Hugh Chapman of Cumberland studies political science at Southern Maine Community College.

This is in response to Maine Republican Party Chairman James Deyermond’s recent op-ed (“After State of the Union, Maine is faced with a choice”). His piece was important, and I agreed with most of its points. My only objection concerns the nature of executive power and how it drives governmental reform.

President Trump and his administration have led many fundamental reforms in fiscal policy. Policies like no tax on tips and overtime inspire hope for a government that rewards hard work. Economic reform has also been on the agenda, with efforts to restore economic independence by encouraging American manufacturing work, a line of work that has struggled since the late 20th century — the dawn of modern globalism.

The need for these reforms is apparent. Government is expensive, and people can be trusted to know their own financial circumstances. Demands for lower taxes should never be brushed off. The government ought to treat the people as its shareholders, with an efficient and accountable management of funds to fetch the best returns on taxpayers’ investments.

Unsurprisingly, promising this, President Trump won the popular vote, just shy of 50% in 2024. His administration is regarded by many as the center of American restoration, so I can understand Chairman Deyermond’s enthusiasm for partnering with the administration.

But, although these reforms may serve the people, we should still be vigilant about the conduct of this administration. The spirit of our current leadership has sparked more animosity than any previous administration in recent years — far beyond necessity. Its response to the excesses of the left have been equally, if not more, excessive. Governance demands practicality, and it is simply impractical to infuse national politics with this much polarization.

Polarization has a cascade of negative consequences. It is infamous for its ability to create gridlock in Congress and state legislatures. This leaves the people with a dysfunctional legislative branch, and they must then resort to the presidency as the main driver of governmental change. Polarization also spurs partisan conflict, and conflict further increases overreliance on the presidency. As written by Alexander Hamilton, “It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.” (Federalist Papers No. 8).

Even if we could trust Trump to wield this increased power responsibly, the nation, with its primary branch of government diminished, would be in poor condition to sustain itself after he has left office. If our next president is not perfectly aligned with Trump, many of his reforms would likely be overwritten. Executive-driven change is a short-term investment.

In addition to the power imbalance between Congress and the presidency, the embroiled affairs of our country has left people feeling unsafe and uncertain about our future, instilling a sense of danger. This puts our very freedom at risk. Hamilton wrote, “[Danger] will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.” (Federalist Papers No. 8).

Out of respect for law and order, Maine should certainly participate with the federal government where possible. But given its oversights, I disagree that we should be in a hurry to partner with the administration. We should keep a cautious distance and proceed as opportunists, watching their actions with interest and vigilance, working with the administration on a case-by-case basis when in our best interests.

It would be to our benefit to focus on our state government. We should find ways to encourage more proactive engagement in state politics, reduce our polarization and get the people together to determine what Maine needs. We should independently develop our own fiscal and economic reforms, and restore our state’s legislative vitality — possibly by reforming the Legislature itself — to make our state government more efficient, stable and less reliant on a federal executive.