Thank you for bringing this political philosophy to the attention of the "meet up" group. I am in agreement that there is a lot of good, which may emerge from taking on the more localist persuasion you seem to be advocating.

I am an American nationalist and identity myself in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt (among others). Therefore, for me, the Union eventually trumps regionalism (Confederacy in its Civil War era expression); sound planning, which looks to develop the national economy as a whole rather than just the private interests of the few (a hallmark of TR Progressivism), trumps laissez faire libertarianism, which ends up allowing for private oligarchies to rule for their own private self-interests, because the rule of law is not strong enough to demand the interests of "the rest of us" be safeguarded by the national economy; and so forth. There is thus not total uniformity between my Federalist/Whig/nationalist Republican viewpoints and strict localism; nevertheless, localism is definitely more of an ideological friend than enemy to those viewpoints. Here are several reasons:

First, localism wants to safeguard local industry, rather than rely on the flow of commerce in a "global economy," for providing for the welfare of local citizens. It is thus strongly anti-free trade. Federalists/Whigs/nationalist Republicans (as opposed to the neoconservatives and globalists socialists, which really are one and the same) are also anti-free trade.

Secondly, localism wants to promote a more holistic sensibility about different economic forces within the local community, thus combining industrial, environmental, political, and demographic realities of that local community to make policies that are most conducive to the social and economic welfare of the same. That is similar to the "sound planning" of the Hamiltonian Federalists, Whigs, and Nationalist/Progressive Republicans (i.e. Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism Speech in 1910), which sought to promote a truly "national economy" that safeguarded the interests of the whole people, rather than just allowing for the maximum profit interests of the well connected few. The latter were focusing of course on "sound planning" on a national stage, so as to create a sense of American nationhood and then establish that national identity as a force for the common good. It is just localism writ on a larger scale; and so long as there is a healthy dose of federalism in the mix (also a cornerstone of localist philosophy), then this form of nationalism need not crush what is good about localism in its efforts to nationalize our political and economic forces (though it must crush what is incompatible with this sound, national reality, like the Confederacy).

Finally, localism wants to empower the citizen on the local level to care about whatever is happening within his local community and to have a real voice over the same. It will oppose local oligarchies (backroom deals made by local insiders for their own private interests, at the expense of the common good), because it will empower citizens on the local level truly to be on the watch against any emergence of factions that are not focused on the common good. In this sense, the local citizens' council or commission becomes the front line police of the Republic. Similarly, except on a national level, the Federalists/Whigs/Nationalist and Progressive Republicans ideally are the front line police against those larger forces, which threaten to undermine the rule of law that is so very critical to the securing of our Republic (i.e. the Trust busting policies of Theodore Roosevelt).

Therefore, as you will see, localism is not knee jerk "anti-government" sentiment. Like the Federalists/Whigs/Nationalist and Progressive Republicans, it is against bad government, not government per se (which has a role, though not the only one, in securing the national economy for the benefit of the common good, in securing the rule of law, in protecting our own manufacturing from unfair conditions abroad, and so forth). Really, if we follow the idea that "the government that governs best, governs least," then we have a de facto rule by the oligarchs, because there is insufficient government to enforce the rule of law upon them. It is thus a utopian fallacy to think that "no government" somehow will improve our quality of life or better protect our God given liberties. We must be as scornful of that fallacy as all of us are of tyrannical government at the other extreme; both too little and too much power in government allows either for private forces to tyrannize us or for public forces to tyrannize us. The focus then is to find that sound middle ground, which we call "limited government," which is best expressed in the Constitutional framework of federalism and in the policies of the Federalists, Whigs, and Nationalist/Progressive Republicans. While anti-federalism at first sounds good, in the end it gives us the "too little government" that allows for corruption by a private few (i.e. anti-federalist policies of the corrupt New York Governor Clinton, prior to the Civil War). On the other end, socialism gives us "too much government," which all of us already know to be a threat to our property and liberty. Again, the pragmatic middle, as opposed to the utopias of either extreme, is in line with the traditions of Hamilton, Lincoln, and TR (Federalism, Whig, Nationalist/Progressive Republicanism) and most conducive to our national welfare, just as a pragmatic localism is most conducive to our local welfare.