Part of that tension is what's led to the the current situation with COVID— the federal government is where the CDC is, so there's an expectation that they're the ones providing centralized coordination and guidance for a measured, unified, national response.

If each state has its own version of the CDC (and other similar agencies), then that's fine, but they also need to have a lot more sovereignty over things like (in this case) being able to close their borders to neighbouring states whose agencies may have come to differing conclusions about what measures are needed.

> I would prefer that states have more power and we further decentralize authority away from the federal government.

No EPA. No DOE. No equality under the law. No EOC. No NLRB. No Amtrak. No federal enforcement of consent decrees. No voting right act. No gay marriage, etc?

Edit: Thanks for downvotes. Every single one of these is enforced by federal and not state courts. It is federal court that gave us Roe v. Wade, for example. It is a federal court that prevents Alabama from running its own little fiefdom. It is a federal courts that gave us Brown v. Board of Education.

Already tried that, the first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. The founders quickly discovered the federal government was too weak.

But alas, one of those founders, Jefferson, argued we should rewrite the constitution every 19 years.

And another founder, Hamilton, argued that ambition must be made to counteract ambition. And that government is a reflection on human nature, most directly its citizens. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp

I wouldn't.

There is a comfort that comes from the instability of party switches. The parties don't cooperate, which means less can get done. Anything that puts anyone in an area where one of the gangs of politicians can actually do something, is to be avoided. We've learned that the hard way in Wisconsin.

As a general rule, it's always best to split up your government as much as you can.

If we kept a common market, and common currency, you would see lots of failed states like we’ve seen with Greece in the EU.

The resolution you choose has some stark effects on the narrative that you will allow yourself to be convinced of. The idea of "red state, blue state" is a peculiar consequence of a winner-take-all presidential election system, and does not adequately represent reality. An underlying truth, viewed at another resolution, is that there are red and blue densities moreso than states [0]. The current (and changing) distribution of densities across the states has currently led to what you perceive as the "red state, blue state" situation, when zoomed out and with a blur filter applied

For example, take a useful look at CityLab's Congressional Density Indicator [1]. There are zero "pure urban" districts that are represented by Republicans, regardless of the state (red, blue, purple), and there are nearly none among the "urban-suburban mix" districts (again regardless of state).

Viewed through yet another lens, by percentage of landmass, Alabama is more is more "blue" than Illinois and Oregon [2]. Your characterization could use a little more thought and refinement.

[0] https://www.niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Wi... (see section beginning page 12)

[1] https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/citylab-congressional...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-201...

The abolition of slavery was worth it. But the failure of Reconstruction allowed the south to backside right where they were.

In the apocryphal words of president Andrew Jackson: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"