Schism

Right now there is such a diversity of views among the political groups in the United States that there is potential for a national breakup.  States are talking about seceding from the Union.  Texas, which was an independent nation before it joined the United States, has always retained the right to secede.  Other states have discussed departing, and the reasons are diverse.  Taxation and profligate Federal spending motivate some.  Liberal issues motivate others, like Vermont, to want to leave in order to avoid conservative backlash.  Conservative issues motivate others, who believe the Federal agenda is just too reckless.

The problem of national politics is its "one-size-fits-all" approach to governing.  There is no room for diverse local populations to make independent decisions about their course of political development.  Originally the nation was intended to be loosely governed from the national level, where such minimal governance as was necessary would be provided.  National defense and interstate commerce were to be controlled to prevent invasion and internal warfare between the states.  But the states were to govern their populations as independently sovereign states whose authority sprang from their people.

When you move power to the national level alone, you then create a distant and oftentimes disconnected government which will take so much upon themselves in taxation and regulation that they alienate local populations throughout the country.  Taxes which would never be assessed at the local level are levied to impose policy decisions and programs which are not wanted by the local populations.  That continues until, as we see now, there is resistance from both sides of the political spectrum and talk about how oppressive the national government has become.

There's a lesson there about how humanity will react when they are forced to accept a one-size approach to a divergent local circumstance.  When there is only one approach tolerated, and others suppressed and controlled, then people will eventually rebel.  They will simply walk away from the benefits of national programs in order to pursue their own course freely.

It is always better to leave room for divergent approaches to divergent problems.  That was what the separate states were originally intended to accomplish.  A problem could be experimented with at the state level.  Kentucky could try one approach, Florida another, and Maine yet another.  If Kentucky's worked better, and Florida's was a disaster, and Maine's somewhat of a success but nothing like Kentucky's; then the populations of the various states could learn from what worked and what didn't.  They could debate based upon the outcome of various experiments they conducted in their sovereign territories.  Every one of them would benefit from the conduct of the other.  Now, with only a national approach to social issues, tax issues, educational issues, and health issues, failure is not acceptable.  When there is failure, the failed program is given more money, more personnel and more rhetoric to justify it.  It becomes a matter of politically-correct thinking and speaking; because if you don't believe in supporting some failed program then you are uncharitable, or racist, or bigoted, or ignorant, or worse.  Experimentation is not permitted and therefore failure is national in scope and expensive to endure.

It is always best to "control" as little as possible and to interfere with development of separate ideas as little as necessary.  This is true of government, and it is true of rearing children [after you have instructed them in the foundational truths], as well.  It is also true of churches, civic organizations and any cooperative human endeavor.  Cooperation through persuasion, meekness, kindness, pure knowledge and love unfeigned works, whenever it is tried.  (D&C 121: 39-42.)