Do we still need the states?

For the moment, yes. The daily parade of horrors flowing from the White House makes states a vital part of the resistance. Over time, however, the states will not save us from runaway authoritarian presidents. To the contrary, the states help elect them. Local governments would be a superior substitute.

It is time to start thinking about radical surgery: the abolition of state government.

Some might say this is no time for dreamy thought experiments. The crisis is upon us. But Americans are fully capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Even given the urgency of the moment, we would be remiss to ignore the long-term problems.

The most obvious problem is that state intervention is a double-edged sword. Had Kamala Harris won the 2024 election, red states would be doing everything possible to thwart her agenda—as they did during the Obama and Biden administrations. To be fair, blue states have done the same during both Trump administrations. Today's state enthusiasts will always be tomorrow's state critics.

The second problem with states is that we don't need them. Without states, the tens of thousands of local governments, either individually or in collaboration, could attack federal overreach just as well. They too can pass laws and bring lawsuits. If anything, local elected leaders are better positioned to do so, since they are geographically closer, and thus more accessible, to the people they represent. Moreover, since the political divides between urban and rural locales dwarf the divides among states, local elected leaders are more likely to reflect their constituents' political preferences than are state legislatures.

Most importantly, the states got us into this mess. Their astonishingly broad—and disproportionately distributed—constitutional........

© Newsweek