What Should the Federal Government Actually Do?

How Big Should the Federal Government Be? It’s Time We Had the Real Conversation.

We talk a lot about politics in this country. We shout, we meme, we dig into our ideological trenches. But we almost never talk about one of the most important questions in our constitutional system — a question as old as the country itself:

How large should the federal government be? What should it do — and what should it leave to the states or to individuals?

This isn’t a question of party. It’s a foundational question, and we’ve been asking it since 1787. Jefferson and Hamilton squared off over it. Jefferson feared a strong centralized government that could become tyrannical and distant from the people. Hamilton argued that only a robust federal government could stabilize the young republic and address its collective needs.

History shows us that Hamilton’s vision largely prevailed. The federal government expanded — through war, industrialization, the New Deal, the Civil Rights era, and more. But Jefferson’s warnings never disappeared. They still echo in debates about states' rights, individual liberties, and federal overreach.

And yet, outside of the echo chambers of partisan politics, we rarely sit down and really talk about what the federal government is for. What should it do?

The Constitution gives us clues — its Preamble says the government is meant to:

“establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Beautiful words. Broad words. And open to interpretation.

Take “provide for the common defence.” At the time of the founding, this clearly meant defending the nation from foreign invasions. But does it also mean defense against cyberattacks? Pandemics? Climate disasters? FEMA, after all, wasn’t created until 1979. Should the federal government be responsible for natural disaster relief — or is that a state matter?

Or “promote the general Welfare.” Does that include public education? Healthcare? Housing support? Infrastructure? In the early republic, education was left almost entirely to the states and localities. Today, the federal government plays a growing (but still limited) role in funding schools and enforcing civil rights laws in education — yet the disparities between states and school systems are vast.

Is that just how federalism works — or a problem to be solved?

We’ve grown accustomed to red state–blue state differences. But is it acceptable that your access to health care, clean water, job opportunities, or quality public education can vary so dramatically depending on your ZIP code?

Some would say yes — that diversity is the point of federalism. Others argue that too much disparity undermines equality, justice, and the national interest.

These are hard questions. They don’t have easy answers. But they deserve more than sound bites and slogans.

We need a real civic conversation — not about which party is right, but about how we decide what our national government should be responsible for, and how we balance that with the rights and autonomy of states.

Because the truth is, we can’t make good decisions about taxes, regulations, or federal programs until we’ve answered the more basic question:

What is the federal government for — and what isn’t it for?

It’s time to take that question seriously. Not just as a political fight, but as a national dialogue. Not just to win the next election, but to understand who we are, and what kind of country we want to be.