Liberal federalism

In "The New Blue Federalists" (Slate, Jan. 6), Richard Thompson Ford coalesces the defeatest arguement many on the left have been putting forward since the election:

States and local governments can be laboratories for democracy, where innovative and controversial policies can be tried out on a small scale before being applied more comprehensively. Take medical tort reform: Several states have already limited malpractice liability. If the proponents of reform are right, we should expect to see the cost of malpractice insurance and subsequently the cost of medical care drop in those states.

After the validation of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, religious conservatives, pushing for the feds to ban same-sex marriage nationwide, predicted... the end of civilization as we know it. ... Similarly, antidrug conservatives claim that California's medicinal marijuana law is a prescription for reefer madness. ... On the other hand, if same-sex marriage promotes stable and loving relationships and medical marijuana relieves human suffering at little or no social cost, other states, having let Massachusetts and California liberals take the risky first vows and first tokes, can join the party.

Perhaps it simply depends on how strongly one feels about each individual subject, but it strikes me that some things are better suited for experimenting than others. For example, if one views day-old fetuses as alive and marriage as a civil right, there's little comfort in knowing that no one who lives near you will be committing murder or be relegated to second-class citizenship, but an hour away, it's nothing but death and oppression run rampant.

Ford also writes,

"A meaningful federalism could maintain fundamental rights and centralized control over activities whose effects cross state boundaries. But it would also let the red states experience more of the consequences of their political ideology and the blue states of theirs. I can't imagine a better way to advertise the virtues of progressive policy."

Well, that's a great thought -- you do things your way, we'll do things ours, and in a few years we'll see who's better off. But let's not forget that most people are all too eager to twist facts to suit their worldview. Check this out for a conspiracy theory about American nuclear tests causing the tsunamis. I read elsewhere that some believe it was done on purpose so that the West could swoop in and resuscitate its image in the Muslim world. Now, I'm always up for a good conspiracy theory, but this is too far-fetched for me to even wrap my brain around -- regardless, for some people, this must be easier than recognizing (or admitting) that everyone understand the common humanity we all share. I have no doubt that in a world of extreme political spin, both sides would only convince themselves how right they are.

Ultimately, there are some things best left for the states, but anything that could be considered a divisive moral issue needs to be settled on a more universal scale. And furthermore, the laws need to either be enforced as they exist or be changed. This is the unspoken hypocrisy of modern America -- but more on that later.