Bravo, and let me come at what I think is your point from another angle, for the sake of the detractors:
The Democrats are in power because they’ve won elections.
They’ve won elections because they have done a better job of articulating a set of (arguably wrongheaded) requirements that a modern society would ask of its government.
Online, I’m often the one screaming “Constitution” in a crowded outburst of collectivism.
But what has to be done is *not* to argue how collectivism is antithetical to the Constitution, but how that, in a Federalist context, Massachusetts should be able to go full-on nanny state if they want to, without too big a dig into the wallet of the other 56 states.
Then, let history be the judge.
IOW, you can harmonize Federalism and nuance, without being open to charges of obstructionism.
