Commentary

During my decades working in the California State Senate, I heard countless variations of, “If only the legislature would pass a law to fix this problem.” Every public policy challenge seems to have a champion ready with the perfect solution; if only those in elected office would listen. H.L. Mencken captured this phenomenon perfectly: “There is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.”

There were years in which state budget impasses meant that government contractors and workers, including me, wouldn’t be paid for months as legislators worked on hasty compromises while ignoring long-term consequences of increasing government largesse.

The recent federal government shutdown illustrated this dynamic with painful clarity for those not paying attention to numerous similar experiences at the state and local levels. For too long, Americans have entrusted critical social functions to electoral politics while ignoring what public choice theory tells us: Politicians care more about reelection than solving the $38 trillion in national debt hanging over current and future generations. We may mock the chicanery in Washington as lawmakers leverage national security for partisan gain, but Sacramento, California, operates similarly, using cities, counties, and school districts as bargaining chips for ideological objectives.

The problem isn’t that politicians are incapable; it’s that they try to do too much that they shouldn’t. They swear to uphold the Constitution, then vote to override the frameworks limiting governmental authority and power.

This was the central debate among the British colonies in the late 1700s. After trial and error with the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress revisited the wisdom of ages to create stronger connective tissue amongst the growing factions of freedom. As Benjamin Franklin warned, they needed to hang together or they would hang separately.

In Federalist No. 47, James Madison echoed Montesquieu’s warning: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

How do the states, such as California, move together with the nation without putting too much in the hands of the few? The answer lies in federalism itself.

Lord Acton later reinforced this principle, defining federalism as “coordination instead of subordination; association instead of hierarchical order; independent forces curbing each other; balance, therefore, liberty.”

Putting aside the obvious nod to local governance structures, have we forgotten what these “independent forces” are? Among the institutions that fit this definition, one stands out for being consistently overlooked: nongovernmental nonprofits, particularly those operating independently of taxpayer funding. Most prominent among these associations are churches and faith-based organizations.

America’s first hospitals, schools, and poverty programs were established by people of faith. Although localized government programs existed, it was through the Progressive Era that government expanded its reach and depth into these domains. As partnerships formed, the government’s requirement for sectarian neutrality meant that consistent tax dollars came with strings attached. Churches had to compromise their faith traditions and the practices that made their charitable work effective and efficient. What replaced them were bureaucratic systems that, as historian Paul Rahe has observed, now constitute “our real rulers.”

When secular government employees have displaced the beneficial influence of churches and charities, what can be done?

Catholic University of America professor Catherine Ruth Pakaluk recently offered insightful advice to policymakers: “This isn’t a program of doing nothing; rather, it’s a program of relentless deference to churches as the providers of a public good that nations cannot buy. Talk to their members. Bring them into policy conversations, find out how they see their world and ask their advice.”

Her conclusion is striking: “The government must do less so that the churches can do more.” I would add: Do more, and do it better.

This isn’t merely a matter of religious preference. It’s about recognizing the proper spheres of different institutions. Even Scripture acknowledges this distinction. When asked about paying taxes, Jesus responded, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). This wisdom suggests not that religion should dominate government, but that different institutions have different roles and that respecting and maintaining these distinctions preserves liberty.

A government large enough to fulfill every dream inevitably becomes the source of nightmares, as many experienced during the recent federal shutdown. Californians need to invest more faith in institutions that inspire hope rather than demand bigger tax bills. Many responsibilities currently shouldered by government to feed special interests’ insatiable appetite for funding could be handled better and more affordably by civil society organizations.

The urgency is real. We need to transfer as much as possible from the taxpayer dole before government makes it impossible for churches and charities to perform their charitable missions at all. The alternative, a society in which bureaucratic algorithms replace human compassion, serves no one well.

The choice before us is clear: Strengthen the independent institutions that build genuine community or continue expanding a centralized authority that promised security but delivers dependency.

Correction: A previous version of this article misstated the university where Catherine Ruth Pakaluk is a professor. The Epoch Times regrets the error.