Greater Tyranny or lesser tyranny?
If you go with the Democrat ('liberal') agenda, the U.S. federal government should have more power and control than the states or local governments. That's an opportunity-in-progress for 'greater tyranny'. On the other hand, the Republican ('conservative') agenda is to strip all but the simplest powers from the federal government and hand them over to the states and local governments. IOW, 'lesser tyranny'.
Why do I say this? Does anyone think that the politicians at state, county or local levels are somehow 'exempt' from the desire to exert anti-Constitutional (we're talking about the Bill of Rights here) control and abuse their positions for their personal gain? If anyone disagrees, just look at the messes at the state levels in California, Massachussets, Virginia, New York and Arizona amongst others. And let us not forget of the levels of corruption we're witnessing in Bell, California. A town of less than 40,000 residents, almost all of whom earn under $37,000/year and the 'city manager' managed to get his salary boosted to $787,000!!!
We here in the U.S. are supposed to be trying very hard to increase personal liberty and yet both major parties are screaming over which government gets the right to impose tyranny. Isn't it time to vote ALL the bastards out?