Mike, that’s a fair question, and the answer is both yes and no.
The Anti-Federalists absolutely feared centralized federal power and warned—correctly—that it could become unaccountable and coercive. Their push for a Bill of Rights was foundational to protecting individual and state sovereignty. In that sense, Radical Federalism aligns with their core concerns.
But there’s a key difference: Radical Federalism isn’t about rejecting federalism outright—it’s about reclaiming it. The Anti-Federalists wanted a looser confederation, while Radical Federalism sees the states as the primary engines of power within a federal system—a viewpoint we believe identifies *the* defining lever with which to resist the unfolding authortarian coup. The Constitution’s dual sovereignty framework gives states real legal standing—if they’re willing to use it. The problem isn’t just federal overreach, but that states have ceded too much of their own authority.
So, if we’re looking at history, we’re pulling from both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists—just not from the centralized, executive-heavy version of federalism that exists today. Radical Federalism is about restoring the balance that should have always existed.
Can I ask.. wouldn't the anti- federalist papers be more in line with these ideas?
Mike, that’s a fair question, and the answer is both yes and no.
The Anti-Federalists absolutely feared centralized federal power and warned—correctly—that it could become unaccountable and coercive. Their push for a Bill of Rights was foundational to protecting individual and state sovereignty. In that sense, Radical Federalism aligns with their core concerns.
But there’s a key difference: Radical Federalism isn’t about rejecting federalism outright—it’s about reclaiming it. The Anti-Federalists wanted a looser confederation, while Radical Federalism sees the states as the primary engines of power within a federal system—a viewpoint we believe identifies *the* defining lever with which to resist the unfolding authortarian coup. The Constitution’s dual sovereignty framework gives states real legal standing—if they’re willing to use it. The problem isn’t just federal overreach, but that states have ceded too much of their own authority.
So, if we’re looking at history, we’re pulling from both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists—just not from the centralized, executive-heavy version of federalism that exists today. Radical Federalism is about restoring the balance that should have always existed.