A Way Forward-and its "Progressive"

After seeing all the bickering going on about the "Great Political Divide" in the US, I stumbled upon an idea that warrants some serious consideration. Put briefly, a "Progressive" (and a Canadian living in the US, I believe), has proposed the way forward would be a reboot to Federalism, a move to "extreme" localism in terms of governance. The idea simply is that the country is to big, to diverse for a central government to effectively manage. The great divide is obviously between the "Blue Dots" or near semi-autonomous city states and the surrounding "Red" zones that are so culturally different from the Blue City States that trying to accommodate the needs of both is nearly impossible. I think this idea has merit. The cities needs are best addressed by themselves, leaving the Red zones to fend for themselves. But as its noted, the Red zones do have resources they can call upon to improve their economic plight.

Here's an excerpt from the article to get you started: from: www.politico.com...

Right after the election, I reached out to my chief critic and sparring partner Joel Kotkin, a fellow at Chapman University, to co-author an op-ed for the Daily Beast on the need for devolution and local empowerment. Kotkin has been writing about the need for increased localism as a counterbalance to what he calls the top-down “neo-feudalism” of the progressive agenda, while I come from the more progressive camp. Still, we agree that devolution and local empowerment hold the key to overcoming our political divides, respecting the very real differences between urban, suburban and rural areas, and enabling local communities and local leaders to address their opportunities and challenges on their own, unconstrained by federal interference. The fact that erstwhile enemies like Kotkin and I were able to come together on this issue and become genuine colleagues, collaborators and friends signals that this is an area where real bipartisan consensus is possible.

By lowering the stakes at the national level, devolution is perhaps the only conceivable way Red and Blue America can respect one another’s differences and coexist. Want lower taxes? Fine, but you’ll have to live with fewer services too, because blue cities will no longer subsidize you. Don’t like Obamacare? Fine, you don’t have to take it. But the uninsured that live in your red states will know who is to blame for their plight. Don’t like transgender people having the right to use the bathroom of their choosing? Fine, make your red cities and towns bastions of transphobism—but don’t impose your intolerance on the rest of us. We can agree to disagree, as long as both sides are willing to live with the consequences. Liberal cities will keep their tax dollars at home and spend them as they see fit.

If you have time, you might want to read this rather caustic, near hateful piece from New Republic about the "New Federalism"; I found it to be quite compelling and basically the author calls for a "Bluexit" from the former US.

newrepublic.com...

Read, ponder, enjoy and debate!

(I have to go now because the cable guy is here, but I'll be back of a day).
Thanks!

a reply to: TonyS

I totally agree.

Most of the services and laws we need to run as a society are already at the state and local level. The only thing the Feds add is a common defense and a crappy common fiat currency.

Washington DC could fall into the Atlantic and we would all be fine.

I look forward to reading this when I have time. I'm curious how the semi-autonomous blue dots produce their own food, water, and power, and where they find the space for waste disposal.

I'm definitely for decentralization. I also believe all federal social programs should be ended & the money used on them should be used to create a national wage. Under our current budget, excluding social programs, everyone over 18, who makes less than $50k per year & has a net worth less than $300k could receive a yearly national wage of @ $30k per year. They could then use that money for basic needs which the old social programs use to provide, like healthcare, education, food, housing, etc. in the free market. If a national wage were implemented: minimum wage would no longer be needed, crime would decrease, there would be no incentive for poorer people to have children & 2 parent households would have more money to raise kids which may help restore traditional family values. I believe it would also create an economic surge & all the former federal employees could get real jobs which help increase production & innovation in the economy compared to the government/corporate racketeering which is done now. This can all be done without raising taxes & maybe even lowering them.

a reply to: TonyS
Who are cities going to get the money needed to function? Where will they get their food or energy? I like how well you have thought this out. Lol. Maybe every Left leaning person should move to the Urban centers of our large cities, I'm sure they will love the services provided.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
I look forward to reading this when I have time. I'm curious how the semi-autonomous blue dots produce their own food, water, and power, and where they find the space for waste disposal.

That's why he said the "red zones" have "resources to help their economic plight". Trade.

The blue zones have all the people and skyscrapers and cubicles, and corporations, and entertainment and international commodities and cash. The red zones have...food, water, oxygen (clean), land, trees, minerals, wildlife, oil... Oh I think they'll get through their "plight" somehow.

They're very resourceful people, you know...