Opinion
This plan is stunningly radical. It could also be the solution
The book is a thought experiment. The proposal I’m offering is long term. I realize we need states during the current political moment.
I think the states are the root cause of many, if not most, of the current dangers faced by U.S. democracy. I also see the states as a significant source of fiscal waste. We don’t need three levels of government – national, state and local – all regulating us and all taxing us. Two would do just fine. And after careful, detailed analysis, I concluded that every benefit ever claimed for state government could be achieved at least as well, and in many cases better, by the local governments.
I’m imagining the framers sitting in Independence Hall. And you go back in time and suggest to them not having states. I think most of them would drop dead at the thought, because it ultimately implies a much more powerful federal government. What would you say to them?
After they stop laughing, I would emphasize that I’m not proposing a wholesale transfer of power from the states to an all-powerful, all-knowing central government. Yes, some of the functions currently performed by the states could better be performed at the national level, but I’m proposing that the lion’s share devolve down to the local governments, which are even closer to the people they represent than the state legislatures can ever be.
Some of the most ardent Federalists, including Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, referred to the states as “artificial beings” or “imaginary beings.” They accepted the states only because keeping them was politically essential to getting the required nine state ratifications, not because they thought states were a good idea.
George Washington’s working copy of the Constitution from Aug. 6, 1787.National Archives, Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional ConventionWhat functions would your plan hand over to the federal government?
A prime example is licensing. I looked up all the different occupations that require state licenses. I was astonished: practically every health care profession, barbers, engineers, lawyers, architects, the list is endless.
If you live near a state line, you can’t practice in both states unless you get two licenses. If you move to another state, you have to get another license. This seems silly. The human anatomy, human hair, engineering principles, don’t change as you cross from New York to New Jersey. Nor do we need 50 different state driver’s licenses; a single national license administered through local agencies would be more efficient.
You say states are the root cause of the greatest threats to American democracy. What are those threats?
The structural threats are those that are baked into the Constitution itself. The Electoral College is one. On five occasions, the Electoral College has awarded the presidency to the candidate whom the voters rejected nationwide. And there were many, many near misses where the popular vote loser almost became president, making many such future instances a statistical certainty.
Perhaps even more important, every state, no matter how large or how small, gets the same number of U.S. senators. In fact, a majority of the U.S. population is represented by only about 18% of the Senate. The minority gets the other 82%.
These counter-majoritarian defects in the elections of both presidents and senators have a ripple effect. They skew the composition, and thus the decisions, of the federal courts. Three of the current Supreme Court justices were appointed by President Donald Trump after he had lost the national popular vote; five of the current Supreme Court justices were confirmed by senators who collectively represented only a minority of the U.S. population.
Here’s one especially jarring statistic: From 1969 until today, the Democratic presidential nominees won the national popular vote in a slight majority of the elections. Yet, during the presidential terms that resulted from those elections, Republican presidents have gotten to make 15 of the 20 Supreme Court appointments.
The Constitution also gives the states broad powers to regulate and run national elections. State legislatures have used those powers to pass gerrymandering, voter suppression and other counter-majoritarian laws.
If you devolve these functions and services to localities, wouldn’t you end up with a mirror of the current state-level structure? Wouldn’t this just send a lot of state personnel down to the local level?
Yes, much of that structure would devolve. However, I see that as a good thing. Devolution is unavoidable in a country this size. Not everything can be done by the central government. The question for me is, do we need two levels of subordinate political subdivisions or one? One seems more efficient. And when problems are too big for one local government to handle on its own, it can partner with other local governments or with the national government, just as many local governments do today.
Abolishing state government means no more meetings of the state legislature, like this one in the Maine House of Representatives on Jan. 4, 2023, at the State House in Augusta.AP Photo/Robert F. BukatyIf there were no states to gerrymander or pass voter-suppression laws, wouldn’t some national government agency just do it instead?
Redistricting would be performed by a nonpartisan redistricting commission that I propose be made up of technicians, mainly demographers, statisticians and geographers, under broad, general principles enacted by Congress. That’s what almost every other democracy in the world does today.
Why did you write this book?
For a long time, I’ve been distressed about so many of the dangers to our democracy. So, one day, I found myself compiling what ended up becoming a fairly long mental list of all of my democracy-related grievances.
A list of grievances like in the Declaration of Independence!
That’s a nice analogy. And as I thought about that list, it suddenly struck me that the vast majority of these problems couldn’t occur without states. That got me thinking about whether we really need states in the first place.
If it’s just a thought experiment, something that’s not going to happen, why would you think it’s worthwhile spending time writing this?
And why would I be so vain as to think anybody would want to waste their time reading it?
And your answer is, ‘Because I’m an academic!’
It’s that, plus more. I do hope there’s some scholarly value in this. But I’m also writing for the long term. States are secure for now, but history teaches us that the more distant future is full of surprises.
Stephen Legomsky, John S. Lehmann University Professor Emeritus, Washington University in St. Louis
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
History will never forgive us
Ten years ago, if you’d told Americans a U.S. president would attempt to overturn an election, openly praise dictators, take naked bribes from both foreign potentates and drug dealers, call the press the “enemy of the people,” cage children, pardon traitors and war criminals, and promise to act as a dictator on his first day in office, they’d have laughed. They would’ve told you, “That can’t happen here.”
But it did. And now the real danger is that we’re getting used to it.
Let’s not forget:
— When Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power in 2020, the political class gasped. Now it’s barely discussed.
— When he orchestrated an attempted coup on January 6, 2021, it was the top story in the world. Today, most Republicans call it “a protest” or a “tour” of Congress.
— Had any previous president invited an immigrant billionaire who promotes fascist memes to rip the guts out of the Social Security Administration and shut down USAID (handing our soft power to the Russians and Chinese) there would have been hell to pay. Now Elon Musk’s extraordinary damage to our government is barely discussed.
— When Trump began calling undocumented immigrants “animals” and labeling judges and prosecutors as “scum,” it horrified the media. Now it’s part of the daily churn.
— When a federal judge’s son was murdered by a Trump campaign volunteer it shocked America; now judges are routinely threatened and Republicans won’t even give the judiciary control over the US Marshall’s Service to protect them.
— When Trump praised Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orbán and suggested suspending the Constitution, the headlines flared, but then faded fast.
— When he arrested a Tufts University student for having co-written an op-ed in the student paper critical of Benjamin Netanyahu and threw her into prison for months, the country was appalled. Now he’s rolling out loyalty tests for civil servants and investigating the social media posts of American citizens returning to the country and nobody’s even discussing it.
— When ICE agents showed up in Portland in 2020 in unmarked vans without uniforms and their ID missing, kidnapping people off the streets without warrants, Americans and the media were shocked. Now seeing jackbooted thugs with masks covering their faces and refusing to identify themselves has become “normal.”
This is the playbook. Fascism doesn’t arrive with jackboots; it arrives with media and voter fatigue. As the political theorist Hannah Arendt warned, the very banality and ordinariness of evil is its greatest weapon.
Victor Klemperer, a Jew who converted to Lutheranism and chronicled the rise of Nazism in Germany, saw how average people learned to live with, to adapt to, to bear the unbearable. In his 1942 diary he wrote:
“Today over breakfast we talked about the extraordinary capacity of human beings to bear and become accustomed to things. The fantastic hideousness of our existence... and yet still hours of pleasure... and so we go on eking out a bare existence and go on hoping.”
Sebastian Haffner, another German observer, noted in Defying Hitler that even he, a staunch anti-Nazi, found himself one day saluting, wearing a uniform, and marching (and even secretly enjoying the feeling of authority associated with it). As the historian Robert Paxton wrote:
“To resist seemed pointless … finally, with astonishment, he observed himself raising his arm, fitted with a swastika armband, in the Nazi salute.”
And Milton Mayer, in They Thought They Were Free, described how good, decent Germans came to accept fascism. He was a Chicago reporter who, following World War II, went to Germany to interview “average Germans” to try to learn how such a terrible thing could have happened and, hopefully, thus prevent it from ever happening here.
“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security....”
He wrote about living there and the ten Germans he befriended: I found his description of a college professor to be the most poignant. As Mayer’s professor friend noted, and Mayer recorded in his book:
“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter...
“To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it — please try to believe me — unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.”
In this conversation, Mayer’s friend suggests that he wasn’t making an excuse for not resisting the rise of the fascists, but was simply pointing out what happens when you keep your head down and just “do your job” without engaging in politics.
“You see,” Mayer’s friend continued, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next.
“You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not? Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.
“Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows…
“But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked — if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33.
“But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
“And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jew swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose.
“The world you live in — your nation, your people — is not the world you were in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays.
“But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God.”
Sound familiar?
Stephen Miller’s recent musing about suspending habeas corpus to lock up immigrants and even protestors without trial? That would’ve sparked emergency hearings a decade ago. Now it’s barely a blip.
White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller attends the White House Easter Egg Roll. REUTERS/Leah Millis
The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a blueprint to purge civil servants and replace them with regime loyalists in complete defiance of the Pendelton Civil Service Act (and the reasons it came into being), should be setting off alarm bells. Instead, it’s getting the same treatment Trump gave COVID and his multiple defiances of the law and the courts: denial, deflection, delay.
It all comes back to normalization, as M. Gessen so brilliantly chronicles in The New York Times:
“And so just when we most need to act — while there is indeed room for action and some momentum to the resistance — we tend to be lulled into complacency by the sense of relief on the one hand and boredom on the other.
“Think of the trajectory of the so-called travel ban during Trump’s first term. Its first iteration drew thousands into the streets. The courts blocked it. The second iteration didn’t attract nearly as much attention, and most people didn’t notice when the third iteration of the travel ban, which had hardly changed, went into effect. Now Trump’s administration is drafting a new travel ban that targets more than five times as many countries.”
When we stop being shocked, we stop reacting. And when we stop reacting, democracy dies.
But there is a path forward.
The antidote to normalization is resistance. Not just in voting booths, but in the streets, in courtrooms, in classrooms, in boardrooms, in pulpits, and at dinner tables.
Thucydides, who had one of the clearest eyes in history about the dangers faced by democracies, said:
“The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet nonetheless go out to meet it.”
We must regain our vision and resensitize ourselves. We must reclaim our capacity to be appalled.
That means when Trump calls Democrats “vermin,” we don’t say, “That’s just Trump being Trump.” We say: “That’s fascist rhetoric.”
When he promises to use the military against American citizens and sends out immigration officers dressed up like soldiers at war, we don’t shrug; we organize.
When Project 2025 tries to turn federal agencies into tools of vengeance, we don’t wait and see. We fight back now.
When armed federal agents hide their identification and their faces the way terroristic police do in dictatorships as they kidnap people off our streets, we call them out.
History won’t forgive us for sleepwalking into tyranny. And our children won’t either.
This is the time to remember that democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires outrage. It demands vigilance. And sometimes, it needs us in the streets with our fists in the air and our boots on the pavement.
If we still believe in this republic, in its ideals, and in the sacred value of a free and fair society, then our answer to Trump’s authoritarianism must be more than words. It must be peaceful action.
Don’t get used to fascism.
Get loud. Get active. Get in its way.