I don't know, I see the American move to a constitutional republic that decentralized power and stressed individual liberty as the evolutionary leap in governance and the liberal move to consolidate power into the federal ruling political class and drive people into dependence upon government as being the regression.
Quite the opposite though. Individual liberties and self governance is a relic of our agrarian past. Society is evolving towards urbanism and connectivity where individual governance is at odds with those growth patterns and a more societal government is necessary. The goals of the collective are more important than the security of the individual.
Urbanism and connectivity do not require societal control and redistribution of collected resources. Legislatively collecting power in the few (the federal government or worse the executive branch by fiat) only enforces the control that the few will have. It's one thing when it is this Uber wealthy that you are envious of and they aren't legally in control of the government's resources, such as the police force and the capability to do war.
There's virtual control, and then there's legal control. We didn't wage war in Iraq for nothing. Lots of very wealthy people profited from that. And I'm not envious, but I would rather have those in control at least partially accountable to the people, not just their checkbooks.
Right, so your argument is to distribute the control to those elected by the people. You're in agreement with the Tea Partiers. The question is where you disagree, and I'd bet that would be that you want the federal government to control as much as possible. Which aggregates control in the few and allows easy opportunities for corruption. The tea partiers assert that a primary basis of the constitution was to limit the control of the federal government, thus putting more control in the hands of the people nearest the actual voters. Not some "local representative" that spends all their time in DC.
IN my experience, the Tea Partiers want to limit government across the board, not just from the Federal system. They don't want any government control, except in areas of social construct (e.g. limits on abortion, state-supported religion). No I don't think the Federal government should have more control, but I do think that there needs to be more participation in government across the board. TP seem to think the absence of government (and in turn the absence of taxes) is the way to go. That's where I differ.
