Also how do different parts of the US have different needs?
Ideological diversity can be measured by simply conducting public opinion polls on a range of public policy issues (social, economic, foreign, domestic, etc etc). This is a pretty well established science. Add in the distribution of said opinions -- a lot of different opinions in about the same mix everywhere is much different from large concentrated enclaves in different geographic regions (ie the Big Sort[1]).
As for different needs, before we even get into ideology simple geography dictates a lot already. California has a lot of forest fires, Louisiana and Texas have a lot of floods, New England has a lot of snow.
Then you get into urban vs. rural -- America has some of the most vast expanses of rural land and many of the world's biggest cities. Urban areas have very different needs from rural ones.
THEN you get into the differing needs of the peoples themselves which is affected by a million different variables. Education levels. Income levels. Health. Languages spoken in different regions. Populations with many recent immigrants have differing legal and social needs from populations of ninth generation native-born citizens. And on and on and on.
You seem to be implying that the US is the only place with diversity and that that somehow is an excuse for the US not having social security measures common in other countries.
Also what is the range of opinions in the US and how does it compare with the range of opinions in Norway?
> THEN you get into the differing needs of the peoples themselves which is affected by a million different variables. Education levels. Income levels. Health. Languages spoken in different regions. Populations with many recent immigrants have differing legal and social needs from populations of ninth generation native-born citizens. And on and on and on.
But are these requirements really that fundamentally different?
100% nope. Where did you get that? I'm in favor of social safety nets. This entire thread is about how easy it is to enact things like "No petrol based cars by 2025".
That's easy to do when you've got 4 million people spread over a small amount of space who come from similar backgrounds. That's harder to do with 300 million people spread over a large amount of space who come from different backgrounds. A small club is much easier to manage than a large club, I don't see what's so hard to comprehend about this.
> But are these requirements really that fundamentally different?
Yes... insofar as you get groups of people who stop thinking that it's their responsibility to cover the costs of the other group. Should people in North Dakota pay for national flood insurance of people who live in southern flood prone regions, even though it's basically guaranteed to flood there eventually? Should people in New Hampshire pay to replace homes lost in california forest fires even though it's basically guaranteed to burn in certain places? What you think is "right" on this issue doesn't matter. What matters is that people in those regions have differing opinions on the matter, and it is objectively harder to get them all to agree than a small country where people tend to have the same problems concentrated in a small place they all share.
Throw in the really controversial stuff like social issues, and the left and the right constantly trying to push their vision of it on the whole country at once, and you can see why maintaining a continent sized empire is more logistically challenging that keeping a small country together.
