Actually, if Bush wants it rank and file GOPers (who control the House) would want it and most Democrats want it because it’s an easy 8 electoral votes, 2 Senators, and 6 house seats for them. As for the Puerto Ricans themselves, until recently pro-statehood people controlled it. The 2000 elections produced a change, but nothing in politics ever remains the same.
“It” being the government. While I don’t believe it’s technically necessary, only a successful referendum vote can open the door to statehood. This has not been achieved, the local government’s desires notwithstanding.
I would also take issue with the idea that it would be a cakewalk in Congress. Many would oppose it on the grounds of language, not wanting give Spanish any bigger foot in the door of official use than it already has. Unlike Oklahomans and Louisianans, there are no illusions that Puerto Riqueños will abandon their current tongue after statehood. However, there has been a struggle over whether to make English a second official language, with predictable support and opposition from the statehood and pro-independence movements.
Mr. Scurvy (I don’t know you well enough to call you Anal): A nitpick – Thomas Jefferson said that taking Canada would be a “mere matter of marching” in 1812, but he wasn’t President at the time.
Mr. Stewart: Some Ontarian friends have mine have expressed the opinion that if Quebec were to seperate, it would quickly be absorbed by the United States in a friendly takeover. Which only goes to show that said friends are not terribly familiar with the politics of Quebec or the US. The terms of the US Constitution practically guarantee that Quebec wouldn’t want to join the US, and the US wouldn’t want Quebec.
The Atlantic provinces joining the US is a little more plausible–I remember reading that story years ago. It’s a bit unclear why the US would want them, though, except as military bases. And the value of military bases has plummeted since the end of the Cold War.
Which brings up another reason why the US hasn’t made any territorial acquisitions since WWII – finances. Adding a new territory is a net drain on the governmental coffers. I don’t think there’d be any public support for adding new territories if it cost Joe Taxpayer money (unless the new territory had really great beaches, like Hawaii.)
I really don’t have the time to get into this right now, so I’ll just post some sites:
http://www.msc.edu.ph/centennial/index.html
http://www.bibingka.com/phg/misc/spirit96.htm
http://www.bibingka.com/phg/documents/whyjun12.htm
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2000/jun/12/510373498.html
dqa is right about the English factor in the Puerto Rico debate. If you enter “Puerto Rico Statehood” into Google you’ll get a plethora of links to websites that vehemently oppose it, almost always on the basis of “preserving our English-speaking heritage.” These sites also tend to support abolishing federal income tax and re-taking the Panama Canal by force.
I think the end of state acquisition represents a combination of factors, including but not limited to:
- The end of global imperialism in general, and a shift in perception about the “morality” of and need for territorial expansion.
- The shift to an economy less based on natural resources (enhanced by more territory) and more on technology and services, enhanced by manageable populations and a dominant middle class.
- The increase in anxiety about immigration, and the avenues that immigrants have for entering the US.
- The increasing political need to stabilize borders.
- The eventual arrival of civil rights legislation, and its consequences on the perception of new citizens, ie “Holy crap, them jungle darkies is our equals now.”
- The neatness of having 50 states. (Although getting 51 stars on a flag isn’t as hard as it sounds.)
Please feel free to add, amend, or challenge…
After the expansion of 1898, there was a pretty solid anti-expansionsist backlash…many Americans were afraid the USA would become a full blown European style imperial power. And it was a lot easier to use “dollar imperialism” to gain a large degree of control over Cuba, Honduras, Panama, Dominican Republic et.al, without having to worry about incorporating them into the United States formally.
Also the United States finally reached a point where there were no small or thinly populated territories in convenient reach, that weren’t firmly attached to another nation.
Language situation: in 1902 the US Administrators passed a law that English and Spanish were indistinctly to be used as official languages of government business. At the same time adopted a policy of English as the primary language of instruction. In 1948, after realizing it wasn’t working, the Department of Education decreed that regular classes be in the vernacular of the children (Spanish) with English as a required language course; shortly afterward insular courts also adopted the position that the vernacular of the comunity at large be the official language of record.
In 1991 a pro-commonwealth government passed a law decreeing Spanish to be the only official language of the Commonwealth government.
In 1993 a pro-statehood government passed a law reversing the 1991 law and restoring English and Spanish as legal equals.
Last month a committee of the now pro-commo legislature recommended that a Spanish-first, English-second policy be adopted. The governor (of the same party) announced she’d veto most of the proposed policies as unnecessary.
And the beat goes on…
And definitely it would not be a cakewalk in Congress, not by any stretch of imagination. In 1989-91 and again in 1998-99 there were failed bills in Congress to have a Federally-mandated vote on what PR wanted to do about the relation with the USA. The first time around, the choices and terms offered got seriously watered down before passing the House, eventually deadlocked in committee in the Senate. In 1998-99 it passed the House by 1 vote and went nowhere in the Senate. In both cases the consensus of the pundits is that Congress’ objection was that they did not want to be seen as “offering” up front they would be bound to grant statehood, enhancement of the commonwealth or independence, for the asking.
As for the infiltration of the Anglo culture, well, our Agents Martin, Lopez, Anthony, Del Toro and Smits are hard at work… 
Thank you, Colibri. That water buffalo photo made my day. I’m still ROFL. 
Karellen Add to the list:
-
A general, global rise in the significance of super-national organizations (UN, NATO, EU, etc.) as opposed to empires.
-
An increased propensity for dividing (or attempting to divide) territory along ethnic/linguistic/cultural lines (The horn of Africa, The former Soviet Union, Indonesia, etc.)
Tom’s right. The Mexican War started over a dispute as to what river constituted the Texan-Mexican border. President Polk ordered troops to march into the disputed territory in 1846 and Mexico sent troops in to resist.
American forces won decisive victories on the battlefield and as a result were able to negotiate a huge annexation of Mexican territory. In fact, the on site negotiator was able to acquire more land than Congress had instructed him to ask for and there was some consideration of the United States repudiating the settlement.
This sounds right. Moreover, I think the OP was really asking why we didn’t have many colonies in remote areas, like Africa or Asia (if WB will forgive me putting words in his keyboard). I think the answer to that’s obvious: we had so much undeveloped land between Chicago and the West Coast that we didn’t need to look elsewhere for new land.
Just because it barely passed before doesn’t mean it won’t pass now. It has been recent news to the GOP that Hispanics can now vote, hence concessions. Republican Congressman and Senators from states like Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Florida, etc. would change their minds if there’s popular support for it. But I doubt Bush would bring it up now, he has the defecit to deal with.
Yeah, it started when he was a kid, and he wanted to know what shoes were made of…
Perry: What are shoes made of?
Cobbler: Hide.
Perry: Hide?? ::looks around:: Why should I hide?
Cobbler: Hide! Hide! The cow’s outside, dummy!
Ah, but times are much worse in other places – putting the USA in good position to buy new territory.
Your question, Alzarian, reminds me of a magazine article I read not quite a decade ago. It proposed that the USA buy about half of Siberia. The Russian Far East would become the new Wild West.
It was a pretty fantastic idea – sadly, I cannot find any reference to this proposal on the Web, nor can I find the original magazine. I have it around here somewhere, but it hasn’t turned up after 90 minutes of rummaging.
I do have the hypothetical states scribbled on a map, though. Seven of them (count 'em, seven!), some larger than Alaska. The Yenisey River would form the western border of Siberia, a state which would include Lake Baikal. Heading east, we next encounter Western Yakutia and its neighbor, Eastern Yakutia. The easternmost extent, including the Kamchatka Peninsula, would be named Bering. The state bordering Mongolia & China would be called Buratia. The region east of that, along the coast of the Seat of Okhotsk, would be Khabarovska. A small (California-sized) region around Vladivostok would form the seventh state.
I’ll keep looking for the article. In the meantime, think of the possibilities!
>> Hide! Hide! The cow’s outside
I got a kick out of that one