Americans Can’t Stand Each Other, So Let’s Stop Forcing Our Preferences on One Another

[EasyAce]

If you want to avoid conflict among hostile groups, decentralize power—preferably to individuals
By J.D. Tuccille
http://reason.com/archives/2018/04/10/americans-cant-stand-each-other-so-lets

As a display of Americans' seemingly growing intolerance for one another, last week presented something of a perfect storm. The flash career of a prominent conservative writer at The Atlantic, the seeming endorsement by several tech executives of one-party rule, and the president waging war against businesses to punish media companies that criticize him provide the latest suggestions that some Americans don't play well together and should probably withdraw to separate corners . . .

. . . Americans increasingly want very different things from their political system. "(I)n recent years, the gaps on several sets of political values in particular—including measures of attitudes about the social safety net, race and immigration—have increased dramatically," Pew Research Center reported last October. Just two weeks ago, Pew added that while Democrats and Republicans embrace their political loyalties out of support for their preferred policies, "sizable majorities in both parties cite the other party's harmful policies as a major factor" . . .

. . . [W]hy treat every political preference as a collective endeavor that must be imposed on the unwilling? This country started as a federal system, with most decisions devolved downwards on the premise that each state should be entitled to indulge in stupid political experiments without dragging in the neighbors. Reviving federalism would continue to give dissenters to California's experiment in one-party rule borders to run across if it turns out to be something of a mistake . . .

. . . Relatively unburdened by impositions from our political enemies, we might feel less compelled to resist alien views with bursts of righteous and intolerant outrage. Reducing centralized power and decision-making would also have the very real benefit of stripping thin-skinned government officials of the power to punish critics and enemies.

And who knows? If power is devolved far enough—to individuals, by preference—we might even come to see our divergent views as harmless eccentricities rather than existential threats.

[LauraTXNM]

This is an interesting idea, but (without reading the article yet ;)), is it possible?

[EasyAce]

This is an interesting idea, but (without reading the article yet ;)), is it possible?

@LauraTXNM
Well, it does help to read the article.

As for whether it's possible, it probably is possible---with a major sea-change in too many attitudes.

[LauraTXNM]

Ok, so I read the article at the source -- I had assumed there was a lot more than your excerpt, but there wasn't much, was there ;)?  I guess I'm not sure how decision-making would devolve down to individuals more than it already has. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think the general idea is great, although the idea of devolving authority to individuals is essentially arguing for very limited government which is a conservative idea.  The liberals want to order society according to their own vision, and use everyone else's tax dollars to do it.

Where I think he has a more practical point is in at least devolving governmental power to lower levels.  In other words, people who want to live in leftist urban enclaves can do so, while the rest of us can choose to live elsewhere with much less government.

Except the reality is that is already our system.  We have separate levels of government, and if the left was willing to abide by that, they'd do so.  But they aren't.  The urban leftists want to dictate policies and beliefs to everyone in the country -- it's inherent in their ideology.

[EasyAce]

I guess I'm not sure how decision-making would devolve down to individuals more than it already has.

Too many times, the individual has to make decisions less according to his or her real need, real desire, or real belief, and more according to what
government has first pre-empted, or into what government has stuck its nose. And I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that government has
stuck its nose into too many things regardless of whether it is competent or constitutionally sanctioned to do so.

[LauraTXNM]

I think the general idea is great, although the idea of devolving authority to individuals is essentially arguing for very limited government which is a conservative idea.  The liberals want to order society according to their own vision, and use everyone else's tax dollars to do it.

Where I think he has a more practical point is in at least devolving governmental power to lower levels.  In other words, people who want to live in leftist urban enclaves can do so, while the rest of us can choose to live elsewhere with much less government.

Except the reality is that is already our system.  We have separate levels of government, and if the left was willing to abide by that, they'd do so.  But they aren't.  The urban leftists want to dictate policies and beliefs to everyone in the country -- it's inherent in their ideology.

I see that going both ways, with same-sex marriage, national gun license reciprocity, and abortion availability as examples.  I think all of those things could be done State-by-State, but no one seems happy with that.  I don't know how it would work with something like "sanctuary" states.

[truth_seeker]

Settle it thusly:

--The Constitution guarantees me of my right to own a gun

However if you don't want one, suit yourself

--The Constitution guarantees me of my right to free speech.

However if you don't want to speak, hold your tongue.

The one thing the constitution does NOT guarantee, is taking my rights away.