Restoring Everyday Freedom through Governance & Legal Reform in the U.S.

The article “How to Restore Everyday Freedom in America” by Dean Kehler highlights the perceived decline in personal agency caused by legal and regulatory systems that favor rigid, universal rules over discretionary judgment. Using Philip Howard’s new book Everyday Freedom as its core reference, Kehler frames the problem as one of a cultural crisis where government processes have undermined individuals’ ability to act responsibly and contribute meaningfully. The book links real-world examples—such as extended infrastructure permitting and defensive institutional behavior—that illustrate how legalistic rigidity causes delays, inefficiency, and loss of trust both among institutions and within citizens. [1]

Howard’s proposed solution is a governing paradigm shift: simplifying and collapsing regulatory burdens, restoring discretion and personal responsibility, empowering local institutions (charities, communities, local governments), and reframing legal process to allow for moral judgment, risk taking, and what he calls “value-based action.” [1] The bridge replacement example in Pennsylvania—accelerated from 12 months to 12 days by throwing out the “rule book” in favor of urgency combined with trust—is used as a case in point. [1]

These themes are corroborated by empirical data indicating measurable declines in American freedoms. According to analyses from sources like the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Freedom House, and V-Dem, the U.S. has seen declines in economic freedom since 2020, and sharper drops in personal and civil liberties. For example, the Heritage Index shows a six-point decline for the U.S. in economic freedom among G-7 countries; while Cato’s Human Freedom Index ranks the U.S. fifth in economic freedoms but only twenty-seventh in personal freedoms. [2][3]

From an investment banking perspective, this suggests several strategic considerations. Regulatory risk may become a focal point: firms might find advantages in operational flexibility, shorter approval cycles, and regulatory forbearance. Markets may increasingly favor businesses adept at navigating decentralized or fragmented regulatory regimes. Local governments and non-state actors may gain importance. On the political front, candidates and parties emphasizing “return to common sense” governance, deregulation, and restoration of civil trust are likely to gain traction.

However, open questions include: how do we balance the need for regulatory oversight (protecting environment, minority rights, financial stability) with the push for less central control? Which legal reforms are politically viable in polarized contexts? How will local institutions ensure consistency, fairness, and reduce the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory practices? And what metrics or mechanisms would ensure accountability under looser regulatory systems?