View this post on the web at [link removed]

I began writing “The Autodidact” column a year ago to set aside the hot takes on the latest scandal and focus on the deeper issues facing America. Politics, culture, education—they’re all a bit of a mess, and as I’ve been writing this column, I’ve come to believe more than ever that conserving them is woefully inadequate to preserve our liberal order. What the right needs now is to focus not on “conservatism” but on restoration [ [link removed] ]. Only through a renewed focus on the restoration of the traditions on which this country is based—our freedom, our family and our constitutional order—can we hope to improve society as we say we want to.
As with any effort to improve society, the first step is improving yourself [ [link removed] ]. Only then can you try to better your community through your little platoon [ [link removed] ]. As the ripples move outward, these efforts can eventually improve your state. But this last bit is only possible through federalism.
Don’t close your browser—it’s not as dry as it sounds! Unfortunately, none of our political branding gurus have concocted a sexier name, so we’re stuck with “federalism” for the time being. If it helps—and even if this reference is a bit dated now—you can think of it as “Fifty Shades of Freedom.”
Power to the States
As every high-school civics student knows, federalism divides political power between the Beltway and each of the 50 states. Washington, D.C., handles the truly national issues (international treaties, national defense, printing money, etc.) while the states should handle the rest. This allows each state to tailor laws to its needs while the feds ensure basic civil rights and constitutional norms are protected.
California can follow the economic wisdom of Venezuela, while Florida can dump red tape into the wood chipper. Utah can limit easy access to booze and weed, while Vermont can subsidize shot glasses and rolling papers. Best of all, it’s easier for a state’s residents to register their wishes with local leaders—or rent a U-Haul if they disagree.
Back in the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville was one of the first Europeans to praise [ [link removed] ] this decentralized system. It let the national government focus on “a small number of objects ... sufficiently prominent to attract its attention” and left “secondary affairs” to governments more accountable to the people. These days, however, Washington focuses much of its attention on not so “prominent objects”—like cowboy poetry [ [link removed] ], the circumference of dill pickles [ [link removed] ] and light bulbs [ [link removed] ].
A Bipartisan Issue
It doesn’t have to be this way, especially since federalism is a bipartisan issue. It’s praised by right-leaning think tanks like the Heritage Foundation [ [link removed] ] and left-leaning ones like the Brookings Institution [ [link removed] ]. If Portlandia wants different rules from Paducah, may God (or Gaia) bless them both.
Republicans pushed federalism during the Obama and Biden administrations, and Democrats pushed it during the previous Trump era and are back at it today. After The Donald’s first move to the White House, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said [ [link removed] ], “It’s time we allow states, once and for all, to have the power to decide what works best for them. I have long believed that states should function as their own laboratories of democracy.” Amen to that.
The Democrats’ passion for federalism only intensified with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. Alicia Bannon, director of the Judiciary Program at NYU, advised her pro-choice allies that “the federal courts are only part of the story.” “The United States is also governed by 50 state constitutions,” Bannon wrote [ [link removed] ] in Politico, “each of which can potentially offer greater rights protections than the federal constitution.”
Her advice to look to states rather than federal courts was followed, leading to a flurry of regional initiatives to enshrine pro-choice policies in state law. While I disagree with the outcome, I applaud the method. This is how American governance is supposed to work.
Checking and Balancing the Beltway
Checks and balances are key to the constitutional framework, but it’s broader than many think. In the Beltway, the legislative branch passes laws; the executive vetoes, signs and enforces them; and the judiciary holds each accountable. But there’s another check and balance that’s often forgotten: the states versus Washington, D.C.
The U.S. Constitution empowers states to push back against the feds in all sorts of ways—some commonplace, others more aggressive. North Carolina can pass its own laws protecting individual liberty; if the federal government takes them to court, North Carolina can defend those laws.
Many federal agencies are governed by laws containing “coordination [ [link removed] ]” provisions. Local governments can limit the impact of new regulations by requiring these agencies to coordinate with existing local laws, regulations, plans and policies.
States can refuse federal grants with onerous strings attached, form compacts with other states and even propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. All these powers are available to any governor or statehouse; they need only invoke them.
Of course, this means We the People need to get off our collective duff and vote for state leaders who will best represent our views. To be active in our communities and provide feedback to elected officials. This requires a bit more studying and door-knocking on our part, but it’s better than leaving our gravest decisions to a distant and distracted imperial capital.
That’s our job, just as the Constitution intended.
A significant side benefit of states aggressively checking and balancing the Beltway is lowering the heat of our national discourse. Neither side will be as obsessed with the current president or the latest Supreme Court nominee if more of our decisions are handled closer to home.
As Sen. Schumer (of all people) noted, 50 laboratories of democracy allow states to innovate new policies. When a reform works in one place, it’s spread to others, helping governments adapt with the times and the needs of its citizens. A good example of this is the school choice revolution, which expanded from a state or two to cover most of the country [ [link removed] ]. And if the experiment fails, that’s a lesson learned without forcing the entire nation to suffer from a flawed innovation.
Admittedly, federalism isn’t the sexiest topic around, but it’s a good way to help citizens get the governments they want and live as they see fit. It’s also the best way to ensure a vast, diverse society rebuilds faith in its nation and establishments.
Different states will arrive at different conclusions about all sorts of policies, allowing the most divisive issues to be decided by voters. To restore the Constitution, our civic culture and a saner politics, let 50 shades of freedom bloom.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?