Local Power Over Nationalist Dependency

This essay is the third in a four-part series on the changing nature of freedom in American life. The project looks at how fear, dependency, and national identity have shaped our sense of autonomy, and how a clearer path forward can begin with local responsibility and personal agency.

National pride can offer a sense of belonging, a reminder that people share a common story. It becomes something different when it encourages dependence on a distant figure or a centralized identity. It pulls attention away from the places where people actually live their lives. When that happens, the structure of freedom begins to lean in the wrong direction.

Most of what shapes a person’s daily experience happens close to home. Streets, schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods decide far more about quality of life than any speech made on a national stage. Yet political culture has drifted toward the belief that power flows from the top down. People begin to imagine that their future hinges on national outcomes instead of their own participation. They start to see the country as a single contest rather than a network of communities with their own agency.

This is a departure from an older understanding. Local governance once sat at the center of conservative thought. It kept authority close to the people it affected. It reduced the distance between decision and consequence. It encouraged citizens to take responsibility for their communities instead of waiting for someone above them to intervene. That model was straightforward. It trusted ordinary people to shape the places they lived.

The rise of nationalist thinking has altered that trust. When national identity becomes the primary focus, local work can start to feel small. People begin to believe that what happens in a distant capital matters more than what happens in their own town. They grow invested in the success of a leader they will never meet instead of the success of neighbors they see each week. This rearrangement creates a form of dependency. It persuades people that they cannot influence their own lives without the direction of someone speaking from a podium.

That dependence carries real consequences. Local institutions weaken when citizens withdraw their involvement. Community projects stall. Public spaces decline. People lose the habit of contributing to the place where they live. The energy that once strengthened towns and counties becomes absorbed by national conflict. And as that conflict grows, the sense of agency within a community starts to fade.

National identity can offer unity, but unity becomes fragile when it depends on personalities or slogans. A strong society relies on participation, not only allegiance. It requires steady attention to the needs of a community. It requires people who know the names of their council members and school board members, not only the names of those who dominate national headlines. Without that attention, local power becomes secondary. And with it goes a form of freedom that cannot be replaced at the national level.

Real autonomy lives closest to home. It grows when people make decisions that shape their own streets. It grows when responsibility is shared among neighbors rather than concentrated in a single figure. It grows when a community is understood as the primary system of support, not a distant authority or a leader who promises broad restoration.

If people want a stronger, freer country, the most effective place to begin is the space directly around them. Not the national stage. Not the loudest voices online. The work begins in the same places it always has. It begins in town halls, school meetings, volunteer groups, and conversations among people who understand each other’s lives.

National movements rise and fall. Local communities remain. They carry the ability to rebuild trust, strengthen shared responsibility, and create stability that no national figure can provide. When people return their attention to these places, they recover something easy to overlook. They recover influence. They recover relevance. They recover the freedom that comes from shaping their own environment.

A healthy relationship with a nation does not require surrendering local control. It does not require believing that salvation comes from the top. It simply requires remembering that the most durable form of freedom grows outward from the ground beneath a person’s feet.

When people reclaim that ground, they stop waiting for someone else to define their future. They begin to see that the strength they were searching for never lived in a distant capital. It lived in their own community the entire time.