Thanks for the ping. While I would agree that governance at a lower level is preferable to governance at a higher level, it really begs the question: why do we need the governance? Our culture and indeed conservatism is based on the concept of SELF governance.
So self govern!
I find it ironic that we as conservatives spend so much time and effort trying to influence elections and curry favor with the political class when it really flies in the face of what we’re about. Thrift, self reliance, and self governance do not need elections and a New and Improved set of politicians to lord it over us.
Excellent question. The answer was delivered by Plato a number of years ago, but it comes down to the hazards of human life, doesn't it?
The grandparents of the Hon. David Crockett of Tennessee were murdered in a massacre by Creek and Cherokee Indians in 1777. The area where they lived needed at a bit more government. At the time, most of the local men were away fighting the Revolution—against the too-much-government of Britain.
Years later, President Andrew Jackson ignored Federal treaties and dispossessed the Cherokees, sending them by force on the "Trail of Tears" to Alabama in a hard winter. The Cherokees needed less government—at least, less government by the President.
Congressman David Crockett spoke out against Jackson's usurpation to defend his family's former enemies, and it cost him his political career, as he knew it would. He was a firm Constitutionalist. He lost re-election to Congress due to Jackson's meddling and headed for the Alamo—announcing, "You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas." Crockett could have used less government (Federal interference) in the election. And perhaps more at the Alamo.