by Dan Eichenberger M.D.
The people who wrote the Constitution did not want a government that ran our health care, schools, retirement plans or local businesses. They created a federal government with a short list of specific powers. Everything else was supposed to stay with people, families, churches, towns and the states.
James Madison explained this clearly in Federalist No. 45. He wrote that the powers given to the federal government “are few and defined.” The powers kept by the states are “numerous and indefinite.” In Federalist No. 51, Madison also warned that government is necessary because people are not perfect — and that government itself must be limited for the same reason. Power must check power.
That idea is almost gone. Today, the federal government spends a large share of the country’s money, runs persistent deficits, and makes rules that affect almost every part of life. Instead of asking, “Does the Constitution allow Washington to do this?” we usually ask, “Why shouldn’t Washington fix it?”
Both political parties helped cause this change. Republicans often talk about limited government but do not always follow through. In the 1920s, President Calvin Coolidge practiced real restraint by cutting spending and taxes. President Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s mostly accepted the big New Deal programs already in place. In 1964, Barry Goldwater made the strongest modern case for limited constitutional government, but he lost badly. President Ronald Reagan cut tax rates and slowed some domestic spending, yet he left major programs like Social Security and Medicare largely untouched. President George W. Bush expanded the federal role in education, added a new Medicare drug benefit, and grew the national security system after 9/11. The Tea Party later tried to fight big spending and debt, but the effort faded. President Trump cut taxes and rolled back many regulations, but overall federal spending and deficits stayed high. His approach focused more on using government power to advance national and cultural goals than on strictly limiting it as the Founders intended. Even recently, some Republicans other than Trump have been willing to use federal power to advance their preferred goals rather than keeping government limited on principle.
The Democratic Party and the progressive Left have been the main drivers of bigger government. In the early 1900s, progressive thinkers argued that the old Constitution was too slow for a modern country. The New Deal in the 1930s created Social Security and many new federal programs. Courts later allowed Congress to regulate almost any activity that might affect the national economy. The Great Society in the 1960s added Medicare, Medicaid, and more federal programs for education and poverty. Over time, the idea grew that experts in Washington should manage more and more of American life.
This growth is not only about spending and rules. Government at every level now picks economic winners and losers. Tools like Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts and special tax breaks let officials favor certain companies or developers. Other businesses and taxpayers often pay the cost. Free markets work best when customers and investors decide which businesses succeed. These special deals let politicians decide instead. Both parties use these tools. Progressive ideas expand them further with national plans and targeted subsidies.
A free market also needs failure. When a company or bank makes bad decisions, it should be allowed to fail so that money and workers can move to better uses. The idea that some companies are “too big to fail” breaks this rule. Bailouts and special protections save the powerful while ordinary people still face the consequences. This creates a dangerous habit called moral hazard: people take bigger risks because they expect the government to rescue them.
Student loans show how this works in everyday life. For years, easy government-backed loans encouraged many students to borrow large amounts for college, sometimes for degrees that did not lead to good-paying jobs. Many borrowed more than they could reasonably repay because the loans were easy to get and because talk of forgiveness or bailouts made the risk feel smaller. When government reduces the personal cost of bad decisions, more people make those decisions. The same pattern appears with bank bailouts and other rescues of favored groups.
The difference between the parties is real. Republicans sometimes slow the growth of government or talk about cutting it back. Democrats and progressives more consistently treat bigger government as progress. One side has a recurring weakness. The other has a governing philosophy that expands federal power and directs the economy.
The results are clear. Required spending on major programs now drives most of the federal budget and the national debt. Unelected agencies write detailed rules that act like laws. When prices rise, or problems appear, as we’ve seen with college costs, housing markets, medical care and energy, the first reaction is often to demand more federal action rather than ask whether earlier government policies created or helped create the problem.
Getting back to limited government means more than electing better leaders to run the current system. It means asking the Founders’ basic question again: What powers should government have? A strong government is needed for defense, borders, protecting rights, and enforcing contracts. It is not needed to manage every economic and social outcome or to shield people and companies from the results of their choices. Decisions should stay as close as possible to the people they affect. Rights come before government. Government does not create them as favors, and it should not pick which businesses get special treatment or protection from failure.
Both parties have fallen short of the Constitution’s design. Republicans have too often failed to match their words with consistent action. The Democratic Party and the progressive Left have made expanding federal power and directing markets central goals. That gap matters. Until we face it honestly, limited government will remain a slogan instead of a reality.
Dan Eichenberger, M.D., M.A., an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, is an Indiana native with 30 years experience as a primary care physician, physician executive and healthcare consultant. He is the recipient of the Indiana University Southeast Chancellors Medallion.
