Introduction
The American political system is built upon a founding paradox: the coexistence of radical individual liberty and powerful collective coercion. This is not a system failure, but rather its "operating system," in which freedom and compulsion have been inextricably intertwined since the dawn of the republic. Understanding the "American Leviathan" requires moving beyond simple formulas and examining the rules of the game that allow the state to function under permanent tension between the center and the periphery.
The founding paradox: liberty built on coercion
The liberal principle of governance, enshrined in the Constitution, limits the central government to precisely enumerated powers. Washington can act only where it has an explicit mandate, making it a deliberately constrained authority. Historically, however, actual coercion was the domain of the states, which possessed so-called police power. This allowed them to regulate nearly every aspect of life—from the economy to morality—without the need to meticulously justify every step.
In this view, liberalism limits the arbitrary nature of central authority, but simultaneously normalizes local coercion as custom or tradition. The frequently cited metaphor of states as laboratories of democracy can be deceptive. While it suggests innovation, in practice, these laboratories were often sites of systemic oppression, as evidenced by decades of racial segregation. American liberty is thus not a state of being, but a procedure of conflict over who has the right to enforce order.
Strategies of improvisation: surrogacy, exemption, and privatization
To enable the federal state to become effective despite constitutional barriers, it developed strategies of improvisation. The first are strategies of exemption, which create zones (e.g., national security, immigration) where liberal safeguards are suspended. The second is constitutional surrogacy—the use of "hooks," or explicit powers (e.g., the regulation of post offices or commerce), to smuggle in policies that the Constitution did not expressly provide for. This was how national economic policy and non-discrimination standards were built.
The third pillar is the privatization of public tasks. Shifting implementation to corporations allows the state to act without expanding the bureaucracy, but results in a fragmentation of accountability. A turning point was the New Deal, which introduced the concept of positive liberty—the belief that freedom requires institutional supports, such as economic security. The Cold War further cemented this arrangement, creating a permanent security regime that funded infrastructure and science under the veil of necessity.
From the rights revolution to paralysis: fragmentation and the future of institutions
The rights revolution of the 1960s fundamentally altered the system of government by imposing federal standards of liberty on the states through the doctrine of incorporation. This blow to local police power triggered a conservative revolt aimed at "starving the beast"—amputating the fiscal and regulatory capacity of the center. Modern-day paralysis in Washington is not a breakdown, but a consequence of a system in which the tools of action have become tools of delegitimization.
For business, regulatory fragmentation represents a massive risk. When the center remains silent, states become ideological proving grounds, creating a legal patchwork that complicates investment planning. Breaking the paralysis requires a choice between deepening chaos and technocratic recalibration. Today’s American Leviathan resembles a modern ship built on an eighteenth-century hull—its future depends on whether the crew realizes that one cannot improvise forever without incurring structural costs.
Summary
The American experiment teaches us that the search for an ideal balance between liberty and coercion is an endless journey. The American Leviathan is not a simple product of centralization, but a cycle of tensions resolved through creative, albeit risky, improvisations. In the labyrinth of conflicting claims, can we find the path to a state that is both efficient and legitimate? The paradox remains embedded in the very essence of this statehood, condemning it to a perpetual balancing act on the edge of chaos and order.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF