Calls for “Unity” Help the Federal Government Seize More Power

Calls for unity help the federal government seize more power by Ryan MacMacon.

National states thrive on political centralization, so supporters of central governments

are always looking for new ways to consolidate power over regional and local governments.

In the United States, this takes the form of relentless federal efforts to assert control over

state policy and to increase the presence of federal agencies in the lives of ordinary people.

This can be seen in how the welfare state is overwhelmingly administered by the federal government

and in how federal grants are used to influence state policy in areas ranging from education

to transportation and to health care. Another strategy is to use federal agents to enforce the

central state's agenda directly on residence with or without the permission of state and local

governments. Historically, this has been used in a variety of cases, such as with the whiskey rebellion,

the Waco massacre, and the use of the National Guard to force state compliance with

federal policies imposed on local schools. One should also mention the U.S. Civil War,

the bloodiest case of the federal government using its troops against Americans.

In more recent years, federal politicians have been pushing to further normalize increased usage

of federal soldiers and federal police inside the United States. For example, the Trump administration

has repeatedly threatened to send in federalized national guard troops to enforce the law in U.S.

cities, something forbidden by the Pasi-Kometatos Act, over the objections of state officials.

Moreover, federal immigration police have been sent to enforce federal law in jurisdictions

where local officials are opposed. Over the years, advocates of greater federal power have provided

a variety of explanations and excuses for this application of federal power. One explanation,

in particular, is often used by the current administration and has often been used historically

by propaganda for both political parties. It is this, direct federal intervention is necessary

because the policies in one state affect all other states thanks to the presence of open borders

between all U.S. states. Put another way, the argument here is essentially that territorial unity

requires unity and policy and politics as well. How state-to-state open borders

fuel calls for more federal power? For example, advocates of gun control argue that since anyone

can travel freely between states, loose gun policies in one state effectively cancel out

the stricter gun policies in neighboring states. Similarly, advocates of drug prohibition

have opposed the legalization of recreational marijuana in some states because that supposedly

makes it too easy to transport drugs into other states. This, of course, was also part of the

rationale behind nationwide alcohol prohibition during the 1920s. Right now, the most visible use of

this argument in favor of centralized control is in justifying stronger federal action against

local resistance to federal immigration policy. In this case, we're told that if federal

immigration policy is not enforced in all states equally, then those immigrants, some of which are

violent, in the more lenient states, will effectively be able to travel freely to the rest of the

United States. The same argument could be broadened to violent criminals in general, regardless of

immigration status. That is, one could argue that if one state is especially lenient on criminals

and refuses to jail them, then residents of other states will be put in danger as those criminals

travel to other states. In all these cases, the proposed solution is to impose uniform policy on

all states so that a resident in one state is not forced to deal with the legal externalities,

so to speak, of another state's policies. This, in part, is why gun control advocates were able

to obtain federal regulations greatly restricting the ability of residents in one state by guns in

another state. Similarly, some Republican politicians have sued the state of Colorado in an effort

to force federal marijuana prohibitions on everyone nationwide. This is not a new idea, by the way.

Historically, the same dynamic fueled efforts to increase federal enforcement of the fugitive

slave laws. Slave owners didn't like that local and state officials were obstructing efforts

by federal agents to kidnap escaped slaves and return them to their masters. The slave owners

wanted uniform national policy. The proposed solution, you guessed it, more federal power to force

compliance with federal slave policies nationwide. Now one could easily respond to the perceived

problem of state-to-state open borders with this. Well, if you don't like having an open

border with people who refuse to regulate guns or violent criminals or drugs, then you are welcome

to close your border with us and restrict entry for those who you think might be dangerous.

You can even leave the union entirely if you like. The rest of us will carry on as usual.

This offers an easy solution which doesn't require any more power for the central state.

If the people of state A are concerned, they may be victimized by the people of state B,

then the option that is least likely to further empower the central government is to allow people

to exit from the mandate of territorial unity. Needless to say, few Americans would support this

since most Americans have been propagandized against true political decentralization.

Consequently, we live in a political situation in which gun owners, drug users, criminals,

and immigrants can travel freely from state to state, and it is also assumed that no state can do

anything to limit movement from one state to another. This clearly steers residents toward

thinking that the only allowable solution is more federal power to keep us safe. A more culturally

divided America requires a stronger central government. We are likely to see even more of the

centralization play out as the United States becomes more culturally and ideologically divided.

When American ideology was largely held within a more limited band of acceptable opinion,

as it was during the liberal consensus of the mid-20th century, it was easier to push policy

uniformity nationwide. In 2026, however, as media has fractured and political opinions have become

more extreme on both ends, imposing policy uniformity has become more difficult. This bifurcation

in political opinion has also been reinforced by the so-called great sort in which Americans flee

to places where political views match their own. Over time, this will mean that views on matters

like guns, crime, drugs, and other areas will continue to diverge. In 2026, Americans can't even

refrain from fighting over which Super Bowl have time show to watch. So there are two ways to go

with this. The first is to put freedom before political unity and conformity. That is to embrace

actual self-determination, freedom and decentralization, and to allow locals to go their own way

in accordance with their own values. The other option is to increasingly use the power of the

federal state to intervene locally to ensure unity in place of self-determination and decentralization.

It is a safe bet that the latter will prevail because most Americans are locked into the idea

that the United States must be a single, unitary, geographic unit. We will be told it simply is not

an option to allow any state or government to do its own thing because, thanks to those state-to-state

open borders, what one state does affects other states. Both conservatives and leftists will hold

to this because both sides ultimately want to rule over all Americans from the center and they

don't care if they have to totally destroy federalism and self-determination to do it.

So long as either side thinks it has a chance of winning, that is, exercising control over the

US regime at least occasionally, then they will choose more centralization and more state power.

Consequently, we'll quickly find that the choice will be between political unity or freedom.

We can't have both. There's a third option, but few will support it, simply allow both state-to-state

open borders and local autonomy. This, after all, was the de facto reality of the first several

decades of the United States. At that time, the federal government was far too weak to impose

anything resembling a uniform policy. There was no federal immigration policy, no federal drug policy,

and the number of federal crimes could be counted on one hand. Few modern Americans will embrace that

older vision of America. Instead, policymakers will further expand federal power in the name of

managing and unifying diverging state and local policy agendas. If they get their way, they'll

keep doing this until the last few remaining prerogatives of state and local governments are all

but abolished. For more content like this, visit mises.org.