What I was getting at is that we have not just a uniform set of laws nationwide, we have a fairly uniform national culture already, and the nationalization of political agendas such as the Right's social agenda moves in the direction of the imposition of a more and more uniform culture. Much of politics these days is about going far beyond necessary laws to keep peace and order, into the attempt to use law to impose one group's cultural ideals on to the entire country. What works--serves the needs of the people--in the South doesn't work at all in California. And vice versa.

Ya know, I'll say it before a Conservative says it: The Left has been guilty of trying to impose a national culture on America. As we sow, now have we reaped: We're on the receiving end of the Right's backlash and they're trying to do it to us. Maybe the lesson we should take from this is to reaffirm Federalism, which is, in a sense, to reaffirm Liberal belief in diversity.

The stickiest part of believing diversity is good is to defend people who think diversity is evil--the inner paradox always to be found inside tolerance. How do you tolerate intolerance? The answer is that you can't if you aim for a uniform national standard of "goodness"--you end up betraying your own principles and stamping out the outbreaks of the "wrong" kind of diversity.

Seems to me, and this isn't exactly a new epiphany, that the pragramatic solution is to allow greater regional diversity. Diversity, when it's allowed full flower, increases alternatives. While abortion may be outlawed in some states, if it's legal in others--and states don't resort to the underhanded tactic of criminalizing going elsewhere--then we have pretty effectively strengthened abortion rights by reducing the incentive for the social conservatives to try to outlaw it everywhere.

I don't think it's realistic to aim for creating a continental paradise. But I think that it is realistic to hope, anyway, that smaller regions with more internally-homogenous populations could get closer to their own vision of paradise.

"I would have to leave where I live."--perhaps so. I predicted a national multiway diaspora if the US broke up or the situation otherwise changed to allow regions more autonomy. From everything you've said about where you live, it sounds like you've had to make many compromises to get along with people whose views you don't share. The present national homogenization would, I'd think, mean that there might be other places a little better, and other places a little worse, but your range of choices is still pretty constricted: No matter where you go, there you are, in an America with a uniform culture which can be centrally controlled by whoever holds Washington.

If this hypothetical situation ever comes to pass, come to California. We'll provide shelter from the religious fanatics and the social Gestapo.

I didn't promise that there'd be no disruption if the US breaks into smaller pieces. But I think I can promise that after it's over, we'd all be happier on balance.