We're witnessing the disconnect between people's belief that a central gov. should rule over 330 million & their reaction when that power is utilized (just not in their favor).

It's enough schadenfreude to make all those anti-federalists so despised today rise from the grave.

Your friendly reminder that in 1776 there were roughly 2.5 million people in the American colonies. Even then, some thought a central government ruling over the entire population was too big and too dangerous.

Does this not help explain the dysfunction we face? We're expected to share the same common views with millions of people we have nothing in common with, except the same central government. To insist political unity is neither natural nor healthy.

Who knows what the future holds, but it's clear that the current geopolitical situation is unsustainable. The only remaining question is how the U.S. responds - does it proactively address the issues, or does it keep barreling down the same path its on until it implodes?

Is it not ironic that the same people who argue the U.S. and its constitution was founded on immoral concepts can't contemplate a world without the U.S. as a political entity, or even without the federal government as its central authority?

If we're going to go with "what the Founding Fathers would do," most of them saw the U.S. as an experiment that might not necessarily pan out. They didn't see the country, as opposed to the states, as existing for its own sake. .

The reason why we can't have these conversations is because too many people would have an existential crisis. One of the reason is due to what Nietzsche called "ressentiment." People's political identities are rooted in what they are opposed to, not what they believe in.

Others are in the U.S. fundamentally for economic reasons, and that is the basis for their political identity with other U.S. citizens with whom they have nothing else in common. Again, an identity crisis would result.