> No amount of technology traveling at the speed of light will solve the simple problem that you belong to an ideological sub-group that ferociously disagrees with another sub-group about how things should be run.
Yeah, I'm not claiming that technology solves things. I'm claiming the opposite, at least as far as our current government processes are concerned. Those processes have effectively been "broken" by changes in communication and movement.
This is an example. Liberals are aghast that the court didn't overstep their constitutional function here. Conservatives are happy that the process was followed, but they're not really happy that companies can effectively force employees into kangaroo court.
From a state's rights perspective, there's no reason that the federal government should be dealing with any of this really, states should be plenty capable of handling employment law. The federal government exists to set tariffs, administer borders and national defense, and ratify treaties. But because people and information can now move so freely, we've spent the last 100 years, more or less, ignoring the on-paper purview of federal and state governments.
You can say "Get Congress to pass a law" all you want but it's little consolation (in part because Congress is paralyzed in this environment). I would guess that most Americans on both sides of aisle want employees to be able to sue their employers in these cases -- hardly an instance of "virulent polarization" -- but that message is getting obscured by pedantry and partisanship on the boundaries of judicial interpretation. There are many similar issues, where most people don't really disagree per se, but the media and politicians still make sure things are arranged for maximum loyalty exploitation.
> Any American that argues "each state will handle things on its own" is just making the same argument that a European might make
Yeah, I'm a conservative, I understand and support the argument for state's rights, and I know how it's supposed to work theoretically. And before you point at the EU too enthusiastically, ask yourself how a similar situation would've played out there.
> Federalism was never about the logistics of walking to state lines.
I mean, it may not have been about it, but it was much more practical in a pre-telecommunication, pre-automobile, pre-airplane world.
Because I support state's rights, I recognize that we need to be realistic about things and make reasonable adaptations. It's not reasonable to pretend that the massive changes in movement and communication don't impact the way our republic functions.
Dogmatically grasping to processes established 200 years ago is only convincing everyone else that conservatism and governance by ruthless, cold pedantry are inextricable. That's bad. Maintaining conservative principles is not necessarily the same as enslaving oneself to the heartless rehearsal of dead scripts.