Indeed, but do Americans want their government to set their moral compass. I certainly don’t. Morality is a deeply personal thing and must not be inflicted on others: I believe this, therefore you must do that. The government should reflect the diverse moral compasses of the people. This means a compromise in which there will probably be a wide deviation from the true north of many of the people. It is best if that compromise is done across the entire country. I think that is what we have in Washington: or we would have if there were no state governments.

In the states we are much more likely to see wide regional compass deviations: for example: Mormon influence in Utah; evangelists in Georgia: Mexican haters in Arizona; etc.

Of course, this is ignoring the straight corruption of many of our representatives. That is mostly a criminal matter which should be treated accordingly as a different issue. We are far too tolerant of the criminal behaviour of our politicians and public servants.

When I studied public policy at college we were taught that the more democratic a country is, the harder it is to govern. A truly free nation is ungovernable. Countries with only one government and a strong leader are more robust because they are able to react more quickly to national and international emergencies. This was seen quite dramatically in the way Margaret Thatcher was able to get the UK moving quickly in reaction to the invasion of the Falkland Islands.

For the same reason, New Zealand is adamant that it does not want to become a state of Australia.