Nothing other than cost and logistics. Massachusetts had “RomneyCare” before ObamaCare existed for the country as a whole.
The fact that now state-level reforms and policies aren’t pursued is partially a symptom of the American people become national-authority simps.
And it’s partially because Democrats and Republicans seem determined to make everyone follow their interpretation of the rules. Most of American politics at this point seems to be about “hurting the right people.”
Lastly, most key wedge issues in the United States are often fundamentally moral questions that relate to constitutionality, making it impossible to allow some states to, for instance, hold slaves, allow child labor, allow abortion, allow religious fascism in public schools, allow racial discrimination, etc., without other states prevailing on the bedrock morality of the constitution.
I.e., the United States does not, as a singular country, remotely agree on fundamental ethics that can form a foundation for a coherent nation that would then allow for more state-level experimentation. The are certainly “different” states though. Look at Vermont vs. New Hampshire for instance. They’re quite different despite being bordering states.
Yes, I agree. That’s why I wrote that Americans have forgotten how to do federalism. Like, I get that states rights used to mean fucking slavery and you needed a strong central government to keep the southern racists from lynching people, but how else are you going to manage such a vast space and remain a democracy in the 21st century?
The moral issues you guys are culture warring over are nowhere near as grave as slavery or segregation now.
Not only that, but you have also concentrated the arbitration of these cosmic moral wedge issues on like what 10 people? President, SCOTUS, and whatever Manchin figure is the Senate kingmaker of the year. No wonder it’s breaking at the seams.
Yeah, that’s why I mentioned that the United States has basically become national authority simps. “Voting” these days for most people is synonymous with presidential elections.
That being said, for many people, issues like abortion, trans and gay segregation/discrimination, legal slavery of prisoners, mass and school shootings, and the rates of violence and murder against: Indigenous, black, etc men and women are fairly serious and important issues that are, if not equal, relatively close in terms of moral outrage to lynching and slavery. I can understand that you don’t see it that way though.
Don’t get me wrong, I am passionate about civil and economic rights in Quebec. But I accept that certain rules change at the Vermont border. The question even the most ardent internationalist must ask is at what threshold do things in another jurisdiction become so intolerable that they would need to get personally involved and intervene in another People’s business. In international law, which we can take as the base rate, that threshold is pretty high, at crimes against humanity-ish. From there it goes down. How far down? Depends on the balance different communities are willing to strike. Inter-community intervention also has its own catastrophic consequences. There is no right answer of course but I strongly suspect the contemporary American one is not it.
You must also recognize you’re not getting an unbiased source here online. What are the true differences? I suspect us Americans are more likely than most to complain about politics, to “air our dirty laundry”. I’m not really disagreeing with your points but the differences in real life might be smaller than you’d think from some of these discussions
Nothing other than cost and logistics. Massachusetts had “RomneyCare” before ObamaCare existed for the country as a whole.
The fact that now state-level reforms and policies aren’t pursued is partially a symptom of the American people become national-authority simps.
And it’s partially because Democrats and Republicans seem determined to make everyone follow their interpretation of the rules. Most of American politics at this point seems to be about “hurting the right people.”
Lastly, most key wedge issues in the United States are often fundamentally moral questions that relate to constitutionality, making it impossible to allow some states to, for instance, hold slaves, allow child labor, allow abortion, allow religious fascism in public schools, allow racial discrimination, etc., without other states prevailing on the bedrock morality of the constitution.
I.e., the United States does not, as a singular country, remotely agree on fundamental ethics that can form a foundation for a coherent nation that would then allow for more state-level experimentation. The are certainly “different” states though. Look at Vermont vs. New Hampshire for instance. They’re quite different despite being bordering states.
Yes, I agree. That’s why I wrote that Americans have forgotten how to do federalism. Like, I get that states rights used to mean fucking slavery and you needed a strong central government to keep the southern racists from lynching people, but how else are you going to manage such a vast space and remain a democracy in the 21st century?
The moral issues you guys are culture warring over are nowhere near as grave as slavery or segregation now.
Not only that, but you have also concentrated the arbitration of these cosmic moral wedge issues on like what 10 people? President, SCOTUS, and whatever Manchin figure is the Senate kingmaker of the year. No wonder it’s breaking at the seams.
Yeah, that’s why I mentioned that the United States has basically become national authority simps. “Voting” these days for most people is synonymous with presidential elections.
That being said, for many people, issues like abortion, trans and gay segregation/discrimination, legal slavery of prisoners, mass and school shootings, and the rates of violence and murder against: Indigenous, black, etc men and women are fairly serious and important issues that are, if not equal, relatively close in terms of moral outrage to lynching and slavery. I can understand that you don’t see it that way though.
Don’t get me wrong, I am passionate about civil and economic rights in Quebec. But I accept that certain rules change at the Vermont border. The question even the most ardent internationalist must ask is at what threshold do things in another jurisdiction become so intolerable that they would need to get personally involved and intervene in another People’s business. In international law, which we can take as the base rate, that threshold is pretty high, at crimes against humanity-ish. From there it goes down. How far down? Depends on the balance different communities are willing to strike. Inter-community intervention also has its own catastrophic consequences. There is no right answer of course but I strongly suspect the contemporary American one is not it.
Yeah, well put. I generally agree.
You must also recognize you’re not getting an unbiased source here online. What are the true differences? I suspect us Americans are more likely than most to complain about politics, to “air our dirty laundry”. I’m not really disagreeing with your points but the differences in real life might be smaller than you’d think from some of these discussions