Strengths And Weaknesses Of Big National Government

The concept of big national government is often followed by the stigma of probable tyranny. The American colonists were especially concerned about this, and it is apparent that federalism was perceived by the colonists as the best alternative to their failed confederate system. This is evident because it appears the national government was primarily implemented to compensate for the short comings of small state governments. Regardless of its flaws, the American federal system has lasted for over two centuries, and it has slowly and appropriately evolved throughout the years to accommodate the general needs of the nation. By attempting to balance the strengths and weaknesses of big national government and small local government, America’s society

has been able to persevere itself in an effective and organized manner while concurrently maintaining most of the individual liberties of American citizens in the process.
The federal system of the united states was not always well composed, and there were, and still are, a lot of conflicting opinions concerning what was an ideal equilibrium of power between the state and national government.

The colonists understood, for example, that constituent states could coin money, but were ineffective in collecting national taxes. Furthermore, during the times of the articles of confederation, the colonists faced serious inflation problems and were incapable of allocating a proper common currency. National government, conversely, allows for more consistency amongst the states and facilitates country wide consensus, resulting in less discordance and confusion. Because of this, during the times of dual federalism, big government was chiefly focused on the economic development of the nation and on sustaining a strong and sovereign country. Meanwhile, issues involving criminal laws, health and safety, and family regulations were largely left to the state. This is because the state, unlike the national government, can appeal to diverse populations and address specific regional issues. Moreover, state politics are more easily influenced by the average citizen than national politics are, and in addition to this, state governments can test out policies to see how well they might work on a national

level.
Unfortunately, this presents another problem: too much power given to state governments can result in unfair and unethical proceedings.

Slavery, segregation, and child labor were just a few contemptable effects permitted by too much state supremacy. As these ethical issues became more and more apparent, the state and national government began to intertwine into a cooperative federalist system. Thus, the national American government was permitted to implement regulations to insure fair and equal treatment of citizens and workers; this also allowed for the national government to protect the well-being of consumers by insuring that only safe, quality products could reach the market place. The national government also proved to be important in matters of national catastrophes, one the most well-known instances being their influence on the economy during the Great Depression. While this progression of the American federalist system seems to be well rounded, criticisms concerning the amount of power given to the national government eventually resurfaced, primarily in regards to state-= spending. This criticism has evoked the emergence of a new type of federalism fittingly, if not redundantly, called, ‘new federalism.’ In modern times, this dispute continues, and it is evident that the American federalist system may always remain in a dynamic state in accordance to the different needs of Americans during different

times.

Teamwork is the utilization of different bodies to help facilitate in the accomplishment of a common goal. Unfortunately, while the aforementioned definition describes the desired outcome of teamwork, my experiences with collective cooperation have not been quite so pleasant. As an introverted misanthropist, it is hard enough for me to socialize with my peers, let alone collaborate with them on a project. In the past, whenever I was forced into a group assignment, I was typically picked last by an assembly of students who were often trying to seem “nice.” However, their kindness was merely just a superficial façade, and once we commenced with the project I would often get ostracized. I would be told not to corrupt the assignment and, at times, I was told not to participate at all. This would often result in me working on the project alone at home while the rest of my teammates would procrastinate, socialize, and, inevitably, leach off my hard work. So, what is teamwork to me? Pointless and overvalued.