How a Founding-Era Article Explains America’s Broken Politics

By 1785, James Madison was at a loss of words. America’s first attempt at a Republic, The Articles of Confederation, failed miserably. The federal government failed to enforce the Treaty of Paris or establish national trade policy in the face of flippant state defiance, and states like Rhode Island forced creditors to accept debt repayments in inflated currency. 

Turning to history for wisdom, Madison looked to past republics and

confederacies to identify America's failures. To curb the power of local majoritarian factions at the state level, Madison advocated for the “enlargement of the sphere,” in an attempt to shift policy-making power from the state to the national level. Instead, a federal body that represented the diverse interests of the entire country would enhance democratic decision-making, and prove more conducive for the common good. If you “extend the sphere” Madison explained in another essay, Federalist 10, “you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens.”

According to Marc J. Dunckleman, a Research Fellow at Brown University, and a Senior

Fellow at the Clinton Foundation, Madison’s vision hinged on “spirit of locality:” Many Americans sorted themselves by towns and communities rather than class, profession, or political party. This local focus fostered interaction among competing political factions, setting a model for constructive political dialogue, and creating a greater “appreciation for the common good.” The main point? Speaking to those you disagreed with and engaging with a wide variety of opinions and perspectives is a, or rather, the bedrock of successful democracies. 

Since Madison’s time, something’s changed: American politics nationalized. Political information, behaviors, and even identities—of constituents and politicians alike— have shifted away from local issues towards national narratives. Most Americans are far more engaged with what happens in DC than in their own communities. Many local elections, in fact, can revolve around national politics. Gone are the days of local politics. 

As a result, politicians no longer represented the varied voices and interests of the country, instead the homogenous perspectives and positions of their national parties. Instead of workable national solutions, this “nationalization” of political behavior sewed polarization and governmental gridlock. As James Madison might have predicted, the absence of diverse, local voices in democratic decision-making has been a central (yet underrecognized) origin of discontent in our political system.

The nationalization of American politics is evident in our media industry. By and large, people are more connected to their national political bubbles than the varied

perspectives of their neighbors. In the past 20 years, America's journalism industries have nationalized like never before: Since 2004, close to one in three local newspapers have shut down, and hundreds of counties in the United States no longer have a newspaper, giving more airtime to national media conglomerates and political voices. Most Americans read much more news about national politics than local or state politics. The same is true at the ballot box. In local elections, less than one in six people vote, lagging behind the national federal voter turnout rate. 

These rapid changes in the media industry have only worsened hyperpartisanship. Social media platforms use algorithms to silo users into political echo chambers to boost their engagement. Americans lost many opportunities to hear and interact with opposing political perspectives, exacerbating political polarization. Without facing opposing viewpoints, some easily diminish, or even demonize, those they disagree with. Without the routine interactions of ideas and perspectives within a community, political factions Madison long detested have strengthened and fortified.

Instead of housing a diverse set of politicians that can work towards common solutions, federal bodies are plagued with gridlocking as two polarized sides refuse to work together. Since the early 2000s, government shutdowns—times when political infighting over appropriation bills reach a breaking point—last longer and occur more frequently. Furthermore, the new era of American politics widened the discrepancy between the interests of local communities and the politicians who served them. As politics become more nationalized, Politicians may be less sensitive to a particular law’s impacts on their community than the law’s perceived “political leaning.” As Political Science Professor Daniel J. Hopkins explains “It’s why even congressional Democrats with many elderly constituents opposed a prescription drug coverage in 2003 or why Republican governors with high numbers of uninsured residents turned down a Medicaid expansion that was part of the Affordable Care Act.” As partisan politicians buck to national parties, their constituent’s interests get left behind. 

With the rise of national news sources and hyper-partisan factions, the nationalization of

American politics created a discrepancy between politicians, leading to frequent governmental gridlocks and infrequent government solutions.As James Madison noticed, dominant political factions broke local state politics and unleashed problems for the rest of the country. As political factions have formed at the national level, Madison’s political aims of “enlarging the sphere,” have been lost, and the promise of a diverse array of local voices forging constructive effective federal policy has gone unfulfilled.

To understand the dysfunction in American politics, we must recognize how nationalized factions hinder constructive policy-making. Like Madison in 1787, we often view American democracy as “broken.” Political polarization, nationalization, and election denialism can seem daunting, making solutions feel out of reach. However, as Madison’s insights suggest, many political challenges stem from individual choices: whom we engage with, which perspectives we seek, and our level of involvement in local issues. As in any ideal democracy, the power lies with the people. Thus, the first step in fostering a healthy democracy can start with policies that help individuals make more constructive choices. For example, providing tax credits for local print newspapers can help Americans understand the needs of their local communities. If we use that power for good, perhaps we can mend our democracy.