I've been told since at least 1980 that small, local government was best. I was given the impression that state level government was probably the optimum level to decide things, cities and counties could go off the rails in various ways.

I haven't see a coherent rationale for reversing course on this doctrine, which was extremely strongly held, and cited a lot.

> I was given the impression that state level government was probably the optimum level to decide things

I don't think government at any level should get to discriminate based on protected classes and I hope most people alive today will agree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

I also think smaller administration cells are more efficient, but when the president of the federation can just reshuffle the congressional districts and meddle with universities internal politics we gotta rethink how independent these states really are. There is no silver bullet, specially in politics.

There is a rule of subsidiarity -- problems have to be solved at the lowest level possible, because it has the most information. If it's not, it bubbles up to the next level upwards. EU, US and Catholic church all do this to the various degree.

This is generally the position of politicians with power in state governments, yes.

> I've been told

By whom?

> since at least 1980 that small, local government was best. I was given the impression

By whom?

> extremely strongly held, and cited a lot

By whom?

Best for what purpose?

There are no principles here, no moral compass, only power. It is important to understand this.