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: ,

Progress, Democracy, and the American Experiment: Reflections on Samuel Miller McDonald’s Progress and Jon Meacham’s The Soul of America

Written by NCAC Board Member, Ryan Heimer

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, Americans are increasingly asking questions that extend beyond politics, economics, and technology. The semiquincentennial offers an opportunity not only to celebrate the nation’s achievements but also to reflect on the ideas that have shaped the American experiment from its founding to the present day. Among those ideas, few have been as influential—or as taken for granted—as the concept of progress. 

From the construction of canals and railroads to the development of public education, public health systems, interstate highways, space exploration, and the digital revolution, Americans have long believed that each generation can build a better future than the one it inherited. Progress has served as both a national aspiration and a governing philosophy. It is woven into the language of public administration, public policy, and democratic governance. 

Yet what happens when we pause to ask a deceptively simple question: What do we actually mean by progress? 

This question sits at the center of Samuel Miller McDonald’s Progress: How One Idea Built Civilization and Now Threatens to Destroy It. McDonald argues that the modern world has embraced a powerful narrative that equates progress with growth, expansion, technological advancement, and increasing control over nature. While this narrative has generated extraordinary achievements, he contends that it has also contributed to environmental degradation, social fragmentation, and unsustainable systems built upon perpetual expansion. McDonald challenges readers to reconsider whether humanity has confused growth with genuine improvement and whether a new definition of progress is needed for the future.

For public servants, this argument is both provocative and timely. Public administration has traditionally been tasked with advancing progress through more effective services, improved infrastructure, stronger institutions, and better outcomes for citizens. However, as governments confront challenges such as climate change, artificial intelligence, declining public trust, workforce shortages, and growing social complexity, the meaning of progress itself is increasingly open to debate. 

What makes McDonald’s work particularly interesting when viewed through the lens of America at 250 is how it contrasts with another influential book that has resonated with many public servants and civic leaders: The Soul of America by Jon Meacham. 

While McDonald questions the assumptions underlying modern progress, Meacham offers a more hopeful interpretation of American history. In The Soul of America, Meacham examines periods of division, fear, nativism, racism, political polarization, and democratic crisis throughout the nation’s history. His central argument is that these moments are not exceptions to the American story; they are part of it. Yet again and again, Americans have demonstrated the capacity to confront those challenges and move toward a more inclusive and democratic society. According to Meacham, the enduring struggle in American history is a contest between fear and hope, division and unity, exclusion and inclusion. America’s progress has never been inevitable, but it has been possible because citizens, leaders, and institutions repeatedly chose to pursue what Abraham Lincoln called the nation’s “better angels.” 

Taken together, these two books offer a fascinating dialogue about the future of governance and public service. McDonald asks us to question whether our traditional measures of progress—economic growth, consumption, technological advancement, and institutional expansion—are sufficient. Meacham reminds us that progress is not solely material. It is also moral, civic, and democratic. A nation can become wealthier without becoming more just. Technology can advance while trust declines. Economies can expand while communities become more fragmented.

This distinction is particularly relevant to the field of public administration. For much of the twentieth century, governments increasingly relied upon measurable indicators to assess performance. Agencies tracked outputs, budgets, projects completed, permits issued, inspections conducted, and  services delivered. These metrics remain important. Evidence-based policymaking and performance management have strengthened accountability and improved decision-making across all levels of government. 

However, many public administrators have come to recognize that outputs do not always tell the entire story. Completing a project on time and within budget does not automatically build public trust. Increasing efficiency does not necessarily improve equity. Expanding services does not guarantee that citizens feel heard, respected, or connected to the institutions that serve them. 

As a result, governments are increasingly exploring broader measures of success. Public value, social equity, resilience, environmental sustainability, citizen satisfaction, and community well-being have become important complements to traditional performance metrics. These emerging frameworks reflect an evolving understanding that progress involves more than growth alone. This is where McDonald and Meacham intersect in meaningful ways. 

McDonald challenges us to reconsider whether perpetual growth can remain the organizing principle of modern civilization. He argues that societies built around extraction, expansion, and consumption may eventually encounter ecological and social limits. The narratives of dominion, growth, and expansion that helped build modern civilization now risk undermining the very systems upon which human flourishing depends. 

Meacham, meanwhile, reminds readers that American history demonstrates another kind of progress—one measured not by economic output but by the gradual expansion of democratic participation, civil rights, and civic responsibility. The abolition of slavery, the advancement of women’s rights, the civil rights movement, and other democratic reforms illustrate forms of progress that cannot be measured through GDP or productivity statistics. They represent moral and institutional progress achieved through collective action and democratic engagement. 

For public servants, both perspectives offer valuable lessons. The first lesson is humility. History rarely moves in a straight line. Progress is often uneven, contested, and accompanied by unintended consequences. Technologies that promise liberation may introduce new challenges. Policies designed to solve one problem can create another. Public administrators must continually evaluate not only whether programs are effective but whether they are advancing the outcomes communities truly value. 

The second lesson is stewardship. Public administration exists not simply to manage systems but to preserve and strengthen the institutions that support democratic governance. Meacham’s work emphasizes that democracy survives because individuals and institutions choose responsibility over complacency. Public servants occupy a unique position within this framework. They are custodians of public trust, responsible for maintaining continuity, professionalism, and accountability regardless of political circumstances. 

The third lesson is adaptability. As emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence reshape government operations, public servants will face new questions about efficiency, transparency, privacy, and ethics. AI promises extraordinary opportunities for improving service delivery, forecasting risks, and enhancing decision-making. Yet McDonald’s critique reminds us that innovation alone does not constitute progress. The relevant questions remain: Who benefits? Who may be excluded? What values are embedded in these systems? How do we ensure technology strengthens rather than weakens democratic governance? 

These questions become even more significant as America heads towards its third century. The Founders themselves wrestled with competing visions of progress. Figures such as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington debated the proper balance between liberty and authority, federal and state power, stability and change. They understood that democratic institutions must evolve while remaining anchored to enduring principles. The Constitution itself was designed not as a static document but as a framework capable of adaptation over time. 

As public administrators, we inherit that responsibility. The challenges facing the nation today differ dramatically from those faced in 1776 or even 1976. Artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, climate resilience, demographic shifts, infrastructure modernization, and declining trust in institutions all present complex governance challenges. Yet the underlying question remains remarkably familiar: How can democratic institutions help create a better future? 

McDonald’s answer suggests we must rethink what “better” means. Meacham’s answer suggests that the pursuit of a more perfect union remains possible when citizens and institutions act with courage, integrity, and civic purpose. 

Perhaps the most valuable insight comes from combining the two perspectives. Progress should not be understood solely as economic growth or technological advancement. Nor should it be viewed merely as an abstract historical force moving society forward. Instead, progress may be best understood as the ongoing effort to expand opportunity, strengthen democratic institutions, improve quality of life, preserve the environment, and promote human flourishing for future generations. 

For ASPA members and public servants, this broader understanding aligns closely with the values of public service itself. Public administration is ultimately about helping communities solve problems, build trust, and create conditions where individuals and families can thrive. It is about balancing innovation with accountability, efficiency with equity, and growth with sustainability. 

As America prepares to celebrate 250 years of independence, perhaps the most important question is not whether the nation has progressed, but how it chooses to define progress in the years ahead.

If McDonald encourages us to question our assumptions and Meacham encourages us to believe in our better angels, both authors ultimately point toward the same challenge: the future is not predetermined. It will be shaped by the choices citizens, leaders, and public servants make together. That may be the most enduring lesson of the American experiment and the most important reflection for America at 250.

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

Dr. Anthony Fauci Awarded NCAC’s Francis Kelsey Award

The ASPA National Capital Area Chapter “Frances Kelsey Award” acknowledges individuals who have demonstrated courage in promoting the public interest while employed in government; as a public servant, contractor, or grantee. The award is named in honor of Dr. Francis Kelsey, a 45-year veteran of the Federal Drug Administration {FDA), who served as the Director of the FDA’s Office of Scientific Investigations, and who courageously resisted pressure to approve the pharmaceutical drug Thalidomide for therapeutic use in the United States in the 1960s after discovering a link between the drug and severe birth defects.

At the time of Dr. Kelsey’s review, Thalidomide had been sold to pregnant women in Europe and elsewhere as an anti-nausea drug to treat morning sickness. The pharmaceutical company responsible for its development wanted a license, for similar use, in the United States.

The Washington Post opined that “[the] tragedy was largely averted in the United States, with much credit due to Kelsey … For a critical 19-month period, she fastidiously blocked its approval while drug company officials maligned her as a bureaucratic nitpicker.” The Washington Post went on to describe Dr. Kelsey as a “heroine” whose “skepticism and stubbornness … prevented what could have been an appalling American tragedy.”

There are fewer honors and awards than people who deserve them. They are rare and are reserved for people who have achieved excellence in their field, made significant observable changes or accomplishments, and whose work products have benefited the citizens of the United States, or humanity at-large, in their field or activity.

Dr. Anthony Fauci meets and/or exceeds the criteria required for consideration as a recipient for the “Frances Kelsey Award”. Dr. Fauci has served American public health in various capacities for more than 50 years and has been an advisor to every United States President since Ronald Reagan. Dr. Fauci became Director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in 1984 and has made contributions to HIV/AIDS research and other immune-deficiency diseases, both as a scientist and as head of the NIAID.

From 1983 to 2002, Dr. Fauci was one of the World’s most frequently cited scientists across all scientific journals. In 2008, President George W. Bush awarded Dr. Fauci the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States, for his work on the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a United States governmental initiative to address the global HIV/AIDS epidemic and help save lives of those suffering from the disease. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci was one of the lead members of President Donald Trump’s White House Coronavirus Task Force. In the early stages of the pandemic The New Yorker and The New York Times described Dr. Fauci “as one of the most trusted medical figures in the United States”. He made clear the importance of evidence-based decisions and strove to ensure the public was well-aware of the information it needed to inform their actions. Dr. Fauci was recently appointed Chief Medical Advisor to President Joe Biden and continues to serve as the Director of NIAID.

Dr. Fauci shares with Dr. Kelsey a long and distinguished history of public service. Both helped strengthen national health standards protections for citizens of the United States and humanity at-large; are recipients of numerous prestigious awards related to their public service achievements; are recognized nationally and globally as leaders in their respective fields; demonstrated the ability to manage and lead in response to national controversies; and possess a dedication to the duties and responsibilities of public service, as well as a winning temperament.

For the above reasons, the ASPA National Capital Area Chapter is honored to present the 2021 “Frances Kelsey Award” to Dr. Anthony Fauci for his outstanding public service.

Presented by Board Member Arthur Elkins

We were fortunate to have Dr. Fauci send us a video in acceptance of this award.

Categories: ASPA News, Current Events, Event, Latest News, Politics

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: , , ,