4.6: E Pluribus Unum?

One of the peculiarities of America is its grammar. The word United States looks like a plural noun but is treated as singular in contemporary American English: we say the United States is rather than the United States are. This wasn’t always the case: up until the early 20^th century, it was much more common to refer to the United States plurally, as a union of distinct states rather than as a cohesive nation.

This singular-plural quirk reflects the United States’ complicated history of national integration. It began as a collection of states uniting together under a common government, first to secure their independence from Great Britain and later to manage their peaceful coexistence on the continent. The unofficial motto of the United States, E pluribus unum — Latin for “Out of many, one” — expresses the Founders’ hope that the states would stand strong together while retaining their own political institutions and cultural identities.

Just as the word United States has become less plural and more singular over time, the country itself has gradually become more integrated, with power becoming less diffuse and more centralized. No doubt the Founders would be surprised (and perhaps dismayed) at the extent to which power has shifted from the state level to the national level. Yet the individual states persist — and with them, the unique challenges of maintaining a country that is simultaneously one thing and 50.

Federalism has done its job of holding the country together under a democratic system of government, but it hasn’t always been easy. At times the diversity of the states has made them seem nigh ungovernable. The Civil War strained the bonds of union almost to their breaking point. The Great Depression brought a mighty nation to its knees and prompted major changes to its governmental structure. The COVID-19 pandemic forced the United States to battle a devastating disease within the confines of a federal system. The next great test of American federalism might instigate a new evolution of the relationship between state and nation — or it might finally vindicate the doubters who believed large-scale democracies would inevitably either decay into dictatorship or crumble into anarchy.

Like most complex machines, America consists of many interlocking parts. Properly assembled and tuned, it can be a powerful and versatile tool for democratic governance. But keeping it in working condition is a delicate task. Tighten the parts too much and the machine might jam up; loosen them too much and the machine might fall apart. Finding that sweet spot in between too tight and too loose is a perennial challenge of American politics.