What the Paulites Have Right

What the Paulites Have Right

(1) There is nothing sacred about the Fed(2) Power is overly centralized in the Executive branch and thefederal government(3) Power is overly concentrated in agencies that are not designed tobe responsive

We ought not get rid of the Fed–I would fight hard to keep it–butit’s a critical point, because once people realize the flexibility ofour federal government, they can open up their imaginations about whatis possible in response to this, or any other, crisis. We need not putall our trust in Bernanke, let alone Geithner or his replacement (if he gets replaced); Congress actually can lead on nationalizing the banks and reorganizing them.

My own hope is that we first shift power away from the executive tothe Congressional branch–this only requires that we speakdifferently, collectively. Instead of "what should Obama do…?" or"what should Geithner do…?" about the banking crisis, we oughtalways be asking, "what should Pelosi do…?" and "what should myCongressmember do…?" If we talk differently, we will start holdingdifferent people accountable. We will, and can, demand moreimagination and leadership from our Congressional representatives.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

(1) There is nothing sacred about the Fed(2) Power is overly centralized in the Executive branch and thefederal government(3) Power is overly concentrated in agencies that are not designed tobe responsive

We ought not get rid of the Fed–I would fight hard to keep it–butit’s a critical point, because once people realize the flexibility ofour federal government, they can open up their imaginations about whatis possible in response to this, or any other, crisis. We need not putall our trust in Bernanke, let alone Geithner or his replacement (if he gets replaced); Congress actually can lead on nationalizing the banks and reorganizing them.

My own hope is that we first shift power away from the executive tothe Congressional branch–this only requires that we speakdifferently, collectively. Instead of "what should Obama do…?" or"what should Geithner do…?" about the banking crisis, we oughtalways be asking, "what should Pelosi do…?" and "what should myCongressmember do…?" If we talk differently, we will start holdingdifferent people accountable. We will, and can, demand moreimagination and leadership from our Congressional representatives.

Second, I hope that we increasingly shift power to local governments.Collective decisions about health care and education are best answeredon a local level. A government should not become too big tofulfill one of its most basic functions: representation.

I am very far away from libertarianism in other areas; I would like tosee more investment in education, more investment in health care, morecollective choices made about our collective societies. The only way I see it functioning (without nonresponsive agencies) is if we distribute all of these public goods via smaller state governments. More government, not less–but more of it local. Thelibertarian argument and the G20-protesters arguments share a common,and common-sense thread: we cannot design systems that are inherentlynon-responsive, either because of scale or by design, and then expectthem to be responsive to our collective needs and wisdom during a timeof crisis.

Disobey authoritarians, support The Nation

Over the past year you’ve read Nation writers like Elie Mystal, Kaveh Akbar, John Nichols, Joan Walsh, Bryce Covert, Dave Zirin, Jeet Heer, Michael T. Klare, Katha Pollitt, Amy Littlefield, Gregg Gonsalves, and Sasha Abramsky take on the Trump family’s corruption, set the record straight about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s catastrophic Make America Healthy Again movement, survey the fallout and human cost of the DOGE wrecking ball, anticipate the Supreme Court’s dangerous antidemocratic rulings, and amplify successful tactics of resistance on the streets and in Congress.

We publish these stories because when members of our communities are being abducted, household debt is climbing, and AI data centers are causing water and electricity shortages, we have a duty as journalists to do all we can to inform the public.

In 2026, our aim is to do more than ever before—but we need your support to make that happen. 

Through December 31, a generous donor will match all donations up to $75,000. That means that your contribution will be doubled, dollar for dollar. If we hit the full match, we’ll be starting 2026 with $150,000 to invest in the stories that impact real people’s lives—the kinds of stories that billionaire-owned, corporate-backed outlets aren’t covering. 

With your support, our team will publish major stories that the president and his allies won’t want you to read. We’ll cover the emerging military-tech industrial complex and matters of war, peace, and surveillance, as well as the affordability crisis, hunger, housing, healthcare, the environment, attacks on reproductive rights, and much more. At the same time, we’ll imagine alternatives to Trumpian rule and uplift efforts to create a better world, here and now. 

While your gift has twice the impact, I’m asking you to support The Nation with a donation today. You’ll empower the journalists, editors, and fact-checkers best equipped to hold this authoritarian administration to account. 

I hope you won’t miss this moment—donate to The Nation today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel 

Editor and publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x