Professor: Split Up the U.S.

[William Joyce]

It's way too big to be a meaningful democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/opinion/10alperovitz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Oh, yes. The United States is basically a government. It ceased to be a "nation" in any sense of the word in the early 1960's.

A recent study by the economists Alberto Alesina of Harvard and Enrico Spolaore of Tufts demonstrates that the bigger the nation, the harder it becomes for the government to meet the needs of its dispersed population. Regions that don’t feel well served by the government’s distribution of goods and services then have an incentive to take independent action, the economists note.

Scale also determines who has privileged access to the country’s news media and who can shape its political discourse. In very large nations, television and other forms of political communication are extremely costly. President Bush alone spent $345 million in his 2004 election campaign. This gives added leverage to elites, who have better corporate connections and greater resources than non-elites. The priorities of those elites often differ from state and regional priorities.

 

[Annie]

It's way too big to be a meaningful democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/opinion/10alperovitz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Oh, yes. The United States is basically a government. It ceased to be a "nation" in any sense of the word in the early 1960's.

A recent study by the economists Alberto Alesina of Harvard and Enrico Spolaore of Tufts demonstrates that the bigger the nation, the harder it becomes for the government to meet the needs of its dispersed population. Regions that don’t feel well served by the government’s distribution of goods and services then have an incentive to take independent action, the economists note.

Scale also determines who has privileged access to the country’s news media and who can shape its political discourse. In very large nations, television and other forms of political communication are extremely costly. President Bush alone spent $345 million in his 2004 election campaign. This gives added leverage to elites, who have better corporate connections and greater resources than non-elites. The priorities of those elites often differ from state and regional priorities.

I don't know if at this point I would disagree. Once the 'federal government' consolidated its power, by subsuming nearly all that had been state powers, leaving them just enough power to keep taxing heavily, the 'government' indeed became too big. Most of us pay much more in taxes-income, property, sales, and hidden taxes to the state, little of which is returned in benefits to the taxpayers. Yet more and more, the laws which are effecting us most directly are not coming from the government most closely based to us, but to the 'fed.'