APRIL 27, 2025 – Yesterday I wrote about “extremist radical leftists” . . . and “rightists.” As I reflected on the qualities of “extremism” and “radicalism” as manifest in the first 100 days of the current regime, I began thinking more broadly. If the Republicans, formerly known for being “conservative,” are now perfectly comfortable throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that is, eviscerating federal agencies and programs, then why not emulate the extremist radical example and re-examine our entire structure of government? I mean, if the Republicans are cheering Musk’s chainsaw and Trump’s steroidal iconoclasm, why shouldn’t we take the sledgehammer to the Constitution and while we’re at it, the whole business of having 50 states, each with its quirky boundaries and distinct ways of doing things inside those boundaries?
In all seriousness, for quite some time now, I’ve realized that neither Republicans nor Democrats can be rightfully blamed for the nation’s political polarization and dysfunctionality. Even more critically, I’ve seen that the solution to our many problems isn’t a simple case of “throwing the bastards out” and “voting a new set of bastards in.” No. I’ve come to believe that to improve fundamentally the social, economic and political prospects of all Americans, we would need to alter the entire system—and in some radical ways. For years the necessity for this extreme change has been writ large across the marginalized and alienated segments of the population: people who believed that the existing system no longer cared about them or in the off chance that it did care, could no longer address the needs of the alienated.
I figured there are at least three aspects to the extreme change required to avoid a breakdown of our system. The first concerns House and Senate. Second is money in politics. Third is our long-standing version of federalism.
The House and Senate, of course, are creatures of the U.S. Constitution. They were “invented” and affirmed back in 1789—and under circumstances drastically different from what exist today. For starters, in 1790, the total population of the United States was just under four million (vs. the country’s population today estimated at just over 347 million). Ninety percent of the population in 1790 were engaged in agriculture (vs. 11% of the total labor force today). Commerce and technology, to say nothing about education, health care, densely populated urbanity, and environmental concerns, were in their infancy. In short, the complexities of life in the current era would have been unthinkable back when the Constitution was drafted and ratified.
Moreover, the Constitution was adopted at a time more than a century before women would have the right to vote. In compromise between Southerners and Northerners, every enslaved Black—living primarily in the American South—was treated as only three-fifths of a human being.
Furthermore, the Senate granted disproportionate power to states with small populations. Fast forward, and today, Wyoming with a population of 588,000, has an equal footing over confirmation of federal appointees—including to the Supreme Court—as California with its 40 million people. Similar disproportionality exists between many mostly vacant Western (Red) states and California.
In the House, meanwhile, members stand for election every two years—the same interval that applied way back in 1790. If candidates back then needed some funds to buy a round of drinks for potential voters in the local bar, candidates today need obscene levels of cash to sustain a campaign. I know from firsthand testimony that approximately half of all waking hours of a typical member of Congress must be devoted to fund-raising. That leaves the other half of their time for consideration of issues, development of cogent policies, and adopting applicable legislation. Given the depth and breadth of all our issues, how can any Congressperson retain the focus and maintain the capacity to address our problems when (a) time is at such a premium; and (b) within months of having been sworn in to office, the Congressperson much now gear up for re-election. Under these circumstances, it is unreasonably to think Congress can enact the sorts of reforms necessary to rehabilitate our social, economic, and political shoreline.
This brings us to money—big money—and its corrupting influence on the political process. Because so much financial heft is required to run a successful campaign, parties with an interest in legislative efforts have an incentive (and the legal ability under Citizens United), to “give” in order to “get.” Thus, interests with the most resources exert the most influence. Accordingly, people without significant resources have the least sway. Discouraged, the latter feel alienated from the political process and either drop out (i.e. don’t participate in elections) or vote for the supreme iconoclast of American history.
Only if Citizens United were overturned and legislation adopted that radically reformed campaign finance law would the corrupting influence of money in American politics be alleviated.
Finally, a major impediment to essential improvements of our social, economic, and political prospects is our current structure of federalism, that is, the present duplication of effort and often cross-purpose initiatives at the federal and state levels. One reason, for example, that the high-speed rail project in California has run into so many delays and enormous cost overruns is the existence of conflicting rules and regulations between state and federal agencies. Similar challenges exist in the ever-growing critical issue of interstate water rights.
Likewise, different levels of spending and emphases in education across 50 states lead to glaring discrepancies in outcomes. If we are to overcome economic disparities and well as political polarization, we must raise education standards, opportunities, and outcomes throughout the country. Much of the existing failures in this key element of our social infrastructure are the result of “states rights” having preeminence within our version of federalism. Given how our social, economic, and political systems have developed over the past 250 years, the division of the country into 50 states is an anachronism. At a minimum it deserves serious examination.
Our circumstances might be that given our country’s size and pluralism along with historical inertia render fundamental reform unrealistic, which is what renders the mere suggestion “extreme” and “radical.” Slashing federal personnel and programs with a chainsaw is both extreme and radical, but it isn’t reform. It’s cutting down trees; it’s wrecking things. Constructive reform also involves major alterations of the landscape, but if the groundwork is laid with inspiring vision by people dedicated to the common good, a beautiful garden can be cultivated where a jungle once dominated. For the vision to succeed, everyone who resides in the space must be a gardener. Everyone needs to work a hoe—to sew, to weed, to help the garden grow.
Call it extreme, call it radical, but call it better than hacking away with a chainsaw.
Subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
© 2025 by Eric Nilsson
1 Comment
As always, thanks for the clarity and sharing it.