In practice, these "nations" appear to be nothing more than special interest groups. Special interest groups already tend to expand well beyond their original goals in the political arena. That doesn't work because the active leadership takes over and speaks for the public; why these would avoid that, I don't know. So, the solution to too many special interest groups is more special interest groups.
Also, I think he uses "Tea Party" like bogeymen. To the extent the movement involves cutting government down, it will actually increase the scope of agreement within the government by cutting down the number of domains in which there is disagreement. In fact, my personal prescription for where we are right now is for a significant return of power to the states. Some things have to be national-scale policy, but the list is much shorter than you think. We don't need a national-scale health care plan. Many of our states are larger than European countries that manage. State plans already exist. We don't need national agreement on any given social issue. If we weren't centralizing all our power, we wouldn't have to spend so much time arguing what the central policy should be.
The other major problem these sort of idealistic ideas have is that it basically promises everybody that it will bring the world closer to their viewpoint, but that can't actually happen. Right now, for better or worse, our government is more liberal than our population, so if your plan is to push our government yet more liberal by empowering the population, err, well, you might want to rethink that plan.