Sir Richard: Mind you, we made the real mistake when we gave them their independence.
Sir Humphrey: Don’t you think that was right, wind of change and all that?
Sir Richard: Yes, but not the way we did it. We should have partitioned the country.
Sir Humphrey: You mean, like we did in India and Cyprus and Palestine and Ireland?
Sir Richard: Yes, that was our invariable practice when we gave independence to the colonies, it always worked.
Sir Humphrey: But didn’t partition always lead to civil war? It did in India and Cyprus and Palestine and Ireland.
Sir Richard: Yes, but it kept them busy. Instead of fighting other people, they confined themselves to fighting each other.
Sir Humphrey: Good job that, saved us having a policy about them…
My own state has a bright geographical line of division. Those people over there want to form their own state because these people over here are oppressing them. That was true as well in the last state I lived in. I believe there are not a few states that have the same sort of internal division.
Except, the county bordering this one might fit better on the other side. And that one county over there might fit better on this side. And my county has a lot of residents that really belong on the other side. And that State U town way over there might fit better over here. And, and, and.
It seems much easier to enclave-up than to try to work out how we can get along with each other. The issues that divide us are not entirely unresolvable, but real solutions seem to be harder than just fighting.
It would be complicated and messy, but if it were in fact determined that we have irreconcilable differences, I don’t see what else we can do.
We need to get some divorce lawyers involved to figure it out, but we are essentially in a domestic abuse situation, where it is not legal for the one being abused and taken advantage of to leave.
This is not sustainable. Breaking up the country is a mess, but I don’t see as how it will be more of a mess than forcing it to stay together.
If this is true, and I don’t believe it, then any serious proposals would use geographic landmark rather than the current state map. The front range of the Rocky Mountains would make a logical barrier to define the “West Coast”. The “Mid Continent” could then stretch to the Appalachians with the “East Coast” getting the rest. Alaska, Hawaii, and the rest of the non-continental US could either try and make their own way or join whatever county would have them.
The country is divided along rural-urban lines. The commerce and innovation that fuels the economy happens in urban areas. The raw materials and food come from rural areas. The idea of dividing the country ideologically is nonsensical.
What we conceivably do is abolish the states and allow local governments more autonomy .
I don’t want to believe it either. But I didn’t want to believe it when my friends’ parents filed for a divorce either.
We can try to go to marriage counseling, maybe try to do something fun and productive together, but we fundamentally do not see eye to eye anymore. I don’t see how this can change.
I am not going to become hateful and racist and ignorant, and they are not going to stop being hateful and racist and ignorant.
So you don’t believe that arizona or georgia could ever vote for a D? Or that its possible for formerly Blue states to go red? Or are you just saying that California doesn’t have 3.9 million people who would vote for Trump?
This country isn’t divided along geographic lines and so the only way a divorce could work is if the Blue side decided to pack up and move somewhere else since there is no place politically that would take the Rs.
This battle isn’t between states, it’s between cities vs. the countryside. There’s a reason city walls are a thing.
I would support building walls around cities with machine guns on top of them. No more subsidies to the countryside. The racist hayseeds in the countryside are welcome to figure out how much alfalfa it takes to maintain a B-2 bomber.
Don’t strand me here alone in Georgia, if you do, I swear I will declare war on you.
I’m not talking about states, I’m talking about people.
Not saying it would be easy. But it doesn’t have to be along straight state lines either.
Divorces are messy, any sort of separation is going to be messy. I just don’t feel convinced that it will be messier than trying to stay together and “make this work”.
Maybe it doesn’t even have to be a physical separation, more of a political one. We could have two political systems in place in the same location. I knew people who got divorced but stayed living together because neither could afford to live on their own.
But having the leaches and parasites dictate to their host how they are to run their own affairs is a situation that has to end. It is not sustainable. They are either going to kill the host, or they are going to get all of us killed.
Yikes, didn’t realize this was a year old. NM, sorry.
The whole notion is nonsense. How do you device a polity that overlaps from neighborhood to neighborhood, street to street, bedroom to bedroom? We live in a complex, interconnected economic system, in terms not only of politics, but physically and in every single practical term.
You can’t have a “divorce” in which we all are still living in each other’s pockets and depend on each other for the entire system to function. Who is going to grow the food? Who is going to transport it? Who is going to sell it? Every single economic sector is a complex series of interconnected logistical webs.
Look what happens when one small thing affects the system. All of a sudden, there aren’t enough drivers to deliver anything—causing shortages, inflation, etc.
If anything, the last two years should have taught us that it is impossible to live separately in this world. Each of our choices affects everyone around us.
We have to start acting like we live in a society, not in a Randian fantasy.
Terry Southern said it best in THE MAGIC CHRISTIAN:
“Death to Rich!! Blow up U.S.!!!”
And I suppose the urban latte-sipping Liberal hipsters are welcome to “crowdsource” an app to build city walls and show them how to work a machinegun.
Decentralized municipalism, a la Murray Bookchin, with trade, social, and other linkages and federations may be worth exploring. Consider the turn to manorialism after the collapse of the Roman Empire, but with electricity, sewers, and a commitment to democratic government. When the aqueducts fail, the roads are’t maintained, the tax collectors don’t show up, and the army is in tatters, people will look to themselves and their neighbours, creating new, small, sustainable communities.
If we’re lucky.
And also have food to eat.
This debate was really the same at the Founding between the merchants in the North and the agrarians in the South. But they both need each other.
You could always move to The Bubble:
I’m more concerned for rural America. Manhattan without Alabama is still Manhattan. Alabama without Manhattan is the third world. Red state America takes far more than it contributes in taxes and its people reject basic tenets of science and democracy. The history of America has been rural America rejecting progress across every development spectrum and is an anchor around the necks of those of us paying for everything and making the significant contributions to civilization.
Yet they enjoy the food that rural America provides so that they can have ivory tower minded ideas and sneer at the people producing the milk for their lattes. It really is a two way street and your type of thought has persisted for as long as civilization has been here. Manhattan doesn’t need rural people?
I’m sure rural Canada could help them stave off starvation at least until rural Americans accept basic healthcare.
I didn’t say they didn’t need rural people, but they don’t need to countrymen with them. My supermarket is full of food from other countries, also, it’s immigrants who grow the food. The same immigrants red staters blame for their crappy lives while they refuse vaccinations, eat horse dewormer and wait for their government check.