close of the Convention—“A republic, if you can keep it”—captured the Founders’ broader belief that constitutional government would require continual stewardship from future generations.

Thomas Jefferson: Liberty and Natural Rights

Thomas Jefferson gave a philosophical voice to the American Revolution. As principal author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson articulated ideas that transformed political thought across the world.

Jefferson believed governments derived their legitimacy from the consent of the governed and existed to protect natural rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If governments became destructive of those rights, the people retained the authority to alter or abolish them.

These ideas reflected the influence of Enlightenment philosophy and the broader intellectual movement known as the American Enlightenment, which shaped many leading Founders including Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Paine.

Jefferson also believed strongly in religious liberty, education, and limited government. His Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom became one of the defining statements of religious liberty in American history.

Yet Jefferson also embodied many of the contradictions within the Founding Era itself. While proclaiming equality and liberty, he remained a slaveholder throughout his life. America 250 therefore requires Americans to engage honestly with both the achievements and failures of the Founding generation rather than reducing them either to mythic heroes or irredeemable villains. The Founders were neither demigods nor simple hypocrites, but flawed individuals improvising amid enormous uncertainty and political risk. Jefferson’s life reflects that complexity.

John Adams: Liberty Through Constitutional Order

If Jefferson represented the philosophical idealism of the Revolution, John Adams represented constitutional realism and institutional stability. Adams believed liberty could survive only through strong constitutional structures capable of restraining human ambition. Deeply influenced by classical history and political philosophy, Adams feared both monarchy and unchecked populism. He argued that republics required balance, law, and ethical citizenship.

Adams is often referred to as the “Atlas of American Independence.” He played a crucial role in pushing for independence during the Continental Congress and later helped secure diplomatic support abroad. Adams believed constitutional government depended upon civic virtue. He famously argued that the Constitution was designed only for “a moral and religious people,” reflecting his concern that no legal structure alone could preserve liberty without ethical foundations among citizens.

His support for separation of powers and checks and balances heavily influenced the structure of the Constitution itself. Adams feared concentrations of power because history convinced him republics could collapse when factionalism overwhelmed institutional stability.

Alexander Hamilton: Architect of National Power

Alexander Hamilton represented energy, ambition, and national development within the Founding generation.

Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton believed the survival of the republic required a strong national government capable of promoting commerce, financial stability, infrastructure, and industrial growth. Having witnessed the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, he feared excessive decentralization would leave the nation divided and vulnerable.

Hamilton’s writings in The Federalist Papers remain among the most important defenses of constitutional government ever produced. He argued that energetic government and constitutional liberty were not incompatible. Effective institutions, in his view, were necessary to preserve the republic itself.

As the nation’s first Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton established financial systems that stabilized the economy and strengthened federal authority. His vision laid the groundwork for America’s emergence as a major commercial and industrial power. Hamilton also believed national unity was essential. Like John Jay, he feared that regional divisions could fracture the republic and weaken democratic government.

James Madison: The Father of the Constitution

James Madison perhaps contributed more than any other individual to the design of the Constitution itself. Madison believed factional conflict was inevitable in free societies. Rather than attempting to eliminate disagreement, he sought to design institutions capable of managing competing interests peacefully.

At the Constitutional Convention, Madison arrived extensively prepared, having studied republics and confederacies throughout history. His ideas heavily shaped the final structure of the Constitution, earning him the title “Father of the Constitution.”

Madison believed liberty was best protected through separated powers, checks and balances, and federalism. He argued that dividing authority among multiple institutions would prevent any single faction or leader from dominating the political system.

He later helped draft the Bill of Rights, recognizing that explicit protections for individual liberties were necessary to secure public trust in the federal government. Madison’s constitutional philosophy reflected one of the Founders’ core insights: democracy requires institutional safeguards capable of balancing liberty with stability.

John Jay: Defender of Union and Diplomacy

John Jay is often less remembered than Washington, Jefferson, or Hamilton, yet he played a critical role in shaping the republic. Diplomat, constitutional advocate, co-author of The Federalist Papers, and the first Chief Justice of the United States, Jay believed the nation’s survival depended upon unity and rule of law. Historians identified Jay as one of the central Founders because of his leadership, diplomacy, and constitutional influence. 

Jay feared sectional fragmentation and argued that the Constitution was necessary to preserve the Union. His writings emphasized that America’s security and prosperity depended upon remaining a single nation rather than becoming divided regional confederacies.

As Chief Justice, Jay helped establish the legitimacy and independence of the federal judiciary during the republic’s earliest years.

George Mason and Patrick Henry: The Fear of Centralized Power

Not all Founders supported the Constitution immediately. George Mason and Patrick Henry emerged as leading Anti-Federalists who feared centralized authority threatened liberty.

George Mason authored the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which heavily influenced the eventual Bill of Rights. Mason believed written protections against government abuse were essential to preserving liberty. He refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked explicit guarantees for individual rights.

Patrick Henry, famous for declaring “Give me liberty or give me death,” believed concentrated federal power could eventually undermine state authority and individual freedom. The Anti-Federalists worried the federal government would become too distant from ordinary citizens and too powerful to restrain.

Though they opposed the Constitution initially, their arguments helped drive the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Their role demonstrates that disagreement itself was part of the American political tradition from the beginning.

Samuel Adams and Revolutionary Mobilization

While some Founders focused on constitutional structure, Samuel Adams concentrated on political organization and revolutionary activism.

Adams believed liberty required active resistance to tyranny. He helped organize opposition to British taxation and became one of the leading architects of revolutionary mobilization in Massachusetts. 

Samuel Adams understood the importance of public opinion, communication, and civic activism. Events such as the Boston Tea Party became revolutionary turning points partly because Adams recognized how public symbolism could unify resistance against British authority. His legacy reminds Americans that the Revolution itself required organizers and communicators capable of turning frustration into collective political action.

Gouverneur Morris and James Wilson: Popular Sovereignty

Gouverneur Morris and James Wilson helped shape the Constitution’s deeper philosophical foundations. Morris drafted much of the Constitution’s final language, including the famous opening phrase: “We the People of the United States.”That phrase fundamentally shifted political authority away from states alone and toward the American people collectively.

James Wilson similarly argued that legitimate political authority originated directly from the people themselves rather than inherited power or monarchy. He strongly supported popular sovereignty and broader democratic participation than many contemporaries considered safe.  Together, Wilson and Morris helped establish one of the central principles of the American republic: government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

Mercy Otis Warren and the Revolutionary Conscience

The Founding Era was not shaped solely by men. Mercy Otis Warren emerged as one of the Revolution’s most influential political writers and critics.

Through essays, plays, and political commentary, Warren argued passionately for republican virtue, accountability, and resistance to tyranny. She is often described her as “The Conscience of the American Revolution.”

Warren feared corruption, elitism, and the gradual erosion of republican values. She believed liberty required vigilance and public morality, emphasizing that free government could not survive if citizens became indifferent to civic responsibility.

Modern scholarship increasingly recognizes that the Founding involved a broader range of contributors than traditional narratives once acknowledged.

What the Founders Believed

Despite their differences, the Founders shared several core beliefs.

First, they believed legitimate government derived authority from the people rather than hereditary monarchy. Second, they believed liberty required institutional protections and constitutional limits on power. Third, they believed republics depended upon civic virtue, public participation, and informed citizenship.

The Founders were heavily influenced by republican ideals rooted in classical history, Enlightenment philosophy, English legal traditions, and colonial self-government.They admired Rome, studied history intensely, and believed republics could collapse if corruption, division, or unchecked ambition overwhelmed constitutional order. Most importantly, they understood the American experiment would require continual effort from future generations.

The Enduring Legacy of the Founders

Two hundred and fifty years later, the Founders remain central to the American story because the questions they confronted still define modern public life.

How should power be balanced?


What responsibilities accompany liberty?


How can democratic institutions survive division and change?


Can free people govern themselves responsibly and peacefully?

The Founders did not create a perfect system. They created a framework capable of adaptation, debate, reform, and self-government. Their legacy lies not in perfection, but in persistence.

America 250 is therefore more than a celebration of the past. It is an opportunity to revisit the principles, debates, and ideas that shaped the republic itself.

Washington’s commitment to unity, Franklin’s civic spirit, Jefferson’s defense of liberty, Adams’s constitutional realism, Hamilton’s institutional vision, Madison’s constitutional design, Mason and Henry’s warnings against centralized power, Jay’s defense of union, Samuel Adams’s revolutionary activism, Wilson’s popular sovereignty, and Warren’s insistence on civic virtue all remain part of America’s political inheritance.

The Founders believed self-government was both a privilege and a responsibility. They understood liberty would survive only if future generations were willing to preserve it, improve it, and carry the republic forward.

As the United States enters its 250th year, the American experiment they began continues still.

Categories: Current Events, Federalism, Leadership, Policy, Politics, Public Administration Toolbox Tags: Tags: ,

Political Polarization, COVID, Social Justice Issues, and Where America Goes From Here

2 Comments

A book review and interview with the author by Natalie Donahue

The inspiration for “The Divided States of America” stemmed from Dr. Kettl’s dissertation.  He decided to take a fresh look at the field to understand what the underlying issues were and where federalism may be headed for the future.  That may sound strange as many people think of federalism (if they think of it at all) as a static concept; an idea grounded in the founding of our current government dating back to when the states signed the Constitution after powers not delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states through the 10th amendment.  But, in fact, there have been four “generations”, as Kettl calls them, of federalism in the United States in which states and the federal government have fought for primacy.

The first generation lasted nearly 100 years from the ratification of the Constitution until the end of the Civil War, where the states were the primary power in the country.  With the passage of the 14th amendment asserting the fundamental equality of Americans with the states being forbidden to “make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities” of any citizen, the idea of federal primacy was clear – leading us into the second generation of federalism which shifted the balance of intergovernmental power away from the states and toward the federal government.  However, the primacy of the federal government was short-lived as the states pushed back and argued that the way the Constitution should be interpreted should be through the decisions they make – with states fighting to sustain a “separate but equal” doctrine.  States’ rights ruled social policy in America with the passage of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 which ended the separate but equal doctrine and with it, state dominance in social policy, creating the third generation of federalism.  Federal dominance was once again short-lived as the fourth wave of federalism began in the late 1960s as states renewed their pre-eminence through the administration of national programs (such as Medicaid).  

In this fourth generation of federalism, the United States has seen increased inequality both among and between the states.  Depending on perspective, this inequality creates unfairness, undermines democracy, and generates distrust.  The roots of this inequality grow in the political diversity of this country.  The battle between both the size of government and the scope of government programs has been at the forefront of politics for decades but is especially acute now.  As Kettl said in our discussion: “The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a great example in that conservatives were against it, liberals were for it, and we saw the two political parties playing tug-of-war in the creation of the program, but the administration surrounding the implementation decisions of ACA was left to the states.  In effect, the ACA, like Medicaid, became not one national program, but 51 different programs” (50 states plus the District of Columbia).  This notion brings us back to the premise of “The Divided States of America” being that federalism guarantees that the government Americans get depends on where it is that they live.  State by state, we see there is tremendous variability and enormous amounts of inequality across the country.  This leads to increased polarization, which leads to increased inequality, with the problem spiraling.

The issue of inequality was particularly acute across the United States in 2020.  I asked Dr. Kettl about the role of federalism as it pertains to the social justice movement rallying behind the cause of racial injustice, particularly around the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and many others at the hands of police.  Dr. Kettl talked about the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the idea that national principles were truly national in scope – but what we have seen over the past year in particular is that the efforts of the federal government to shape national policy turned out to be resting more in the hands of the states; with great variance between them.  “The idea of having a single national policy dissolved in the face of different kinds of strategies and different states.  Putting all this together, we discovered that the sense of unity that had grown out of federalism seem to have been either short-lived or never really existed to begin with – as the whole movement for civil rights was largely a product driven by the federal government.  [So what we see now] is that not only has the consensus seem to have dissolved, but the consensus about how to frame a consensus has dissolved.”    

Dr. Kettl and I also spoke about the COVID pandemic and the big role federalism has played in the country’s response to it.  A modern principle of federalism is that states are to act as “laboratories of democracy”, meaning states would experiment and be innovative in their policy implementation decisions; where one state found success, other states would adopt those lessons and follow them within their own borders.  However, states are now basing their decisions “much more on an ideological basis than on issues of either principle or evidence.  [Overall, there is an] unwillingness to even count what it is that is working best, let alone to be able to follow what it is other states are doing”, said Kettl.  “When COVID hit U.S. shores last year, we saw early on a political polarization of wearing masks and even whether or not COVID was real; all of which affected the way in which states responded, with the states going down very different kinds of roads”.  The United States saw states bidding against each other for personal protective equipment, states encouraging mask-wearing while others encouraged herd immunity as a response.  

This struggle has continued during the COVID vaccine rollout – where, again, the variance between the states and their approach to vaccination has been the main determinant of the overall health of their citizens.  “It is arguable that the reliance on the states taking the front lines and first devising a strategy for dealing with COVID and now for the states to have the front-line responsibility dealing with vaccinations has, in fact, proven dangerous and cost lives”.  Due to state governments not having the resources, capacity, or the interest in providing a solution for all their citizens (particularly those in underserved communities) and each state going their own way in their COVID response plan, the country as a whole will be unable to be fully safe. 

So how do we move into a fifth generation of federalism where Americans experience less inequality and outcomes are not determined by the state in which we live?  “There is a real urgency for the country to have a national conversation about the balance of power, as we’ve introduced a lot more inequality into the system… which, in the long-run, is dangerous to democracy.”  Dr. Kettl thinks we should look to another founding father, Alexander Hamilton, who was perhaps the strongest champion among the nation’s founders of a powerful, robust central government.  What we need is “not federal government control, but a stronger federal government steering wheel to shape things like a national response to a national issue; issues that affect everyone, whether directly or indirectly, [which are] things that require a stronger national voice and stronger national consensus.  This is unlikely to happen if we allow 50 different states to go 50 different directions – the cost of which would be to encourage and to fuel greater inequality, which is the one thing the country does not need at this point.  There has to be not federal control but a partnership between the federal government and state and local governments.”  

Dr. Kettl believes the rollout of the COVID vaccine provides the perfect opportunity for the levels of government to work effectively in a coordinated way to try to address the issue, and come together as a country to find a solution that works effectively for all citizens regardless of the neighborhood or community where they live.  Now is the time to move to that fifth generation of federalism and find the right balance between federal and state power in order for the country to truly become the United States of America. 

You can buy a copy of Dr. Kettl’s “The Divided States of America: Why Federalism Doesn’t Work” at your favorite local bookstore.

Natalie Donahue and is the Chief of Evaluation in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, and also moonlights as an adjunct at various Universities teaching monitoring and evaluation and public policy courses.  In doing some course prep for a public policy class, she stumbled upon arguably one of the best books to be published last year: Dr. Donald Kettl’s The Divided States of America. 

Categories: Book Review, Current Events, Event, Federalism, Policy, Politics, Social Justice Tags: Tags: , , ,