Weaponizing Contradictions & Coalitions: What Bismarck and Metternich Teach Us About Radical Federalism
How state governments can force the federal government into a no-win scenario using lessons from history’s greatest strategic minds.
(This can be thought of as Part II of last week’s post on Richelieu, Ataturk, Bolivar, and Deng)
The old system is crumbling, and states must stop reacting and start dictating the terms of engagement. The resistance so far—lawsuits, state-level policies, regional coordination—is not wrong, but it is insufficient. It assumes that the federal government will be bound by the courts, the Constitution, or the norms of governance.
That assumption is failing right now. Federal agencies are openly ignoring court rulings. Funding is being weaponized against states. Executive orders are rewriting laws overnight. The Supreme Court has become an arm of the regime, and Congress has no meaningful power.
If Radical Federalism is to succeed, it must stop playing defense and start doing what the great strategists of history did—force the federal government into a position where its own consolidation efforts start working against itself.
Last time we discussed how
Richelieu reshaped France by playing internal factions against each other and weakening feudal lords.
Atatürk built a new state within a collapsing empire without open rebellion.
Bolívar unified fractious territories into a functioning federation by controlling political messaging and military power.
Deng Xiaoping decentralized China’s economy while maintaining the illusion of centralized control.
This time, we’ll see how
Bismarck forced his enemies into contradictions that made resistance impossible without self-destruction.
Metternich built a coalition so strong that any attack on Austria would destabilize all of Europe.
Now, states must use these lessons to break federal overreach. If they act with real strategic intent, they can turn Washington’s own power against itself.
Lessons from the Masters of Statecraft: How Radical Federalism Wins
History is filled with moments where weaker powers outmaneuvered stronger, centralized forces—not by waiting for legal victories, but by forcing their enemies into unwinnable positions.
I. Bismarck’s Iron Chessboard: The Art of Forcing Your Enemies’ Hands
(Or skip to the tl;dr below the divider for the executive summary)
The Europe of Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898) was a fragile web of old empires, rising national movements, and diplomatic minefields—each power maneuvering for dominance while fearing overreach. Germany did not exist as a single nation; instead, it was a fractured array of independent kingdoms, duchies, and city-states, with Prussia and Austria competing for dominance.
To forge a unified German state, Bismarck could not simply defeat his rivals—he had to force them into positions where every available move led to their own downfall. His mastery was not brute force, nor reckless expansionism. It was his ability to manipulate the rules of the game itself, ensuring that whatever choice his enemies made, they weakened themselves while strengthening him.
He played the European balance of power like a chess grandmaster, crafting conflicts that forced Austria, France, and smaller German states into dilemmas that shattered their influence while consolidating Prussian dominance.
How Bismarck Turned Enemies Against Themselves
Bismarck’s genius lay in using his enemies’ own ambitions, alliances, and diplomatic needs to make resistance self-destructive.
The Austrian Trap (1866): Austria had long been the dominant German power, keeping Prussia in check. Bismarck engineered a crisis over Schleswig and Holstein, luring Austria into a war that it could neither afford nor win. When Austria mobilized against Prussia, it found itself diplomatically isolated. The war lasted seven weeks. Austria’s defeat expelled it from German affairs forever.
The Franco-Prussian Trap (1870): France was the last major obstacle to German unification. Bismarck provoked Napoleon III by manipulating a diplomatic slight—the infamous Ems Dispatch, which he edited to make the French appear insulted by Prussia. France, eager to defend its honor, declared war—but the war was a trap. Bismarck had already secured defensive alliances with other German states, ensuring that France’s aggression rallied all of Germany behind Prussia. France was crushed, Napoleon III was deposed, and Paris fell. In the aftermath, Bismarck crowned the German Emperor in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles—ensuring that France’s defeat was symbolically woven into the birth of the German Empire.
The Diplomacy of No Escape: After unification, Bismarck knew that France would seek revenge. He prevented it by ensuring that France could find no allies. Through a series of secret treaties and shifting coalitions, he kept Russia, Britain, and Austria either neutral or dependent on German diplomacy. By the time France recovered, it was trapped in diplomatic isolation, unable to rebuild its influence until long after Bismarck was gone.
In each case, Bismarck did not simply defeat his enemies. He forced them to defeat themselves.
The Strategy of Contradiction
Bismarck’s approach was simple: force his enemies into contradictions. He created conditions where every available choice weakened them.
If Austria refused to fight, it looked weak and lost credibility among the German states. If it fought, it lost control of Germany entirely.
If France ignored Prussia’s rise, it lost influence. If it reacted, it walked into Bismarck’s war trap.
If Russia clashed with Germany, it alienated potential allies. If it cooperated, it strengthened the German-led order.
Bismarck’s real power was not merely winning wars—it was making it impossible for his opponents to resist without fracturing their own position.
Lessons for Radical Federalism
The federal government today, like the empires of Bismarck’s era, is consolidating power under the pretense of stability. But Washington—now controlled by an authoritarian administration—must hold two irreconcilable positions. It needs absolute control, yet it must also maintain legitimacy. It cannot do both.
Trump’s regime is already weaponizing federal funds to coerce states into compliance, freezing or withholding money as a tool of political retaliation. The more Washington tightens its grip, the more states must maneuver it into crises that expose its contradictions.
Radical Federalism must do what Bismarck did—force the federal government into dilemmas where every possible response erodes its power.
1. The Spending Trap: Weaponizing Financial Retaliation Against Itself
Trump has already begun using federal funding as leverage, freezing infrastructure and disaster relief money to punish resistant states. But states can turn this into an existential crisis for Washington:
If Washington defunds resistant states, those states should immediately create visible, publicized alternatives—state-run public banks, infrastructure funds, and tax incentives that prove that states function better without federal control.
If Washington escalates defunding, it alienates its own power base—swing-state voters, key industries, and even red-state legislatures1 that depend on federal spending.
If Washington retreats from funding battles, it legitimizes state autonomy and weakens its own financial leverage over the states.
█ No matter how Washington responds, its hold weakens.
2. The Legal Trap: Making the Courts a No-Win Battleground
The Supreme Court has expanded federal supremacy, but it also relies on judicial legitimacy. As states aggressively pursue legal challenges, these must be carefully designed to maximize fault lines guaranteeing that the Court must either:
Rule against them (exposing itself as an enforcer of undeniably authoritarian power, disillusioning conservative, libertarian, and moderate factions), or
Allow states more autonomy (undermining federal control).
It is easy to forget, but as seen in the New York Eric Adams scandal, even Federalist Society Trump legal appointees will resign rather than cross hard ideological lines. By forcing the Court into politically costly rulings, states can erode both its credibility and its ability to serve the regime’s agenda. The key is not seeking one-off victories, but relentlessly creating new legal crises until the Court’s authority is weakened in the eyes of the public and the legal scaffolding maintaining its relevance.
3. The Crisis Trap: Exploiting Federal Overreach for Political Leverage
The Trump administration, in its drive to consolidate power, is creating enemies across the political spectrum. Each time it retaliates against a state—whether through funding cuts, legal challenges, or direct federal intervention—it risks awakening bipartisan resentment.
If it cracks down too hard, red states and swing states will rally behind decentralization.
If it does nothing, states will push the limits further.
Either way, federal authority erodes.
█ The key is not direct rebellion, but maneuvering the system against itself. Every step should create a situation where Washington, in asserting control, loses legitimacy—and in preserving legitimacy, loses control.
tl;dr Bismarck
Bismarck unified Germany not just by defeating his enemies, but by ensuring that every move they made strengthened his position. Radical Federalism must do the same.
The goal is not just to resist Washington, but to ensure that every act of federal overreach fractures its own power base.
How States Can Replicate This:
Make the Courts a No-Win Battleground
If the Supreme Court overrules state laws, states should refuse compliance outright—forcing the feds to either ignore their own ruling (undermining judicial authority) or escalate enforcement (fueling the resistance).
Exploit Federal Overreach for Political Leverage
If Washington defunds resistant states, those states should immediately create visible, publicized alternatives—state-run public banks, infrastructure funds, and tax incentives that prove that states function better without federal control.
Create Internal Fractures Among Federal Agencies
Bismarck was a master at dividing his enemies. States should actively recruit dissent within federal agencies—whistleblowers, labor unions, and state-based federal workers should be encouraged to reject Washington’s authority and work with state governments instead.
Use Federal Gridlock Against Itself
The federal government under Trump is already lawsuits and bureaucratic dysfunction. States should throw fuel on that fire—creating more legal battles, more economic disruptions, and sowing internal divisions within the administration’s own ranks.
█ Bismarck’s genius was not in opposing his enemies head-on, but in making their resistance obsolete. Radical Federalism must do the same. The goal is not to demand power back from Washington, but to force it into a position where recognizing state sovereignty is its only way out.
II. Metternich’s Web: How to Build a Coalition Too Strong to Ignore
(Or skip to the tl;dr below the divider for the executive summary)
At the height of the Napoleonic Wars, Klemens von Metternich (1773–1859) was tasked with preserving the Austrian Empire, a fragile, multi-ethnic state threatened by both external conquest and internal collapse. Austria was too weak to fight Napoleon alone, too politically unstable to risk revolution, and too exposed to survive on its own.
Metternich’s answer was not to fight directly, but to maneuver Austria into a position where its survival became essential to the entire European order. By weaving Austria into a web of alliances, legal agreements, and interlocking security arrangements, he made it impossible to attack Austria without unraveling the entire system.
Through strategic neutrality, perfectly timed betrayals, and masterful diplomacy, Metternich outlived Napoleon, outlasted revolutions, and secured Austria’s dominance for decades—despite the empire’s many inherent weaknesses.
How Metternich Turned Weakness into Strength
Unlike Bismarck, Metternich did not have the luxury of military dominance. Austria could not defeat its enemies outright, so Metternich ensured that any attack on Austria would destabilize Europe itself.
1. Playing Both Sides Until the Perfect Moment (1805–1813)
In the early Napoleonic Wars, Austria was too weak to resist France. Rather than launch a doomed war, Metternich kept Austria officially neutral while quietly preparing for the inevitable conflict. He secured concessions from Napoleon, rebuilt Austria’s military, and ensured that Austria would join the winning side only at the moment of Napoleon’s decline.
In 1813, he flipped. As Napoleon suffered defeats in Russia and Spain, Metternich led Austria into the anti-Napoleonic coalition at the perfect moment—ensuring that Austria would shape the postwar order rather than be crushed by it.
2. The Congress of Vienna (1814–1815): Ensuring Long-Term Survival
After Napoleon’s defeat, Metternich redesigned Europe at the Congress of Vienna. His goal was simple: make Austria’s security the foundation of the entire European system.
He structured borders, alliances, and treaties so that any attack on Austria would destabilize the entire continent.
He ensured that no single power (not Russia, not Prussia, not Britain) could dominate without risking coalition opposition.
He helped restore monarchies across Europe, ensuring that revolutionary movements remained isolated and Austria’s conservative order was reinforced.
This system—the Concert of Europe—kept Austria secure for nearly 40 years, even as revolutions and wars erupted elsewhere.
3. Parallel Governance: Building Structures That Could Survive Instability
Metternich understood that Austria was a fragile empire, vulnerable to nationalist uprisings and external threats. Rather than relying solely on military or legal control, he built a layered system of governance that could survive instability.
He integrated Austrian rule into a broader European framework, so that even if Austria lost a war, its influence remained intact through diplomatic agreements.
He centralized power without appearing to do so, ensuring that Austria controlled the security of multiple smaller states without formally annexing them.
He created institutional redundancies, so that if Austria’s direct authority was challenged, alternative mechanisms of control could take its place.
█ The result: Austria remained a dominant power despite its internal weaknesses, because Metternich ensured that its influence was too embedded to remove.
Lessons for Radical Federalism
The modern United States is facing its own Concert of Vienna moment. Trump’s regime is consolidating federal control, using financial retaliation, regulatory overreach, and legal coercion to crush state resistance. Any state that resists alone will be isolated and punished. But if multiple states form a coalition—legally, financially, and politically—they can create a system where federal overreach becomes self-destructive. And by implementing layered, redundant, dsitributed governance, states become resilient to attempts at detabilization.
Radical Federalism must not simply resist Washington, but build a structure that ensures any attack on one state destabilizes the entire federal order.
1. A Formal Multi-State Compact: Turning Resistance into a Legal Framework
Currently, state alliances—like the West Coast climate agreements or multi-state lawsuits against federal policies—are informal and easily fractured. That must change.
A binding Multi-State Sovereignty Compact must be established—legally2 committing participating states to coordinated resistance against federal overreach.
This compact should include shared legal strategies, resource pooling, and mutual obligations to defend each other in court, in policy, and in governance.
Any attempt by Washington to isolate one state should immediately trigger a coordinated response from all.
█ Washington must be forced to see that attacking one resistant state is equivalent to attacking an entire coalition.
2. Economic Mutual Aid: A Financial Firewall Against Federal Retaliation
Trump has already begun using federal funding as a weapon—threatening to withhold Medicaid funds, freezing infrastructure grants, and punishing states financially for opposing his policies. States must ensure that Washington’s financial leverage is neutralized before it can be fully deployed.
A Multi-State Economic Stability Fund should be created, pooling state resources into a shared financial reserve that can sustain states that lose federal funding.
States should create joint revenue mechanisms, ensuring that financial stability is built across state lines rather than being dependent on Washington.
A public banking system must be developed, so that states can finance their own infrastructure and public projects without relying on federally controlled financial institutions.
█ If Washington’s economic retaliation becomes ineffective, its primary tool of control collapses.
3. Interstate Legal Defense: A Coordinated Response to Federal Attacks
Currently, when Trump’s administration targets one state with lawsuits, regulatory rollbacks, or direct federal intervention, that state is often forced to fight alone. Metternich never allowed Austria to stand alone—every attack on Austria triggered a broader crisis. The same must be true for states resisting federal overreach.
A legal attack on one state must trigger an immediate response from all compact members—burying Washington in litigation across multiple jurisdictions.
Multi-state amicus briefs, simultaneous lawsuits, and legal coordination should be the norm, not the exception.
If Washington escalates legal battles, states should escalate in return—challenging federal authority in ways that force the courts to either overreach (destroying legitimacy) or concede (ceding control).
█ The goal is to ensure that no state fights alone—and that every federal move is met with overwhelming legal resistance.
4. Parallel Governance: Building Structures That Can Function Without Washington
Metternich built alternative structures of control, ensuring that Austria remained influential even when its direct authority was challenged. States must do the same—building governance systems that can function even if Washington escalates its crackdown.
State enforcement mechanisms should be strengthened—ensuring that state laws can be enforced without federal cooperation.
State-based regulatory agencies should be expanded, allowing states to enforce their own policies without relying on federal oversight.
Decentralization achieved by granting cities self-rule charters should be written into state constitutions, making governance layered and resilient to assault from multiple fronts.
█ The key is to ensure that states are functionally independent before Washington fully moves to consolidate power.
tl;dr Metternich
Metternich saved Austria not by defeating its enemies outright, but by building a system where any attack on Austria would unravel the European order itself. Radical Federalism must do the same.
The goal is not just resisting Washington, but ensuring that any federal overreach destabilizes the entire system.
How States Can Replicate This:
A Formal Multi-State Compact—committing states to coordinated action.
Economic Mutual Aid Agreements—ensuring states can resist funding cuts.
Interstate Legal Defense—burying the federal government in multi-state litigation.
Parallel Governance Systems—building enforcement, regulatory, and economic structures that function without Washington.
█ Metternich’s genius was not in fighting battles, but in making resistance so structurally embedded that Washington cannot act against one state without unraveling its own authority. Radical Federalism must do the same.
The Federal Government’s Dilemma: A No-Win Scenario for Washington
If states act in a truly strategic way, they will force the federal government into an impossible position. Washington will have to choose between:
Escalating enforcement against resistant states, which will fuel the Radical Federalist movement and increase public opposition.
Backing off, which allows states to solidify their autonomy and create permanent structures that reduce federal power.
Either way, Washington loses control. This is exactly what Bismarck did to Austria, and what Metternich did to Napoleon. It is how weaker powers outmaneuver stronger ones.
What States Must Do Right Now: The Staged Strategy for Reclaiming Power
Phase 1: Immediate Infrastructure—Fortify Before the Next Attack
Before the federal government escalates, states must secure their financial and legal foundation to withstand funding cuts and legal retaliation.
Pass State Public Banking Legislation
Ensure tax revenues are deposited in state-controlled financial institutions instead of federally regulated banks.
Begin offering public lending and infrastructure financing outside federal programs.
Launch a Multi-State Investment and Resilience Fund
Pool state resources into a mutual economic defense fund, ensuring continued governance in case of financial blackmail.
Secure private sector backing—corporate leaders and state pension funds should be incentivized to invest.
Draft a Formal State Sovereignty Treaty
Not just a compact—a binding legal agreement committing states to collective defense against federal coercion.
Phase 2: Preemptive Noncompliance—Set the Legal Terrain Before Washington Acts
The federal government must be forced into a position where its own legal enforcement apparatus becomes overwhelmed.
Identify Federal Policies for Immediate Noncompliance
Refuse enforcement of any federal policies that contradict state law.
Codify legal protections for state officials who refuse to comply with unconstitutional federal directives.
Pass State Anti-Commandeering Laws
Prohibit state resources (police, agencies) from assisting any federal enforcement actions that violate state sovereignty.
Guarantee legal and financial immunity to any state or local official who refuses federal cooperation.
Phase 3: Targeted Legal Warfare—Control the Courts as a Battlefield
Washington relies on judicial enforcement, but states can turn this into a legal crisis for the regime itself.
Multi-State Legal Warfare
Every single unconstitutional federal action must be met with immediate lawsuits from multiple states.
Drown the system—bury federal courts in litigation across multiple jurisdictions.
Legal Mutual Defense Pact
If Washington sues one state, all other states in the compact must immediately file amicus briefs and parallel lawsuits.
Ensure that any ruling against one state creates five new legal battles elsewhere.
Prepare Constitutional Litigation for the Next Crisis
The moment federal overreach escalates, states should be ready with pre-filed lawsuits challenging federal supremacy on economic and governance matters.
Phase 4: Open Financial and Governance Separation
Once structures are in place, states can begin openly disengaging from federal economic and regulatory control.
State-Led Taxation Models
Reclaim revenue from federal hands—begin collecting and managing state tax revenue independent of Washington’s control.
Implement tax structures that incentivize businesses to relocate to sovereignty-respecting states.
Regulatory Replacement
Build state-run alternatives to federally controlled agencies (environmental, financial, transportation) to undermine Washington’s ability to coerce compliance.
Align with private industry—make it easier for companies to comply with state regulations than federal ones.
Sever Federal Grant Dependencies
Stop applying for federal funds that come with political strings.
Offer state-funded alternatives to federal programs—ensuring continued service without Washington’s control.
A Multi-State Compact: The Core of the Strategy
To make all of this permanent, states must form a binding legal and economic coalition that makes federal overreach unworkable.
The State Sovereignty Treaty
If Washington targets one state, all signatories commit to coordinated retaliation—legal, financial, and political.
All legal, economic, and governance frameworks must be integrated across participating states to form a parallel infrastructure.
The State Resilience Fund
A shared financial reserve large enough to function as a shadow treasury.
Ensures states do not rely on Washington for continued financial security.
The Constitutional Rights Defense Network
A standing legal defense force for states, ensuring that any federal lawsuit against a single state immediately triggers a national counterattack.
█ Once this framework is in place, federal coercion becomes too costly to sustain. Washington will be forced to retreat—or collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
The Time for Playing Defense Is Over
So far, states have been reacting—filing lawsuits, enacting protections, hoping Washington still operates by the old rules.
That isn’t enough. The federal government is already ignoring legal challenges, defunding opposition states, and escalating executive power.
The only way forward is to make Washington’s continued overreach untenable. That means:
Forcing the federal government into no-win scenarios.
Creating economic and legal structures that function independently of federal control.
Building a coalition so strong that attacking one state destabilizes the entire system.
Radical Federalism is no longer an idea—it is a necessity.
Footnote:
Some sketches of what this might look like, while keeping in mind that the actual plays will be highly situational and case-specific, to be artfully deployed by state-level experts:
Guarantee supply chain disruption: Red-state manufacturing and agriculture depend on blue-state financial hubs, ports, and infrastructure. Cut the veins, and the body starves. Rising costs, stalled production, and broken logistics will force red-state legislators to act. They know it, their donors know it, and that knowledge presses down on the decision point before a single move is made.
Coordinate corporate and industry blowback: Major corporations operate across state lines. When investment freezes, jobs vanish, and tax revenue implodes, red-state lawmakers take the first hit. They can’t afford an economic war that kneecaps their own states. That’s why the pressure comes early, shaping the battlefield before the first strike.
Exploit the precedent and defection problem: Even when the national party marches in jackbooted lockstep, local leaders have their own ambitions. Red states are federal dependents—Medicaid, disaster relief, military bases. If Washington can strangle blue states today, it can do the same to them tomorrow. Some will see the danger. Others will see opportunity. The key is to force that fracture wide open.
No state survives when Washington turns federal funds into a weapon. The cracks are there. It’s just a matter of driving in the wedge.
A “binding compact” in this context is not an unassailable intergovernmental contract but a politically and practically enforceable agreement among states. Supreme Court precedent has long established that not all interstate agreements require congressional approval under the Compact Clause. In Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), the Court ruled that only agreements that increase state power at the expense of federal supremacy trigger the need for congressional consent. Subsequent cases, including U.S. Steel v. Multistate Tax Comm’n (1978) and Northeast Bancorp v. Board of Governors(1985), reaffirmed that states can align policies, coordinate regulations, and even establish administrative mechanisms without violating federal law, so long as each state retains independent authority to act.
States exploit this precedent by crafting agreements—whether through reciprocal legislation, parallel constitutional amendments as we will use rhe term here, or informal cooperation—that functionally bind them together without legally constituting a “compact” that would demand federal approval. Many multi-state collaborations, such as the Multistate Tax Compact, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and National Association of Insurance Commissioners, operate under this principle, demonstrating how states can create durable, cooperative frameworks while sidestepping federal intervention. The key is ensuring that states exercise powers they already hold individually, rather than creating a new shared sovereignty that could invite constitutional challenge.
By carefully designing agreements that fall within these legal parameters, states can achieve collective action, protect their autonomy, and build governance structures that function independently of Washington—without giving the federal government a clear legal opening to intervene.