This kind of thinking, with blinders on big time, is really what prevents the cohesion of any society. I really get fed up with large sectors of the Left, but when I read what the opposition has to offer in constructive thinking, I go looking for the nearest Leftie to hug. At least, they are not afraid to look up from their doctrines to see real people in real life stuggles.

Leftist politics mislabeled “law” is no surprise.

As to wanting to get into the Cabinet, more realistically you have to hope for the House, and given the extremism we’ve seen from the three of you, your only hope is proportional representation with a safely small threshold (minimum vote fraction to get at least one seat).

In our contemporary world, this is not federalism, but nationalism that you are describing. This has been true in particular in the USA (replacement of constitutional federal republic with de facto unitary state governed in Washington) since the 1930s. The Left has been very much in favor of centralization and concentration of power in Washington. The Left is also often in favor of metropolitan area unification.

Note that there are limits to what can be expected for this, because neither the contiguous 48 states nor the world is heterogeneous. No normal person takes seriously the concept of “global” or “world” “citizen.” Even modern nationalism isn’t achieveable yet in many places (including Iraq) where allegiance lies with one’s religious sect, not to mention one’s extended family or tribe.

The reason we formed a Union wasn’t for any dippy leftist multiculturalist objective but to bind together for strength against foreign adversaries.

Precisely – that is the problem with multiculturalism. Multiculturalism may be, in the abstract, a well intended concept. Unfortunately, multiculturalism as it is practiced in all of the western countries rapidly degenerates into identity politics. The most divisive and toxic identity politics are those of ethnic and gender based divisions, as we have seen in the Duke lacrosse hoax. I think Theodore Roosevelt was correct when he argued that ‘hyphenated Americans’ were putting their place of origin ahead of their new country. IF anything as large as the United States is to work as a governable institution, it must have an overarching sense of identity as a whole. Ponder the implications of that, if you are arguing for the EU, or the UN to govern effectively. I am not saying that these bodies cannot succeed, but I am suggesting that they must develop a unifying sense of the whole, in which the members accept the overarching body’s legitimacy. If this be federalism, so be it. . .

I suspect, though, that a requirement for this to hold true is that everyone identify with the whole more strongly than his own subgroup.
When the totality is large, it becomes impersonal, and individuals revert to satisfying the need for a sense of belonging to a smaller group within the totality. At the least, there would be a pull and tug between considering the whole and the subgroup.

We are all Americans. But we divide pretty quickly into subgroups when policies are discussed.

The missing ingredients are respect for the other and putting the good of the whole above that of one’s own group. Could it be that ;Amertica’ is just too large a concept to keep in mind when debating domestic issues? How else to explain our current state of divisiveness?

In other words, I wonder if ordinary people are capable of realizing the potential benefit of pluralism.

If offered, I will not accept. If appointed, I will not serve….with fascists.

Liberty or death…..death before dishonor.

Not quite sure where you thought this subject piece ought to head.

I assume we are not talking about its specific application to the legal system.

So, therefore, you could be:

1. Priming the federalism discussion pump for Fred Thompson announcing his candidacy.

2. Priming the multiculturism discussion pump through the side door.

3. Setting up the notion that Shaun, White Agent and Chris ought to be appointed Bush cabinet members in the interest of differing perspectives.