Commentary
In the tumultuous debates of 1787-88, as the proposed Constitution came into existence, a group of skeptics known as Anti-Federalists looked beyond the revolutionary fervor to foresee a troubling future. These thinkers, often overshadowed by the Federalist trio of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, predicted a centralized power that could expand beyond its limits, giving rise to a bureaucracy that would overshadow the very freedoms it aimed to safeguard. Today, in 2025, their foresight continues to linger. Through a conservative perspective—anchored in limited government, individual rights, and local responsibility—the warnings of the Anti-Federalists shed light on the extensive administrative state that now governs modern America. What was once dismissed as exaggerated alarmism now demands a serious evaluation: have we constructed the very behemoth they feared, and is it still possible to dismantle it?
Voices From the Margins
The Anti-Federalists were not a unified group. While Patrick Henry railed against tyranny and George Mason advocated for a Bill of Rights, lesser-known figures like Brutus, Federal Farmer, and Cato—pseudonyms for men of intellect and principle—offered incisive critiques of the direction of centralized power. Brutus, likely Robert Yates of New York, cautioned in 1787 that the Constitution’s “necessary and proper” clause could open the door to an army of enforcers. Federal Farmer, possibly Richard Henry Lee, envisioned a distant republic reliant on a multitude of officers, eroding the intimate governance of local communities. Cato, perhaps Governor George Clinton, foresaw an elite group wielding administrative power to solidify their dominance.
These individuals were not advocating for anarchy; they valued order but were wary of consolidation. Drawing from the fall of Rome and Britain’s imperial overreach, they argued that power, once consolidated, inevitably expands—often through unelected means. Their defeat in 1788 did not invalidate their reasoning; it simply postponed its validation.
The Administrative State: A Modern Parallel
Fast forward to 2025, and the Anti-Federalists’ fears have materialized into our present reality. The federal bureaucracy—comprising over 2 million employees, not including contractors—encompasses agencies from the IRS to the EPA, issuing regulations that rival the scope and impact of Congress. The Code of Federal Regulations, a maze spanning over 180,000 pages, surpasses the concise framework of the Constitution. This is not governance through consent; it is rule by decree, carried out by technocrats shielded from electoral accountability. The elastic clause warned about by Brutus finds its modern equivalent in agency discretion—such as the FDA’s expansive mandates or the ATF’s evolving gun regulations. Federal Farmer’s “numerous train” thrives within the Department of Homeland Security’s 240,000 staff, while Cato’s elite class mirrors the revolving door between corporate leadership and regulatory positions.
Conservatives, long proponents of limited government, view this as a betrayal of fundamental principles. The Constitution was based on enumerated powers, not an open invitation for bureaucratic expansion. However, the 20th century—marked by Progressive fervor, the New Deal’s ambition, and the Great Society’s reach—stretched that foundation beyond recognition. Today, agencies not only enforce laws but also create them, adjudicate them, and penalize non-compliance, blending the separation of powers into a single, unaccountable entity. This is not an exaggeration: the Supreme Court’s Chevron deference (until recently) allowed agencies to interpret vague statutes, essentially legislating from offices in Washington.
A Conservative Critique With Substance
From a conservative standpoint, this bureaucratic expansion violates three core principles: sovereignty, accountability, and subsidiarity. Firstly, sovereignty resides with the people, not with unelected bureaucrats. When the EPA dictates a farmer’s actions or the IRS conducts audits with automated rigor, individual autonomy diminishes, replaced by top-down directives contrary to self-governance. Secondly, accountability necessitates that power be answerable to the governed. Yet agency leaders, often career officials or industry transfers, do not face an electorate; their regulations circumvent the messy, democratic process of Congress. Thirdly, subsidiarity—the idea that decisions should be made at the most local competent level—lies in ruins as states and communities bow to federal mandates on various issues from education to environmental emissions.
This is not a longing for a bygone era. The complexity of the administrative state—praised by progressives as a defense against modern challenges—has become its own justification, a self-sustaining mechanism. Conservatives see a parallel to Parkinson’s Law: bureaucracy expands to fill the space available, then demands more. The outcome? A government too immense to be comprehended, let alone restrained, by the populace it claims to represent.
Balance: The Federalist Response
Fairness dictates recognition of the Federalists. Madison argued in 1788 that a strong union could mitigate factionalism; Hamilton saw strength in a centralized executive. Their present-day proponents—advocates for the administrative state—argue that it resolves issues too vast for individual states: climate change, pandemics, corporate malfeasance. Without the CDC’s data or the SEC’s oversight, chaos could reign. This is not a frivolous claim; a fragmented nation might falter in an interconnected world.
However, the Anti-Federalists would counter: efficiency should not come at the cost of liberty. A government capable of handling crises is also capable of controlling its citizens. The Federalists trusted institutional checks—Congress, courts, elections—to restrain excess. Yet when agencies overshadow those checks, assuming legislative, executive, and judicial functions in one body, the balance shifts towards tyranny. Conservatives do not deny the necessity of governance; they question who governs and how closely they are monitored.
A Path Forward: Restoring the Republic
The Anti-Federalists did not merely diagnose; they hinted at solutions that conservatives can refine. Firstly, *reassert legislative authority*. Congress must reclaim its role in lawmaking, specifying agency mandates with clarity—eliminating the ambiguity of “necessary and proper.” A “Sunset Clause” could compel regulations to expire unless renewed by elected officials, trimming the bureaucratic undergrowth. Secondly, *empower the states*. Federalism is not antiquated; it acts as a barrier. Delegate powers—such as education or land use—to governors and legislatures who are in touch with their constituents. Thirdly, *utilize technology for transparency*. Blockchain-ledgered rulemaking or AI-driven audits of agency budgets could expose waste and overreach, transforming control tools into accountability mechanisms.
These are not idealistic solutions but pragmatic corrections, echoing the Anti-Federalists’ emphasis on proximity and restraint. Critics may decry gridlock or inefficiency.
The Stakes in 2025 and Beyond
Conservatives believe that it is better to have a slow, free government than a swift, unmoored one. As we look ahead to 2025, the issue of the administrative state is not just a partisan concern—it is a structural crisis. Conservatives, who have always been cautious of centralized power since Ronald Reagan famously said, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help,” see the Anti-Federalists as historical allies. Their warnings still resonate today not because they were always right—monarchy did not return—but because they understood the nature of power: it grows unless it is restrained.
When we think about the year 2050, the stakes become even higher. A hyper-digital bureaucracy, with AI enforcers, drone regulators, and corporate-agency hybrids, could reduce citizens to mere data points in a federal algorithm. Alternatively, we could learn from Brutus, Federal Farmer, and Cato, and build a republic where power remains close to the people, transparent, and restrained. Readers of REAL CLEAR HISTORY are accustomed to grappling with such challenges, connecting insights from the past to the dangers of the present. While the Anti-Federalists may have lost their fight, they have left us with a blueprint. It is time for us to follow it—not to dismantle government, but to restore it.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
