I started this to have a serious discussion about the divide in this country between Blue and Red. Half a million Americans died to keep this country together but now I am wondering if it was all worth it. I actually started thinking about this when I took a trip this summer following my Timbers to Atlanta, Charleston S.C., and Savanah. I realized I felt more like a foreigner there then I have when traveling in OTHER COUNTRIES. Right now this country is like a marriage gone horribly wrong. We have moved through the stages of a relationship from unity after World War 2, to a slow inexorable movement apart due to such issues as Civil Rights, Vietnam War, Women's Rights, the role of Military etc etc. The past 4 years has been the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. It is time for a divorce in my opinion. We are in a toxic relationship that is doing neither side any good and only causing unnecessary hatred and animosity. So I ask everyone what is the point in staying together? Why SHOULD we stay together. Relationships end; it is a fact of life. What do we as a people of these Red and Blue states stand to gain by remaining in this toxic cesspool? P.S. I am looking for real practical responses not some patriotic crap that sounds nice but is pointless.
Re: A National Divorce - A Serious Thread on Why We Should or Should not Stay Togethe So are you talking about forming two separate nations? Or perhaps some loose confederation of states? I would say the biggest problem would be geography. Nations work best when they are contiguous. The ol' blue states are kind of spread out. Another problem would be the massive refugee crisis that I can imagine occurring. (I'd be on the first train to chicago.)
I was going to put in some whiny response but thought better. But basically, I don't see this as a national crisis which requires a divorce. Whatever differences there are can and should be worked out, and it won't come down to secession or civil war or anything like that. Attitudes will adjust and life will go on. The practical matters would make it an incredible headache to create two nations from one. How do you split up the federal government's resources among the two nations? How do you split up the military? (Who gets the nukes?) What happens to Social Security, I've been paying into the USA SS fund, will the "Blue State Nation" honor those payments? But most importantly, who would win between "Blue State Nation" and "Red State Nation" on the soccer field? OK, dumb question, BSN would dominate, but would RSN even make it to the World Cup finals? And when would the split take place -- we've already started 2006 qualification, so would we lose guys like Mathis now or could they stay on the "USA" team until after 2006 when they would go become the sucky RSN national team?
The problem is, there are a lot of blue people in the red states, and a lot of red people in the blue states. Do you realize that more people voted for President Bush in California than in any other state? Of course, that is because we are the most populous state, but still.. And in which country would you put states like New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Iowa, Oregon, Florida, New Hampshire, just to name a few of the many states which came close to 50-50? Unless you have in mind an orchestrated exodus similar to what they had when they divided India in two, with the Muslims all moving to Pakistan and the Hindus all moving to India, then both new countries will still be divided and we won't have accomplished anything. And even if you could pull off the exodus, that doesn't bode well for the future of either nation. They will in all probability, like India and Pakistan, be so distrustful of each other to the point of being always at the edge of war. So no. I don't think it is a good idea to split up. (Of course, I said the same to my ex-wife and it didn't do any good.)
South, baby - you know I love you girl. This one goes out to you. I, I'm so in love with you Whatever you want to do Is all right with me 'Cause you make me feel so brand new And I want to spend my life with you Since, since we've been together Loving you forever Is what I need Let me be the one you come running to I'll never be untrue Let's, let's stay together Lovin' you whether, whether Times are good or bad, happy or sad Whether times are good or bad, happy or sad Why, why some people break up Then turn around and make up I just can't see You'd never do that to me (would you, baby) Staying around you is all I see (Here's what I want us to do) (repeat to fade): Let's, we oughta stay together Loving you whether, whether Times are good or bad, happy or sad
I think a better question might be "What would it take for folks to advocate secession, and what form of secession would you advocate?" IOW, if not now, when, why and how. Me? I don't think we're QUITE there yet, but if you want to bone up on your strategy, here you go.
I think we need to resurrect Abe Lincoln for this thread. While most think the war was about slavery, it was more about the reality that the US could not survive if it split. I suggest we are in the same situation now. Lot's of people are frustrated. More are satisfied with the result but not completely happy with current issues. Those who move to Canada/Australia/New Zealand are weak and selfish. If you cannot participate in the national dialogue, accepting the consequences, then perhaps you do not deserve to stay for the benefits. Sorry that is just the way I see it. For those who are frustrated, use that energy in a productive fashion. Too general? Sorry. That's what has allowed this 200 year experiment to survive like no other.
Here’s a thought… nominate a candidate that espouses middle of the road views that might appeal to the left and the right.
Re: A National Divorce - A Serious Thread on Why We Should or Should not Stay Togethe Yes, they do; when states aren't geographically contiguous, it makes it pretty easy for their neighbors to divide and conquer. (Okay, I'll give you Alaska, but there's a reason that we don't refer to Bangladesh as East Pakistan anymore.)
Or you could be a gay man and small business owner who, in love with another man who is a lawyer in Ohio and expecting the right to not only fully express that love like other adults, but to also have the lawyer be able to visit you in the hospital if you were in an accident, decides that while you can certainly advocate against this legislated foolishness, you will no longer give this government, at any level, the fruits of your labour until they give you what's most important to you. I don't have a problem with adults removing themselves from funding a government that has told them you cannot marry like any other adult (or rapist, or murderer, or Enron exec), no problem at all. Did you say that about the Puritans who left England, the Boston Tea Party-ers who failed to dialogue with King George? George wasn't killing anyone. Why didn't they just accept the consequences? You know, abolitionists also tried hard several times to end slavery; why not just accept the result? Tubman, an ungrateful non-accepter in coming up with that Underground Railroad. Mother Jones, ungreatful. Why did anyone bother with anything after the official governmental systems of the day rebuked them?
If that is the most important thing to you, and nothing else this country has to offer is of similar importance, then you are free to go. But of the examples you listed above, only the Puritans left the country. The others stayed and worked for change. That is my point.
That’s your threat… a small business owner and a lawyer emigrate? I could care less if two men want to get married, but I’d sacrifice thousands of small businessmen to rid the nation of it’s abundance of lawyers.
Well, actually, the Boston Tea Party-ers left their nation, and the abolitionists fomented a Civil War...that's my point. These were the days when all KINDS of things were more important than folks' own personal safety, as opposed to today, when nothing is.
Just in case you thought all this secession/emigration talk was coming from the blue states: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5652 As an admitted "modest proposal" (a la Swift's satiric story of the same name), it is nevertheless serious in pointing out the cancer that continues to threaten our body politic.] .... Meantime, America has become just as divided as it was a century and a half ago, when it writhed in Brother-vs.-Brother War. Instead of wedge issues like slavery, federal subsidies for regional business, and high tariffs, society today is sundered by profound, insoluble Culture War conflicts (such as abortion and gay marriage), and debate about our role abroad (shall we remain the world's leader, or become an unprincipled chump for the cabal of globalist sybarites who play endless word-games inside the United Nations and European Union sanctuaries?). For many decades, conservative citizens and like-minded political leaders (starting with President Calvin Coolidge) have been denigrated by the vilest of lies and characterizations from hordes of liberals who now won't even admit that they are liberals--because the word connotes such moral stink and political silliness. As a class, liberals no longer are merely the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of civilization's core decency and traditions. Defamation, never envisioned by our Founding Fathers as being protected by the First Amendment, flourishes and passes today for acceptable political discourse. Movies, magazines, newspapers, radio/TV programs, plays, concerts, public schools, colleges, and most other public vehicles openly traffic in slander and libel. Hollywood salivated over the idea of placing another golden Oscar into Michael Moore'sfat hands, for his Fahrenheit 9/11 jeremiad, the most bogus, deceitful film documentary since Herr Hitler and Herr Goebbels gave propaganda a bad name. When they tire of showering conservative victims with ideological mud, liberals promote the only other subjects with which they feel conversationally comfortable: Obscenity and sexual perversion. It's as if the genes of liberals have rendered them immune to all forms of filth. As a final insult, liberal lawyers and judges have become locusts of the Left, conspiring to destroy democracy itself by excreting statutes and courtroom tactics that fertilize electoral fraud and sprout fields of vandals who will cast undeserved and copious ballots on Election Day. The truth is, America is not just broken--it is becoming irreparable. If you believe that recent years of uncivil behavior are burdensome, imagine the likelihood of a future in which all bizarre acts are the norm, and a government-booted foot stands permanently on your face. That is why the unthinkable must become thinkable. If the so-called "Red States" (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at least tolerated by the "Blue States" (those that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart--not by secession of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter.
Wasn't this covered like 145 years ago? We TRIED to get the hell away from you, but the President decided to raise an army and start a war. Maybe this time, you'll see the light.
From the article: This is the part that scares me about the Bushies. They think the enemy is a class of Americans. Several sources from the Bush camp have used the same word recently. Watch and listen carefully to the media, and you will notice they are declaring: liberal = enemy = terrorist
Maybe the thread title should say national dissolution of civil union, after all, marriage is only between a man and a woman.
FWIW, I remember reading an article a while ago (weak sauce, I know) that looked into the deep political divide in the US. One of the things it mentioned was the mentality of a lot of voters in the sense that many will say "Oh, I am a Republican/Democrat" even if they are not necessarily actual affiliated members of the party. The writer contrasted that with countries such as the UK where people (so the argument goes) are more inclined to say "I vote Conservative/Labour" - thereby distancing themselves more from the actual parties. I'm proud I remembered that. I'm sure you'll all thank me.
Re: A National Divorce - A Serious Thread on Why We Should or Should not Stay Togethe Most things scare liberals. So when the left screams, "we're just as patriotic as the Right," we should believe that lie? Every time your side loses an election, you want to leave for Europe or secede. Not too patriotic. The Right remembers these things, and that's why the unpatriotic label is thrown on you guys. The weird admiration and praise your side heaps on guys that hang flags upside down and things like that reinforces your hated of the country. Sure, it's a free country, first amendment and all, BUT--don't cry when you are called unpatriotic when are appalled at the way you excercise your 1st amendment rights.
Re: A National Divorce - A Serious Thread on Why We Should or Should not Stay Togethe You're absolutely right... I should rep you. This fascination in the U.S. with belonging to the reeps or the dems, or being from a "blue" or "red" state is so dumb... no one listens to the issues anymore. Everyone here wants to take the moral high ground... but yet the Dems and the Reeps thrive on division and confrontation. What the U.S. needs are viable alternatives... and that will never happen.