That's an interesting point you raised when you talked about the shape of the electoral map in 20 years if more power devolved back to the States. The conventional Red/Blue state map's solid blotches of color hide the rich complexity of the American electorate. The map becomes distinctly mottled when the scale is increased to show counties, and at the scale of cities the map shows a distinct city versus country patterning.

Maybe it's the hammer and nail phenomenon, but I see this as related to my observations about the problems created by the rise in power of the two political parties. The submergence of individuality in the scales of the map is a nice metaphor for the problem: Both Parties are absolutely adamant about pursuing a strategy of "nationalizing elections", by which they mean requiring the entire country to debate a uniform agenda. It reduces their workload considerably, but the rest of us a terrible disservice. There is no room for local concerns in that regime, and I think that that contributes mightily to the appearance of cultural homogeneity these days. I think that, along with a bit more Federalism, prying the icy grip of the Parties off the agendae will restore more power to States and localities, and I can't help but expect that that would restore cultural diversity to America.

Rereading that paragraph, I seem to have come around somewhat to supporting the Conservative view of Federalism, melding it with the Liberal value of diversity. I think there's an inherent contradiction in the past practice of trying to foster diversity through imposition of a national legal and social regime, just as much as it's been loathesome to try and impose Conservative values on the entire nation. I don't see this view as really threatening of Liberal values...for example, consider how much more Liberal Washington State and California and Massachusetts could be without the constraints of a national values system. Conversely, Red states could become redder...and all will be peace in the land...(don't laugh, that's tongue-in-cheek. But it would do away with many of the artificial sources of conflict between us as we play the game as pawns of Parties.)

The assumption on both sides that American culture is controlled by a national agenda and value system raises the stakes in politics unnecessarily high. It forces a winner-takes-all mentality completely at odds with live-and-let-live. We can't afford to live-and-let-live only as long as losing a national battle means having to conform to somebody else's value system. This is an absolutely nonpartisan statement, of course--"live-and-let-live" means you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone, no exceptions for religious fanaticism etc.

I think that breaking the power of Parties will also naturally achieve more Federalism. Think about the present absurdity of trying to get representatives of two nationally-oriented Parties to relinquish their control of the national agenda. There's nothing in it for them, lots of extra work, and plenty to lose. So we first have to break the national Parties, and more local control will follow naturally.