American Preference to Local Government and Americans Traditional Distrust of Centralized Government

American Mistrust of Centralized Government

This is a paper written in APA style that examines the traditional preference that Americans have for local government, the traditional distrust they have of centralized government, and the reasons behind these phenomena.

Local Government: A Traditional American Preference

There is a strong traditional preference for local government over centralized government in this country. This preference goes back all the way to the beginnings of our nation and can be plainly seen in the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over the ratification of the Constitution. It can still be seen going strong today in the never-ending cry of politicians to put an end to "big government." There is an obvious distrust for centralized government in this country, and our political history and current political climate proves this time and time again. Yet what are the reasons for this preference for local government and distrust of centralized government in this country? How can current public administrators use this information to their advantage? Are these feelings likely to ever change in this country? These are the questions that this paper will examine and answer.

The traditional distrust of the American people for centralized government is evident in the form that our first government took after the Revolution. By the time the Revolution was over, the Founding Fathers had in place a constitution to govern the new nation; this constitution was called the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation set up a very loose alliance between the states, with a weak central government to sort of oversee affairs between the states. This central government had no real power other than what the states gave it, and was most ineffective. The states essentially became their own separate nations, each with the power to do as it pleased, including producing its own currency and declaring war on other countries or other states on its own. The central government was merely a figurehead, an administrative body which did the bidding of the states on the occasions on which the states had to get together to accomplish something jointly. There was no chief executive in this central government, and only one house of Congress. In order for motions to be passed in this Congress, the vote had to be unanimous, and each state got only one vote, regardless of its population. As a result, it was practically impossible for this central government to get anything done, and it certainly never got anything done that had the real force of law behind it. It was impossible, as the states each had sovereign power.

Yet, in spite of the obvious weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, the Founding Fathers were reluctant to change them. The American people, too, were reluctant to make a change, no matter how obviously it was needed. This was because of the deep-seated mistrust of centralized government that was instilled in the hearts of the American people. The people were afraid that making the central government stronger would be a threat to their freedoms and liberties. The general consensus in the nation at that time was that if the central government were to become stronger than the states, then it would have the power to take away freedoms, and would most likely do so. All of the states had their own constitutions that protected the freedoms of the people, so the people were more trustful of their own state governments, and preferred that these governments continue to provide the governing.

Where did this mistrust of centralized government come from? The answer is pretty obvious. The roots of the mistrust of centralized government among the American people goes all the way back to the first days of colonization of the North American continent. When the first colonists sailed from England to America, they did so under charters that granted them the right to set up governments wherever they settled, and to create their own rules for the people to follow. Since England was so far away at this time, the king realized the difficulties that would lie in trying to govern the colonies from England, and decided that he really had more pressing concerns at home than to worry about a bunch of colonists across the ocean. The colonists were granted a remarkable degree of autonomy in their colonies, and they began to be used to self-rule. As a part of this self-rule, most of the colonies embraced the idea of personal freedom and individualism, and made these principles a part of their way of life.

However, this freedom was not to last. By the end of the seventeenth century, England had been through a civil war, lost its monarchy, and then had it restored. The new king wanted to have more control over the colonies. As such, he began to revoke charters and impose imperial rule through the stationing of British soldiers in the colonies. Subsequent monarchs followed the same idea regarding the colonies. It was not long before the colonists, who were so used to personal freedom, found themselves under the rule of a distant monarchy that seemed intent on destroying these freedoms. This whittling away of freedoms went on for some time. Taxation was a big issue, as the colonists were being taxed by England without having the benefit of any representation in Parliament. The forced quartering of soldiers in private homes was also a big point of contention. Random searches of private homes and wanton seizures of property by the soldiers enraged many, but became a regular practice of the Crown. These injustices, and others, went on for decades. Eventually, new generations were born who never knew the freedom of their forefathers. However, this desire for freedom, and mistrust for the Crown, was instilled in these new generations, so that they too harbored the same sentiments regarding freedom as did their fathers and grandfathers. It was these new generations, brought up to love freedom and hate the Crown without ever having experienced life without the rule of England for themselves, that sowed the seeds of discontent that led to the American Revolution.

The fight between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over the ratification of the Constitution is another example of the powerful mistrust of centralized government that the American people held (and still hold). When it was finally determined that the Articles of Confederation had to be revised (as the weak central government was causing much havoc and confusion in the country), there was still no thought of actually changing the entire form of the government. The original idea was to only make a few changes that would enable the central government to operate more smoothly. However, once the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787 and started to suggest changes, it became obvious that the whole document needed to be revised. Soon, the Founding Fathers had come up with an entirely new Constitution that had created a very strong and powerful centralized government, and made this central government more powerful than the states. In fact, under this new constitution, the states were subject to the will of the federal government, something that had not been the case under the Articles of Confederation. Though the Constitution also adopted a principle of federalism -- a sharing of power between the national government and the states -- it was also made clear in the Constitution that the states could not make any laws for themselves that went against federal law. This was formalized in the National Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

While many of the Founding Fathers thought that the new Constitution was wonderful and just what the country needed, there were others who were horrified at the thought of having such a powerful centralized government in the United States. Thomas Jefferson was one of these people who though that the Constitution was a bad idea. He believed that the country was best run when it was governed the least, and he felt that the future of the country lay in independent farmers eking out their own living and doing things in their own way. He valued independence for the common man, and felt that the Constitution threatened this independence. It was not long before the country was divided into two camps -- the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists supported the Constitution, while the Anti-Federalists were against it. A struggle between these two groups ensued over getting the Constitution ratified.

One of the biggest problems the Anti-Federalists had with the Constitution was that it did not have a Bill of Rights to formally protect the rights of the citizens from being trampled upon by the government. The Federalists thought that such a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. They felt that the values of freedom and liberty that the nation was built upon were so well-ingrained into the hearts and minds of the people that there would be no question that these rights would be upheld by the government. The government, after all, was to be a government by the people and for the people. Further, the Federalists pointed out that the Constitution did not allow the federal government to do anything that was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution; since the Constitution did not state that the government could take away the rights of the people, the Federalists reasoned, then it could not.

The Anti-Federalists, however, did not believe that this guarantee was enough. They felt that if the rights and freedoms of the people were not specifically protected in the Constitution, then the federal government could easily come in and say it had the ability to take those rights away. The fact that the freedoms the people were used to were upheld in the hearts and minds of the people was not enough. The Anti-Federalists believed that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and thought that those who would be in the federal government would be no different. The Anti-Federalists wanted a guarantee. So, the Federalists gave in, and a Bill of Rights for the Constitution was written and amended to the document. The Constitution was subsequently ratified.

The fact that the Anti-Federalists distrusted the federal government even before it came into existence in its current form is testament to the level of mistrust of centralized government that ran through the veins of the people of this country. Having had the experience of their rights and liberties being trampled upon by the centralized government of England, the American people were wary of any government body with too great a concentration of power. The feeling seemed to be that the more concentrated the power was, the more likely that power was to become threatened by the freedoms of the people, and so try to take those freedoms away. It was not enough to the Anti-Federalists to take the proponents of the Constitution on their word that the new government would not become corrupted to the point that it tried to take away the liberties of the people. The Anti-Federalists knew how easily such a promise could be broken when power began to corrupt the members of the government. That is why they needed a guarantee that these liberties would always be protected, no matter what the members of the government wanted to do. American people today have a similar mistrust of the federal government, and tend to not believe it will do what it says it will do until there is something tangible in writing.

The creation of the Constitution and its guarantee of the preservation of the freedoms of the people in the Bill of Rights was not enough to create trust of the federal government for everyone, however. This was particularly true in the South. The North gave up slavery early on in the nation's history, and many voices were raised in opposition to the practice. The South, however, held onto slavery with a passion, and maintained a mistrust of the intentions of the federal government in regard to the preservation of slavery, particularly as opposition to it in the North grew ever stronger. When Abraham Lincoln was elected president, this mistrust of the federal government grew to monstrous proportions. Abraham Lincoln, after all, was a vocal opponent of slavery. As president, the South was afraid that he would destroy the institution of slavery. A strong states' rights movement began in the South soon after Lincoln's election that operated under the principle that the Constitution's National Supremacy Clause was invalid, and that the states held sovereign rights still. This movement quickly led to the withdrawal of the Southern states from the Union and the beginning of the Civil War. The mistrust of the federal government had reached an extreme in the South, and the Civil War was the result.

Even after the end of the Civil War, this mistrust of the central government continued in this country. For a while, this mistrust was still concentrated in the South, especially during the Reconstruction period and again during the Civil Rights era. However, the people of the North held their own mistrust of the federal government, despite their support of it in the past. As the federal government took over more and more programs and functions that had been previously reserved for the states, and consequently began to spend more money and get the nation further into debt as a result, the people of the nation began to talk about an end to "big government." There seemed to be a general feeling in this country that the bigger the government got, the more programs it took over and the more money it spent, the more dangerous it became. The fact that the federal government was infringing on areas of control that had previously been the province of the states was of concern to the people of the United States. The feeling in the country seemed to be that as the federal government took more power away from the states, the danger of the federal government becoming despotic grew.

The people began to clamor for a return of power to the states to manage their own affairs. Politicians, seizing upon this national feeling, began to talk about an end to "big government" as well. Since it was the Democrats who were most closely associated with the large scale federal programs of "big government," it was the Republicans that the country turned to end the danger of big government.

Of course, once the Republicans were in power, the mistrust of the people toward the federal government did not end. Under the administration of the Republicans, the nation has gone to war, and there have been allegations of lies told by the president in order to facilitate this war. Rather than return the nation to fiscal solvency through the return of power to the states, the government has put the nation into even more debt in order to finance the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The nation still mistrusts the federal government because the general feeling in the country now is that the federal government lies to the people. If we can not believe what the government tells us, we certainly can not trust it. Therefore, mistrust of the federal government continues.

Further, there is concern in the country that the federal government is subverting the Constitution and slowly taking away our rights and liberties, just like the Anti-Federalists were afraid it would. In this case, the Bill of Rights is no guarantee that these liberties will be preserved. The president is using his power of creating Executive Orders to put edicts that have the force of law into effect without having to go through Congress or any of the normal channels. The fear of the federal government gaining so much power that it takes away the rights of the people has always been present in the United States, based on the colonial experience with the centralized government of Great Britain, and now it seems to many as if the president has found a way to consolidate his power in a way that allows him to get around the Constitution. It is beginning to seem as if perhaps the Anti-Federalists were right in their concerns about creating a central government that was too strong.

A revolution was caused by the mistrust of the American people toward the government of Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, even states that it is the right and duty of the people to rise up and overthrow the government if the government is trampling on the rights of the people. This reasoning was used as the justification for the American Revolution. It is still a part of the foundation upon which our nation is built, as we still look to the Declaration of Independence for guidance in how well our nation is faring in upholding its founding principles. These words could easily be used as justification for another revolution, especially if the mistrust and discontent of out federal government grows too strong. This is why politicians and public administrators should take the mistrust of the people toward the federal government seriously, and should take the time to learn the causes of this mistrust. Once the causes are known, then something can be done to alleviate those causes and create a more stable infrastructure for the nation.

By studying the causes of the mistrust of the people for the federal government, public administrators can give advice to politicians and others in the governments as to how best to govern. It must always be remembered by politicians and others in the federal government that ours is a nation that is founded on freedom and personal liberty. These values are ingrained into the American consciousness and have been from the very earliest days of colonization. These values are deeply loved by the American people, and this is not likely to soon change. For over two centuries now, we have been the standard-bearer of freedom for the entire world. Other nations look to us as an example of how things should be regarding freedom. The American people are well aware of this. Any perceived infringement upon or threat to our rights and liberties is therefore looked upon with suspicion and anger. Politicians have been voted out of office for what the American people have felt were infractions against liberty. It would not be inconceivable that the American people would also rise up against the government in another revolution if they felt that the federal government as a whole was corrupt beyond redemption and was usurping power that did not belong to it. Many politicians are aware of this and conduct their business as a true servant of the people -- which is what the Constitution intended. However, some politicians do get consumed with the power of their office and try to become more than the office says they should be. The office of the presidency is particularly susceptible to this sort of power corruption, especially in today's world in which the United States is the biggest world power. To be the head of the most powerful nation in the world is a big power trip for any person, and to become corrupted by that power is not unthinkable. What is unthinkable is for the American people to let that power corruption continue unchecked.