Steve Wolfer, author of 'The Democratic Cycle: Why Self-Government Is Failing — and How to Repair It,' has published an opinion piece arguing that both major political parties are pursuing concentrated power they will ultimately regret. His column in the Washington Examiner contends that debates over Supreme Court appointments, presidential authority, federal agencies, and congressional power share a common flaw: each side focuses on who should hold power rather than how much power anyone should possess.
Wolfer's core argument draws from James Madison's Federalist No. 51, quoting: 'If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.' The author argues that human nature does not improve through elected office and that constitutional restraints exist precisely because ambition must be checked.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative commentators and Republican officeholders generally support strong originalist interpretation of the Constitution, viewing it as a durable framework that has sustained American governance for over two centuries. They argue that constitutional amendments are deliberately difficult to achieve by design, ensuring that temporary majorities cannot easily override foundational principles.
The Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society have long argued that judicial restraint and textualism preserve democratic legitimacy by preventing unelected judges from legislating from the bench. Conservative legal scholars contend that separation of powers protects individual liberty more effectively than either concentrated national authority or dispersed local control alone.
Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri has argued for strengthening presidential authority in foreign policy while constraining administrative state power through Congress. Many conservatives share Wolfer's concern about executive overreach across administrations but disagree on solutions, with some favoring unitary executive theory and others supporting robust congressional oversight.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive commentators and Democratic policy advocates have long argued for updating constitutional structures they view as outdated. Supporters of eliminating the Electoral College, expanding the Supreme Court, and strengthening presidential emergency powers contend that 18th-century arrangements cannot address 21st-century challenges like climate change, pandemic response, and technological disruption. They argue that federalism and separation of powers create gridlock on existential issues rather than protecting liberty.
Organizations such as Represent.us and the Center for American Progress have advocated for constitutional reforms including automatic voter registration and amendments to limit money in politics. These groups argue that the Constitution itself has been amended when necessary, including after slavery was abolished and women's suffrage was secured, and that additional reforms could strengthen democratic participation without abandoning core principles.
Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut has argued that 'constitutional originalism is a choice, not an obligation' and that each generation has both the right and responsibility to adapt fundamental law to current circumstances. Progressives often counter Wolfer's framing by arguing that restraints on majority rule can also protect minority rights from systemic oppression rather than merely slowing government action.
What the Numbers Show
The Constitution has been amended 27 times since its ratification in 1788, with 17 amendments following the Bill of Rights. The most recent amendment, ratified in 1992, addressed congressional pay raises and took over 200 years to ratify after being proposed.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, only 13 constitutional amendments have been successfully ratified out of approximately 11,700 proposals introduced in Congress since 1789, a success rate of roughly 0.1%. The amendment process requires two-thirds majorities in both chambers and three-fourths of state legislatures.
Polling from Gallup shows that confidence in the Supreme Court dropped to 29% in 2024, down from 36% in 2023, with similar declines across partisan lines though at different magnitudes. A 2024 Cato Institute survey found that 62% of Americans believe 'the system of checks and balances is not working as intended.'
The Bottom Line
Wolfer's column reflects a persistent tension in American political thought: whether constitutional structures should be interpreted strictly, adapted gradually, or reformed substantially to address contemporary challenges. Both major parties have, at various points, advocated for expanding power when they controlled branches of government while demanding constraints when out of power.
The debate is likely to intensify as both parties prepare for the 2026 midterm elections and subsequent presidential contest. What remains unclear is whether bipartisan concern about concentrated power will produce legislative reforms, judicial interpretation changes, or simply continued mutual accusations without structural adjustment.