Zion, IL
By A.B. Dada
—

This is a comment I added to a post at Alter-Net, on their post titled The Ron Paul Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

I’m not a progressive by any means, but many of my friends and work acquaintances are. I produce a few younger bands, and also help with the live venue experience as a side project. Most, if not all, of the younger folk I meet are ultra-progressive, and I’ve talked to more than few who accept the idea that a Progressive USA is not likely to happen. Both the neo-cons and neo-libs have control of the Federal Government, which means that there is absolutely NO chance for a truly libertarian or truly progressive union of States.

It is candidates LIKE Paul who want to dismantle the Federal Government’s provisions that over-ride independent State issues. Under a Paul Presidency, you would see significantly more power sent to the State level, with the Federal government leaving Progressive issues to the States completely.

What would this mean? It would mean that Progressives, or their libertarian detractors, would have the chance to unite under their cause at the State level. We might see California, a huge population that is larger than many entire nations, move towards a Progressive “utopia”; we might just as easily see New Hampshire move to a Libertarian “utopia” also. Progressives in NH can move to CA, and Libertarians in CA can move to NH.

Taking power away from the Federal government and returning it to the States (or the Individuals) is what Progressives SHOULD be voting towards. The best way to change society is to do so locally. We’re seeing MANY cities and municipalities move towards a more Progressive government, so why not hit the Federal monster where it hurts, and reduce its size so you can focus YOUR dollars, and YOUR time in your own community and state?