I love reading pretty much any debate about Federalism, from either side of the isle. COVID-19 has shown exactly how a terrible federal response can be saved by some states, while others exacerbate problems.

I am a pretty big supporter of states' rights in theory. In practice and when looking at history, the way that this plays out is usually different than I would have hoped. I appreciate Rocco's discussion and comparing the two arguments. Against Federalism:

If the main beneficiaries of Federalism in US history have been capitalists and racists...perhaps it's not much of a bargain after all.

And for Federalism:

As the burdens of governing grow, the inability or unwillingness of the federal government to bear them alone is manifest.

On one hand, Vermont and Alabama should not be under all the same laws and regulations that a single federal government dictates. They are way too different, both in economy and society.

However, the people of Vermont should not have to live in a country where voters are disenfranchised by their economic status or the color of their skin. The problem here is where do we draw the line on the "good" and the "bad" and who determines this? The Supreme Court that is helplessly conservative?

To me, Federalism looks to solve this problem, and it has worked shockingly well. Sure there are terrible, terrible things like slavery, Jim Crowe, voter suppression, cuts on Medicaid, but how else could we possible unite a single country under so many different types of people? Other than breaking up the country, i honestly don't see an alternative to Federalism.