oh man
@nickqt must be wetting himself with excitement. finally, federalism is being (accidentally, admittedly) used to let red states have their way!
Strong Federalism as I advocate for would allow Blue States like California to do things in a California way, while Red States like Alabama can do things in an Alabama way, without favoring one state over another. California gets to use it's share of Federal funding for California things, Alabama can use its share of Federal funding for Alabama things.
California might do something that would protect workers. Alabama will obviously gut assistance to the poor. Then voters in both places can choose to continue supporting the people who decide how that funding gets allocated. Perhaps dipshits who vote for the GOP in Red States will change their minds once they're actually allowed to "benefit" from GOP Policy that they actively vote for.
As long as Red State voters get to vote for the GOP while being protected from the GOP due to Democratic and Blue State protections, they're going to keep voting for the GOP.
This isn't ignoring the pain that comes with Strong Federalism. It is embracing the fact that a lot of voters vote for Leopards and the Blue State voters who they loathe protect them from the Leopards.
And to be clear, this is just an intermediary step in a long process whereby the US winds down as an Empire. There are people on these very forums who call for a national divorce, and I can assure you with 100% certainty that a national divorce results in civil war and is much more painful than Strong Federalism.
Ultimately, I don't want Republicans in charge, ever, anywhere. I've been posting that blog link (I'll go ahead and post it again, thanks for the @) because I believe that it's either Strong Federalism, or it's civil war.
Or maybe I'm just crazy and everything is just fine.
Linkypoo:
https://www.politicalorphans.com/democrats-should-weaponize-federalism/