Decentralizing To Come Together

A Pluralistic Path to More Sustainable Governance, Taxation, and Spending

Prologue

I write this a subscriber to the political philosophy of liberalism, which at its core is a commitment to individual freedom, pluralism, and the rule of law. Liberalism is not about left or right—it is about an open society where individuals are free to define for themselves what constitutes a good life, without coercion from the state or from others. This stands in direct contrast to closed, authoritarian societies, where a centralized authority dictates morality, economic choices, and personal behavior. I believe deeply in an open society because my read of human history suggests that human flourishing depends on the ability of individuals to think, speak, innovate, and live according to their own values—so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

A free society does not require universal agreement on what is good, only a shared commitment to peaceful coexistence and a governance system that protects individual liberties while allowing diverse communities to organize their lives as they see fit. This essay is written from that perspective: not to impose a singular vision, but to advocate for a political framework that respects human complexity, safeguards liberty, and rejects the authoritarian impulse—whether from the right or the left—to impose uniformity where none is needed or justified.

At the same time, my conservatism grounds this liberalism in prudence, institutional stability, and a respect for the accumulated wisdom of past generations—recognizing that while individuals should be free to define their own lives, governance must be structured in a way that is measured, adaptive, and mindful of the complexities of human society rather than driven by reckless upheaval or utopian overreach.

Introduction

American capitalism today stands at a crossroads, facing challenges that extend beyond typical business cycles or political shifts. In What Went Wrong with Capitalism, Ruchir Sharma presents a sobering, and I think mostly accurate, analysis of how government overreach, rent-seeking behavior, and the monopolization of markets have stifled competition and economic dynamism. Rather than fostering an environment where entrepreneurs and small businesses can thrive, the U.S. economy has become increasingly dominated by entrenched interests that leverage government power to maintain their advantages. This trend has led to an economic system where inefficiencies persist, innovation is stifled, and social mobility declines. The very mechanisms that once fueled American prosperity now threaten to stall its future growth.

Government expansion has played a key role in this stagnation, distorting free markets through excessive regulation, corporate bailouts, and politically motivated subsidies. While some degree of state intervention is necessary to maintain order and fairness, the modern American state (in truth most all of the industrialized democracies) has moved far beyond its essential functions. The result has been an economy that prioritizes protectionism over competition, making it harder for new players to enter and disrupt markets. Instead of a dynamic capitalist system that rewards risk-taking and efficiency, the current structure often benefits incumbents at the expense of innovation. This reality is compounded by an ever-growing national debt, as the federal government spends beyond its means without clear accountability or long-term fiscal strategy.

The core challenge, then, is how to reverse these trends without falling into the trap of reactionary populism or heavy-handed government control. The budget deficit is not a theoretical problem—it is a looming crisis that threatens both economic stability and national security. Addressing it requires more than short-term political rhetoric; it demands a fundamental rethinking of how we structure taxation, spending, and economic governance. The solution must not simply be about cutting costs but about realigning government priorities to empower markets, encourage entrepreneurship, and ensure fiscal sustainability. This is not just a question of policy but of preserving the foundations of a pluralistic, innovative society that can adapt to the challenges of the future.

Neither the big-government progressivism of the left nor the reactionary populism of the right provides a viable way forward. Progressives seek to expand government further, increasing taxation and regulation, which risks exacerbating the very problems Sharma identifies. Meanwhile, Trump-era populism focuses on dismantling institutions without a coherent replacement strategy, a tactic that might appeal to political frustrations but offers no sustainable economic vision. The real solution must be conservative in its prudence, Schumpeterian in its dynamism, and Buckleyan in its commitment to constitutional limitations. This means reducing federal overreach while ensuring that economic policies foster entrepreneurship, competition, and market-driven innovation rather than reinforcing bureaucratic inefficiency.

This essay proposes an alternative path—one that restructures federal taxation and governance to align with the principles of pluralism and local control. Instead of centralizing economic decision-making in Washington, most taxation and spending authority should be devolved to states, counties, and municipalities, allowing policies to reflect the diverse needs of different communities. The federal government should focus only on its constitutional obligations—such as national defense and foreign policy—while leaving social programs and economic interventions to be handled at the local level. By adopting a decentralized, adaptive approach, we can move toward a system that is both fiscally responsible and better suited to the complexities of modern governance.

Project 2025 and The Current Slash-and-Burn Approach

At the heart of Trump’s second-term ambitions is Project 2025, a policy blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation that seeks to radically transform the federal government. We are currently in the midst of its 180 day playbook, and most Americans are finding it quite disorienting (and not what they were thinking when they voted for him). Project 2025 is the most structured effort yet to centralize executive power under a right-wing nationalist presidency, consolidating decision-making authority while dismantling much of the existing bureaucratic framework.

Project 2025 aims to drastically reduce federal agencies, eliminate entire departments, and replace civil servants with political appointees loyal to the administration’s ideological vision. While some of these proposals resonate with legitimate conservative concerns about government overreach and inefficiency, the plan’s execution strategy is deeply troubling. Rather than fostering a gradual transition toward a leaner and more responsive government, it advocates for sudden, sweeping purges of expertise and regulatory oversight, an approach that risks institutional instability and unintended economic consequences.

Trump’s governing philosophy, however, is not conservative in the Burkean sense of measured reform, nor does it resemble the Schumpeterian idea of creative destruction, where innovation replaces outdated systems. Instead, his approach to governance is marked by impulsivity and performative destruction, targeting institutions and programs for elimination based on political symbolism rather than long-term strategic vision. His budgets and economic policies tend to prioritize short-term political wins over structural improvements, focusing on dismantling perceived "deep state" bureaucracies without offering substantive alternatives. The result is not a carefully pruned government that fosters efficiency but a chaotic restructuring that weakens institutional capacity without creating a sustainable economic framework.

A striking example of this approach can be seen in the transgenic mouse controversy, where Trump boasted about cutting funding for scientific research he claimed was being used to create “transgender mice.” In reality, the funding supported transgenic research, a fundamental area of medical science that advances treatments for genetic disorders, cancer, and other life-threatening diseases. His base cheered the move, interpreting it as a stand against “woke science,” but the long-term impact of cutting such funding will likely harm those very supporters, as medical innovation slows and critical treatments become less accessible. This episode encapsulates a broader problem with Trump’s governance: policy decisions driven by misinformation, political theatrics, and ideological pandering rather than competence, economic logic, or national interest.

Trump claimed this past Tuesday (4-Mar-2025) that the Department of Government Efficiency identified government spending of “$8 million for making mice transgender.” This claim needs context.

The morning after Trump’s speech, the White House provided a list of $8.3 million in federal grants to health studies that involve mice receiving treatments that can be used in gender-affirming health care. The White House list made clear what Trump, in the speech, did not: The studies were meant to figure out how these treatments might affect the health of humans who take them, not for the purpose of making mice transgender.

Aside: given that over 1.5 million of our fellow citizens identify (even if MAGA doesn’t acknowledge this reality) as transgender —which to me as a conservative is an individual liberty issue — it seems appropriate that less than $3.47 of everyone’s personal tax bill go to support research to ensure the treatments they are seeking are safe. We don’t seem to complain about cancer, plastic surgery, ALS, or Alzheimer’s research. I know many pacifist that would prefer their tax dollars not go to military spending, but the deal is Congress allocates money to different departments and there is no way we are each going to agree with how each dollar is spent in a country of over 346 million people.

ps> And besides, in no case were any transgenic mice made transgender …

When one stops to think about it, the fundamental flaw in Project 2025 and Trump’s governance strategy is its failure to build as it destroys. While a leaner, more accountable government is a worthwhile goal, the means of achieving it must be rooted in constitutionalism, economic pragmatism, and institutional resilience. Trump’s current approach, in contrast, offers neither careful reform nor entrepreneurial reinvention—only the wreckage of existing institutions, with no viable framework to replace them.

A Conservative Critique of Trump's Approach

A truly conservative approach to governance should be rooted in prudence, constitutional restraint, and economic dynamism—principles that Trump’s approach largely disregards. As we discussed earlier, Edmund Burke (if you followed the link I provided on him) believed in gradual adaptation rather than reckless upheaval. His philosophy emphasized that societies and institutions evolve organically, with reforms being implemented deliberatively, not impulsively. He would view Trump’s erratic dismantling of institutions as reckless and destabilizing, an approach that disrupts governance without ensuring a functional replacement. Burke recognized that institutions are not merely bureaucratic obstacles to be torn down at will, but rather the accumulated wisdom of past generations. His critique of the French Revolution—that it sought to destroy without understanding what it was dismantling—applies just as easily to Trump’s approach to governance.

Burkean conservatism teaches that good governance is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Reform should occur through deliberation and institutional knowledge, not abrupt purges motivated by ideological fervor. Even when institutions are inefficient or overreaching, the solution is not their wholesale destruction but their careful reform. Trump’s "slash-and-burn" economic strategy fails this test; it is neither measured nor adaptive. Instead of strategically rethinking government’s role, it simply tears down without building anew. This approach erodes confidence in governance, undermines economic stability, and exacerbates political division. A true conservative approach would seek to restore fiscal discipline, eliminate waste, and enhance economic opportunity without gutting the very structures that enable a functioning society.

I’ve come to see the virtues in a federal government which confines itself to its constitutionally defined roles, such as national defense, foreign policy, interstate commerce, and maintaining a stable currency. In contrast, Trump’s governance has been erratic, expanding federal overreach in some areas while recklessly slashing essential functions in others. While many conservatives might agree with the goal of shrinking government, I feel pretty certain that an actual conservative approach would insist on doing so within a framework of constitutional constraint and strategic necessity. The problem with Trump’s approach is that it does not distinguish between necessary and unnecessary government functions—it cuts funding based on political expediency (here read applause from the MAGA base) rather than any sort of constitutional or economic logic.

Most federal spending today falls outside the constitutional mandates outlined by the Founders. Rather than arbitrarily defunding institutions, a reasonable approach would be to devolve many federal responsibilities to states, counties, and cities, allowing for governance at the closest possible level to the citizens impacted. This principle aligns with subsidiarity, a key tenet of conservative thought: decisions should be made at the lowest effective level of government. Trump’s approach, by contrast, does not pursue decentralization in a meaningful way; rather, it centralizes power in the executive branch while simultaneously gutting institutional expertise, creating a chaotic and unsustainable governance model. The alternative is not unchecked federal power or total institutional destruction but a constitutional, limited government which strategically redistributes responsibilities to local and state levels.

From an economic standpoint, Joseph Schumpeter’s concept of creative destruction (also linked earlier) provides another lens through which to critique Trumpism. Schumpeter argued that capitalism advances through disruptive innovation, where old industries and inefficient firms are replaced by new, more effective ones. However, creative destruction is not the same as indiscriminate destruction. Trump’s economic philosophy lacks the essential second half of Schumpeter’s formula—the creation of new industries and opportunities. Instead of fostering entrepreneurship, technological progress, or business dynamism, his approach relies on protectionist economic policies, anti-intellectualism, and short-term political theater. Simply cutting budgets and attacking institutions does not generate innovation—it creates uncertainty and discourages investment in long-term growth sectors. A truly Schumpeterian economic strategy would focus on building new markets, investing in research and development, and creating conditions for new businesses to thrive.

All of these issues are compounded by America’s unsustainable fiscal trajectory. The national debt continues to balloon, yet neither major political party has a serious plan to address it. Progressives propose ever-increasing spending without regard for economic consequences, while Trumpist conservatives focus on slashing budgets in ways that are often arbitrary and counterproductive. Fiscal responsibility must be a core tenet of any conservative governance model, yet it cannot be achieved through knee-jerk austerity measures alone. Indiscriminate cuts weaken necessary government functions while failing to address structural inefficiencies. The question we must ask is: what is the alternative to both progressive spending and Trumpist wrecking-ball economics? The answer lies in a principled, constitutional restructuring of government spending and taxation, ensuring fiscal sustainability while preserving economic dynamism and governance stability.

Enter The Automated Payment Transaction (APT)

One of the greatest challenges in American governance today is the inefficiency, complexity, and inequity of the federal tax system. The Automated Payment Transaction (APT) tax offers a constitutional and fiscally responsible alternative that aligns with conservative principles of limited government and decentralization. The APT tax is a minimal, broad-based transaction tax that applies to all economic activity at an extremely low rate, effectively replacing income taxes, corporate taxes, payroll taxes, and sales taxes at the federal level. By applying a flat, automatic tax on every financial transaction, the APT tax ensures a steady revenue stream while removing the need for the extensive bureaucratic infrastructure required to enforce the current tax system (Feige, 2000). Unlike the current progressive tax system, which requires extensive IRS oversight and creates opportunities for loopholes and rent-seeking, the APT tax is simple, transparent, and constitutionally sound, treating all economic participants equally without discrimination.

From a constitutional perspective, the APT tax aligns with the principles set forth by William F. Buckley and Edmund Burke, emphasizing that the federal government should focus only on its core responsibilities. The Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes, but it does not mandate a complex income tax regime filled with carve-outs and special interests (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8). The current system is a product of centuries of legislative tinkering, resulting in a tax code that punishes productivity, discourages investment, and encourages lobbying for tax breaks. The APT tax offers a uniform method of taxation that does not target specific income groups or industries, ensuring fairness and economic efficiency. Moreover, it would allow states and local governments to take control of funding welfare, education, and social services, rather than relying on the federal government to dictate priorities that may not reflect local needs. This shift would move taxation closer to the people being taxed, enhancing both accountability and policy responsiveness.

A key advantage of the APT tax is that it would eliminate the loopholes and rent-seeking behavior that plague the current tax system. The U.S. tax code has become a playground for the ultra-wealthy and multinational corporations, who exploit complex deductions, offshore accounts, and legal loopholes to minimize or eliminate their tax burden (Zucman, 2019). By contrast, the APT tax automatically applies to all transactions, ensuring that every financial activity contributes proportionally to government revenue. This prevents corporations and the ultra-wealthy from gaming the system, as their economic activity would be taxed at the same low rate as any other transaction. Instead of rewarding those who can afford expensive tax lawyers, the APT tax treats all taxpayers equally, fulfilling the conservative principle that the tax system should be neutral, efficient, and fair.

In addition to enhancing fairness, the APT tax would radically simplify tax compliance, reducing government bureaucracy and the administrative burden on businesses and individuals. The IRS currently employs over 100,000 people and spends billions annually on tax enforcement, audits, and fraud prevention . This complexity creates enormous inefficiencies, requiring businesses and individuals to spend billions more on tax preparation and compliance. The APT tax would eliminate the need for personal income tax filings, corporate tax filings, and many of the administrative costs associated with tax collection. With an automated, real-time tax on financial transactions, the process becomes frictionless and nearly invisible to taxpayers, freeing up resources that are currently wasted on compliance.

The APT tax ensures that everyone contributes to government funding, avoiding the problem of tax avoidance and underground economic activity. Under the current system, freelancers, gig workers, and cash-based businesses often underreport their income, creating unfair tax burdens on those who comply with the law (Slemrod, 2007). The APT tax resolves this issue by taxing all financial transactions at the point of exchange, making it impossible to evade taxation. Whether a person is a hedge fund manager executing a billion-dollar stock trade or a food delivery worker receiving digital tips, everyone contributes proportionally to the economy. This design aligns with Burke’s principle of shared civic responsibility while ensuring that government revenue remains stable, predictable, and sufficient to fund core constitutional obligations. The shift to an APT tax would represent a conservative, market-driven, and constitutionally sound way to fix America’s broken tax system while keeping the federal government limited to its essential functions.

Another significant advantage of the APT tax is its potential to curb reckless financial speculation on Wall Street, a phenomenon that has contributed to economic instability and market crashes. In the current financial system, high-frequency trading (HFT) and algorithmic speculation allow hedge funds and investment firms to execute millions of transactions per second, profiting from minute price fluctuations without contributing any real value to the economy (Haldane, 2011). These speculative trades exacerbate market volatility, creating artificial bubbles that often burst with devastating consequences, as seen in the 2008 financial crisis. Because the APT tax applies uniformly to every transaction, regardless of size, it introduces a marginal cost to rapid, high-volume trading, discouraging purely speculative activities that add systemic risk without fostering productive investment. By making each transaction slightly more expensive, the APT tax would tilt financial incentives away from short-term speculation and toward long-term, value-driven investment, aligning with Schumpeter’s vision of capitalism as an engine for innovation rather than reckless gambling. Furthermore, this would help stabilize financial markets, ensuring that capital is allocated toward productive economic activity rather than speculative excess.

Which makes it fairly obvious that among the biggest opponents of the APT tax will likely be (led by) Wall Street financial firms, high-frequency trading (HFT) firms, (followed by) multinational corporations, tax law firms, and the accounting industry, all of whom benefit from the complexity and loopholes of the current tax system. Investment banks and hedge funds that rely on rapid, high-volume trading would resist the APT tax because it introduces a cost to every transaction, cutting into their profit margins and discouraging speculative trading. Multinational corporations, which currently use offshore tax havens and complex deductions to minimize their tax burden, would oppose a system that ensures all transactions are taxed equally, eliminating their ability to exploit loopholes. Tax law firms and accounting firms would also fight against the APT tax, as the current convoluted tax system provides them with a lucrative business advising corporations and high-net-worth individuals on tax avoidance strategies. Additionally, political groups aligned with these industries, including corporate-funded think tanks and lobbying organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers Association, would likely launch aggressive campaigns to discredit the APT tax, arguing that it would stifle economic activity—despite its potential to streamline taxation and encourage more productive investment.

Aside: As they say, if you know they will be coming for you, you have a good chance of getting ahead of it.

Taxation in The Post Tolerance Era

As America grows larger and more diverse, attempting to impose a singular national taxation and spending model has become increasingly untenable. The political battles over federal budgeting reflect deep cultural, economic, and ideological divisions that cannot be resolved through a one-size-fits-all approach. Historically, popular thinkers like John Rawls argued that a just society would be structured around a shared set of redistributive principles that all rational actors would agree to under a hypothetical “veil of ignorance” (Rawls, 1971). However, as Ryan Muldoon has pointed out, Rawls’ framework assumes a level of agreement about justice that no longer exists—if it ever truly did (Muldoon, 2016). The reality is that Americans no longer share a singular vision of what government should fund, how taxation should be structured, or what economic priorities should be pursued. Instead of continuing this futile battle to enforce national uniformity, perhaps a more sustainable, pluralistic approach would be to devolve taxation and spending decisions to the state and local levels, ensuring that policies reflect the values and priorities of those they directly impact.

Decentralizing taxation aligns governance with the principle of subsidiarity, which suggests that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of government to ensure responsiveness and accountability — and it gives us a systems view with which to experiment with changes (Meadows, 1999). Currently, our federal tax system fuels national discord because it forces vastly different states to comply with a centralized model that satisfies no one. Under a decentralized framework, states like California might fund expansive social programs, Texas might minimize taxation, Vermont might experiment with Universal Basic Income (UBI), and Florida might prioritize business incentives—all without imposing their choices on the rest of the country. This approach does not demand national consensus on taxation and spending priorities, but rather allows different states to pursue policies suited to their unique economic and cultural realities. A pluralistic system respects ideological diversity, reducing the zero-sum nature of national politics, where control over the federal government determines policies that affect hundreds of millions of people with vastly different preferences.

This shift would also return states to being true laboratories of democracy (as the American experiment intended), embracing the insights of Scott Page on diversity-driven problem-solving. Page argues that heterogeneous approaches outperform uniform strategies in complex environments because they allow for multiple solutions to be tested simultaneously, revealing which policies are most effective (Page, 2007). The United States, as a nation of 340+ million people spanning different geographies, industries, and political cultures, does not, based on current evidence, efficiently function under a single, rigid taxation model. Instead of forcing all states to comply with a uniform system, a pluralistic, adaptive approach would encourage a more resilient and innovative governance structure. States and municipalities could compete to attract businesses and residents based on the effectiveness of their policies, mirroring market competition’s role in improving products and services. This decentralized experimentation ensures that tax policies are refined through real-world application rather than ideological assumptions.

Beyond economic efficiency, decentralizing taxation acknowledges the fundamental uncertainty of future governance and economic structures. My deep suspicion, along with my experience in the high tech world, is that adaptive systems thrive when they remain flexible and open to iteration, rather than being locked into predetermined solutions. A federal tax system assumes that policymakers can predict the best policies for all Americans indefinitely, but societies evolve, economies shift, and new challenges emerge. By allowing taxation and spending to be determined at lower levels of governance, the system becomes more adaptable and capable of responding to changing conditions. If a particular state’s tax model proves ineffective, it can be adjusted or abandoned without dragging the entire nation into dysfunction. The alternative—a rigid, top-down system—exacerbates political instability by ensuring that the same policies must be fought over in every national election, leaving no room for regional experimentation or adjustment.

Perhaps the most underrated benefit of this shift is its potential to reduce national political division by eliminating taxation as a battleground for federal power struggles. When taxation and spending decisions are centralized in Washington, elections become winner-take-all fights over federal resources, intensifying political polarization and disenfranchising large segments of the population. Under a decentralized model, Americans would have the ability to “vote with their feet” (although this is difficult in practice), choosing to live in states that reflect their own economic and political preferences. High-tax, high-service states could coexist with low-tax, limited-government states, without forcing a single national model on everyone. This shift would reduce the perceived existential stakes of federal elections, making governance less contentious and more results-driven. By shifting taxation to the level of the most directly impacted communities, policies could be crafted with greater sensitivity to local economic conditions, improving both fairness and efficiency.

This approach does not claim to be the final answer but rather one viable adjacent future, rooted in the principles of pluralism, adaptability, and decentralized governance. Muldoon’s work on diverse governance structures emphasizes that political systems should not be built on the assumption that all citizens share the same goals (or even the same definitions), but rather that institutions should allow for multiple paths toward success, depending on the preferences of different groups (Muldoon, 2016). Similarly, Page’s insights on diverse problem-solving reinforce the idea that decentralization enhances governance by allowing different models to compete and evolve. A taxation system that embraces regional differences, economic dynamism, and shifting public priorities is far more resilient than one that forces an increasingly fractured nation into a singular economic framework. The alternative—continuing to centralize taxation and spending while expecting national unity on contentious issues—appears to only ensures greater dysfunction, gridlock, and national dissatisfaction.

Conclusion: A Pluralist Future or Endless Strife?

For too long, we have been locked in a battle where every election feels like an existential crisis—where the winner gets to impose their vision of the good life on a nation that no longer agrees on what that means. But ask yourself: Are you so sure that your vision is the right one for everyone? If given absolute power, could you truly guarantee that your policies would work just as well in the rural communities of Nebraska as they do in the tech hubs of California? Should the deeply religious citizen of Alabama be forced to fund the same social programs as the progressive activist in Oregon? And should the libertarian entrepreneur in New Hampshire have to live under the same regulatory framework as a union worker in Michigan? America is not one nation in the way France or Japan might be—we are a sprawling, diverse, and complex system of different cultures, industries, histories, and values. The idea that one-size-fits-all governance can work in a country this vast is not just impractical—it is a fantasy.

The federal government should not be the battlefield for cultural wars, nor should it be an overreaching entity dictating social and economic policies to the entire country. It was never meant to be. Our Founders envisioned a Federal government that handled only the most essential national functions—defense, foreign policy, and ensuring a stable economic system—while leaving most governance to states and localities. Yet, over time, we have centralized power in Washington, leading to political gridlock, endless conflict, and a sense that every federal policy is an attack on someone's way of life. If we acknowledge that Americans actually only share a limited set of common priorities, then one logical path forward is to stop forcing uniformity where it simply doesn’t exist. Let states make their own decisions. Let localities shape their own futures. Let Americans vote with their feet rather than waging political warfare over control of an overextended federal government.

The Automated Payment Transaction (APT) tax offers a mechanism to make this transition feasible. By implementing a small, universal transaction tax, we can fund essential federal responsibilities without entrenching the federal government in divisive fiscal battles. No longer would high-tax and low-tax states be forced into endless fights over federal budgets. Instead, states would be free to design their own tax structures and social programs, ensuring that policies reflect the values of the people they impact most directly. The APT tax is not just fiscally responsible—it is a tool for political peace, allowing Americans to move beyond their zero-sum fights over national taxation and spending. It removes one of the biggest sources of national division, making governance less about ideological warfare and more about practical, results-driven policymaking at the local level.

Neither Trumpism’s reactionary destruction nor progressivism’s centralized control offers a sustainable future. One seeks to tear down without rebuilding, the other to impose uniformity where none exists. But there is a third path, one that embraces pluralism, local control, and adaptability. Decentralized governance is not an abandonment of responsibility—it is an acknowledgment of complexity. A pluralistic system recognizes the diversity of American lifeand allows for governance that is flexible, experimental, and closer to the people it serves. This is not about left versus right; it is about finding a way to govern in a country where unity on economic and social priorities no longer exists.

This is not necessarily the final answer. But it is an adjacent possible future that seems more sustainable than the one we are hurtling toward—one that reduces polarization, allows for innovation in governance, and respects the autonomy of different communities to define their own vision of the good life. The alternative is to continue down a path of increasing political warfare, national instability, and governance gridlock, where every election becomes a battle over who gets to force their vision onto everyone else. The question is not whether this pluralistic model is perfect—it is whether it is preferable to an endless, unwinnable fight over national control. It is time to ask ourselves: Is the country better off when we forcefully impose our vision on others, or when we let people shape their own communities according to their own values?

The choice between those two futures is ours to make.