The Case For An Intermediate Level of Federal Governance

A map illustrating the proposed four regions of American government to deconcentrate power and increase accountability and meaningful citizen participation

Is it Time to Deconcetrate Power in Washington? Common Sense Says, "Yes!"

For decades, Americans have sensed that something is off about how our government works—even if we can’t always articulate it. Trust in Congress is historically low. Voter participation feels futile. And Washington, D.C. increasingly resembles a self-contained political ecosystem rather than a governing body responsive to a vast, diverse nation.

The problem is not simply partisanship. Nor is it that “the other side” is winning. The deeper issue is structural: too much federal power is concentrated in one geographic, cultural, and professional bubble—one that is fundamentally insulated from the lived realities of most Americans.

Washington Is Too Far Away—Literally and Functionally

The United States is enormous. Its people span radically different geographies, economies, cultures, and needs. Yet federal lawmaking is centralized in a single city, dominated by a narrow class of professional politicians, lobbyists, and career staffers who spend most of their time interacting with each other rather than with constituents.

In theory, representatives are accountable to the people they serve. In practice, that accountability is thin. Constituents cannot realistically communicate with their members of Congress in a meaningful way. Emails disappear into automated systems. Phone calls are logged by interns. Town halls are rare, curated, or symbolic.

Even with good intentions, there is a basic math problem: a small number of federal legislators cannot productively engage with hundreds of millions of people. Oversight becomes impossible, distance breeds distrust, and governance turns opaque.

Manufactured Conflict Masks the Real Accountability Problem

Our political culture frames dysfunction as a red-versus-blue problem. But many Americans are beginning to notice something else: ideological conflict often masks institutional alignment.

On Capitol Hill, opposing parties frequently cooperate when it comes to maintaining power, fundraising structures, and insulation from scrutiny. Meanwhile, media cycles fixate on unsolvable moral flashpoints—issues where consensus is unlikely—while sidelining areas where broad agreement exists, such as:

• Unequal access to education

• Regional economic disparities

• Infrastructure decay

• Workforce displacement

• Housing affordability

  
  

These issues are complex but not inherently divisive. Yet they receive less sustained attention because they require structural reform rather than symbolic combat.

The result is a citizenry encouraged to fight each other instead of questioning whether the system itself is designed for democratic accountability.

A Structural Solution: An Intermediate Level of Federal Governance

If the problem is over-concentration of power, the solution is not simply electing “better” people—it is redesigning how power is distributed.

One approach worth serious consideration is the creation of a third, intermediate level of federal lawmaking, positioned between Congress and the states.

Under this model, the country would be divided into a small number of geographically coherent federal regions—four, for example—similar to athletic or economic conferences. Each region would represent a diverse but manageable cross-section of the country, large enough to matter nationally yet close enough to remain accessible.

These regional federal bodies would:

• Draft and deliberate on legislation affecting multi-state regional interests

• Serve as a conduit between local concerns and national policy

• Increase transparency and accessibility for constituents

• Deconcentrate lawmaking power from Washington, D.C.

• Reduce incentives for performative national culture wars

  
  

Rather than replacing Congress, these bodies would complement it—filtering, refining, and elevating policy proposals grounded in regional realities before they reach the national stage.

Why This Would Improve Accountability and Trust

Decentralization is not fragmentation. It is a recognition that scale matters in democracy.

Smaller governing bodies are easier to monitor. Representatives are more reachable. Policy discussions are less abstract and more grounded in lived experience. Oversight becomes feasible, not theoretical.

This structure would also dilute the dominance of national party machinery. Regional coalitions would likely form around practical needs rather than ideological branding, shifting incentives away from outrage and toward results.

Most importantly, it would give citizens a clearer line of sight into how decisions are made—and who is responsible for making them.

Reimagining Federalism for a Modern Nation

The United States was founded on a fear of concentrated power. Federalism itself was an attempt to balance national unity with local autonomy. But the country has changed dramatically since that framework was designed.

Today’s challenge is not whether we need government—it is whether our government is structured to serve the people it governs.

Creating an intermediate level of federal lawmaking would be a bold reform. It would require constitutional analysis, careful implementation, and public debate. But the idea itself speaks to a growing intuition across the political spectrum: the distance between the governed and the governing has grown too wide.

If democracy is to remain legitimate, it must also remain reachable.

Sometimes progress doesn’t come from choosing a side—but from changing the structure of the field on which the sides are forced to fight.