I've always had the opinion that there should be more local control of political/governmental functions but especially now, after the election, I think it makes even more sense than ever (Especially since I don't agree at all with the type of people in charge of the federal government right now -> Christian Right/Neo Conservatives).
Red States or Red Regions obviously have different priorities than blue states do. My argument in a nutshell is, let every state live with their values and beliefs and see how they do. Do their values create a eutopia or a slum? Does banning abortion and gay marriage help their economies flurish or flounder? Does healthcare hurt or help jobs growth? Does education funding attract companies or push them away?
Read more below the fold...
I believe that with a country twice the size of Europe (at least land mass wise) and as culturally diverse as it is. Doesn't it make sense to let states control a lot of the governmental functions/laws? Most states are already the size of other countries (California is the world's 5th largest economy). If they don't want Health Insurance, quality education, a liveable wage, strong workers rights, gay marriage and stem cell research let them live without it. Also start equalizing the federal dollars that return to states ( here's why ) and shrink the size of the federal government. Then states can enjoy the benefits or problems their local laws create.
Just have a look at what Governor Dean was able to do in Vermont. Dean didn't wait for the Federal Government to provide a higher minimum wage, a prescription benefit plan for seniors or universal health care, he just went ahead and did it for Vermont. The same thing goes for Stem Cell Research in California (let Mel Gibson move to Utah!). California is going to be the Silicon Valley for Stem Cell Research while other states are left out because the 'moral dilemma' Stem Cell Research creates.
If people don't like the values of their state they can move to one that they do. The Federal Government basicially will only be a shell for implementing basic things like national defense etc. The United States would become more like the E.U. where local governments have strong power to legislate things like abortion, gay marriage, health care, minimum wage etc.
Sound like a Republican idea?
Well, it might be, because Democrats were in control of the Federal Government for so long that Republicans took that position in order to minimize the influence Democrats had on red states. Republicans supposedly were always for a smaller federal government, but just look what happened once they got into power -> "George W. Bush has presided over the largest increases in inflation-adjusted discretionary spending since Lyndon Johnson." (CATO Institute)
Before Bush came into office I considered myself an Independent. Somebody who would have voted for Guilliani, Schwarzenegger, McCain if I had lived in those states and somebody who agreed with a lot of what so-called "Wall Street Republicans" said. But I was fundamentally a blue-state type of person somebody who more or less agreed with the moderate opinion in blue states. I became much more of a partisan-Democrat during this election because of Howard Dean (who I was a big supporter of) and the right-wing/neo conservative presidency of George W. Bush.
The bi-product of stronger states rights would be less divisivness and partisanship in Washington D.C. because a lot of these so-called "wedge issues" would be off the table and nobody would be ramming their values/beliefs down anybodies else's throat those would be handled on the state level.