I'm very much in favor of the concept of keeping government as local as possible/practical, but it's possible that the poster wasn't dismissing the idea, rather

I'm very much in favor of the concept of keeping government as local as possible/practical, but it's possible that the poster wasn't dismissing the idea, rather how the principle tends to be applied in practice. I frequently see politicians misusing arguments in favor of decentralization as a roundabout way to get rid of some piece of federal legislation they don't like, because then they aren't obligated to argue in favor of the thing the legislation banned. Example: rejecting the abolition of slavery using the argument that such an abolition would have been federal overreach. The person fighting against abolition no longer has to argue in favor of slavery; rather they're claiming to fight in favor of states' rights, which is a much more comfortable argument for them to have. Likewise for Dixiecrats during the Jim Crow days. I fear that the decentralization argument has been misused in this way so many times that invoking it makes people assume it's an intellectually dishonest, roundabout argument that is selectively promoting states' rights in an attempt to accomplish some other, much more nefarious goal. This is really unfortunate, as I am a big believer in minimizing the role of the federal government wherever it's feasible and practical to do so.