Interesting. I'd say all the very toxic politics is non-local. The local stuff might be more, but it's mostly mundane.
Which makes sense. My city and county representatives can't get away with passing something wildly unpopular that >> 50% of local people hate. While it's far from perfect, there is a reasonable amount of accountability with local politicians.
Federal-level politicians though, are so far removed from the people they purportedly represent and their election is so heavily gerrymandered that they are untouchable. They can get away with serving only special interests and passing laws which most people hate.
Political science supports the fact that most of the issues voters care about the most are actually national culture-war issues.
It also supports the idea that most of the issues that actually affect voter's day-to-day lives are state/local.
In other words, according to mainstream political science thought, voters don't care enough about what they "ought" to be caring about.
Of course, this is also placing a value judgment that the material things that affect voters lives (local zoning and property taxes, for instance) are more important than the cultural/moral things (like how race is taught in schools). And when you start telling people that what's actually important to them isn't what they think is important, you're trying to "rewrite" their values...
Do you have an data to support this claim?