A lengthy commentary published this week argues that American politics has become structurally broken, not merely dysfunctional due to partisan disagreements. The piece, from the Washington Examiner's premium section, contends that voters increasingly feel elections produce hollow outcomes regardless of which party prevails.
The argument centers on federalism—the constitutional division between national and state authority. Citing James Madison's Federalist No. 45, the commentary notes Madison wrote that "the powers of the states would remain numerous and indefinite" while national government powers should be "few and defined." The piece argues this balance has inverted, with Washington assuming responsibilities Madison expected states to handle.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservatives and constitutional originalists often echo similar concerns about federal overreach, though they typically arrive there through different reasoning than the commentary suggests. Senator Mike Lee of Utah has been a prominent voice for returning power to state governments, arguing that the 10th Amendment's reservation of powers to states has been systematically undermined.
Heritage Foundation scholars and other conservative think tanks have long argued that regulatory centralization stifles innovation and removes decision-making from accountable local officials. Many Republicans contend that federalism allows citizens in diverse states to govern according to their own values rather than having policy dictated by coastal elites.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressives generally support federal leadership on major policy challenges, arguing that coordinated national action is necessary to address problems that cross state boundaries. Democratic supporters of expanded federal authority contend that issues like healthcare, environmental protection, and civil rights require uniform standards to ensure basic protections for all Americans regardless of geography.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and other progressive voices have argued that concentrated economic power requires correspondingly strong federal responses. The party platform has historically emphasized that states' rights arguments were sometimes used to resist national civil rights protections and social safety net programs.
What the Numbers Show
Gallup's annual polling on confidence in institutions shows public trust in the federal government near historic lows, with only 14% of Americans saying they trust Congress "always" or "most of the time" as recently as 2023. Congressional approval ratings have remained in the mid-teens for extended periods, according to Gallup tracking data spanning multiple decades.
Federal spending has grown substantially relative to the economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects that mandatory spending programs—primarily Social Security and Medicare—will consume growing shares of the budget as the population ages. As of 2024 estimates, approximately 75% of federal spending occurs through autopilot mechanisms like entitlement programs rather than annual appropriations subject to direct congressional control.
The national debt has exceeded $34 trillion, with interest costs becoming a significant and growing budget. Economic mobility measures have shown stagnation for middle-class Americans over recent decades, though economists debate the causes and remedies.
The Bottom Line
The commentary reflects a strand of political philosophy that finds unusual common ground between libertarians, originalist conservatives, and some anti-establishment progressives—all arguing that power has become too concentrated in federal institutions. Whether this diagnosis points toward workable solutions remains unclear, given deep disagreement about which federal powers should be devolved and how such transitions would work in practice.
The piece does not propose specific policy changes but suggests voters sense systemic dysfunction beyond ordinary partisan conflict. Election cycles continue generating intense engagement while post-election periods often produce frustration among supporters of all parties who find their preferred policies blocked or reversed by subsequent administrations.