Oh, yes, people on the right loved Clinton
and we mustn’t forget that Clinton was their president
If New England wants to leave I say “Goodbye and good riddance!”
But if they get to leave, then California does too. What do we care? We have the 5th largest economy on the planet, all by ourselves! But I’d kinda like to have Vegas, and Arizona and New Mexico are pretty, and dammit I like Texas and Texans! Guess the Southwest will have to leave as a unit. The Utah Mormons can keep the wackos in Northern California in line. 
I hated every minute Clinton was in office, but I never said he wasn’t my President. Loopydude, either get a grip, or move to Canada. Around here, we work together, no matter who is in the White House.
The example of Quebec is interesting, and one I should have considered. I actually was kind of rooting for them, but for purely selfish reasons: I am of 75% Quebecois extraction (on Irish grandma, so give me a quarter-of-a-kiss, I’m 25% Irish…though rumor has it there’s some Native American lurking in there someplace that the old folks alluded to in hushed tones…). I figured it would be durn neat to have another French-speaking nation, and within easy traveling distance. J’aime bien la Ville de Quebec et Montreal, and figured they could do alright on their own. Maybe French would vanish a bit more slowly than it apparently is. 
But it’s nice they’ve managed to keep the cultural distinction they have, and I imagine there are a variety of official differences in local politics that distinguish la Provence de Quebec from its neighbors.
Well…
I still like the secession idea, but if that’s just unworkable, could be see a return to increased state sovereignty, at the very least? In other words, are there constitutional ways to limit Federal meddling in State affairs that would make the Union a bit more like it was when Jeffersonian types envisioned a looser confederation than what we have now? So, you know, maybe the Pres. could ask the states to go to war on behalf of the union, but maybe each state governer decides if, say, the MA militia is to go or not. In other words, mightily expand the War Powers Act (among just one of many changes), to further curtail executive largesse. I bet this would make everybody happy.
If we can’t just leave, can we at least have more sovereignty than we have?
Goldang if I don’t sound like a born-again libertarian!
Surely you are joking.
New Englanders aren’t very interested in secession, at least not this century. Loopydude did you know that there was talk about certain towns in NH seceding in 2001? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=NH+Newington+Secession&btnG=Search
One of those towns was Newington. Any idea how many people are in Newington? 789. (600 of were registered voters in the 2000 election) http://www.nhes.state.nh.us/elmi/htmlprofiles/pdfs/newington.pdf They’re still part of NH, obviously, though there’s still crybaby whining about the tax rates now and then(oh no, paying a fair tax portion, how cruel!).
If 789 people can’t get together and agree they no longer want to be part of the state, how do you expect to get six states’ worth of people to decide they don’t want to be part of the country? I think you’ll find that most of us are happy enough being part of the US, as silenus said president notwithstanding.
Seems to me that if you look a dugrik’s maps, it depends on which map you look at and how you interupt them when coming to any conclusions. loopydude’s ideas are strongly supported by the small map, but fairly well fall apart it you look at the larger map. According to the small map, the south is solidly Republican, but looking at the larger map it is Indiana that is the most solidly Republican state east of the Mississippi. Reading what loopydude says who’d think that there would be big green areas in the south. There are none. The fact is that Massachusetts is totally pink, but none of it is in the 70% rosy area. Mississippi and Alabama not only have pink, but also the darker colors showing strong Democratic support. It appears that one county in Mississippi voted strongly for Bush. That would be DeSota county which is just south of Memphis. Memphis is the city with the largest black population in the country. Combining that fact with the urban vs. suburban factor it is clear why Memphis is pink and Desota county is green.
The large areas that voted strongly (over 70%) for Bush are all west of the Mississippi. Texas is the one southern state west of the Mississippi and it has lots of green, as do many of the mountain states. That appears to me to be Bush’s stronghold, while the south seems much more split between the two parties. There was a comment about the south not wanting to vote for a New England aristrocrat. It is of interest that last time a southerner ran against Bush and he didn’t even carry his own state (which I believe was as pivotal a fact as what happened in Florida).
Concerning the statement about the cry of “The South will rise again!”, for most southerners that stands for something that has been happening and not anything to do with the south seceeding again. The south was very backward thru the first half of last century. That has turned around almost 180 degrees and so we proudly believe that “The South is rising again.” There are many reasons for this, but among them are 1) air conditioning 2) many immigrants from the north (like myself).
[sup]Only someone from New England would consider DC as part of the south.[/sup]
Now, now. I said VA was part of the South, that I was unsure about MD, and that DC gave me an easy way to observe both. DC is it’s own planet, and always will be, so long as it’s not a state. 
So if, under this scheme, Georgia decides to do away with Affirmative Action, you’ll be content to leave us alone? If we decide to ban gay marriage, you won’t meddle in our affairs (pun intended)? If we decide that public prayers before a school football game are perfectly all right, you’re not going to tell us we can’t?
'Cuz, ya see, I’ve got this real ugly feeling that you’ll respect sovereignty when it looks like it’ll get you your way, but you’ll suddenly decide that sovereignty doesn’t matter when Georgia or Mississippi do something you don’t like–even when it obviously isn’t any of your damn business.
Nah. I’m a populist Democrat. I’d never be able to function among patricians.
Besides, they’d make fun of my accent. And don’t get me started on the weather.
No, I really mean it. I have given up hope in changing people’s minds about right and wrong. I’ll debate it for the masturbatory purposes of venting some spleen in a forum such as this, but I’m no longer kidding myself; you don’t give a damn what I think, so why should I bother with what you think. All I ask is that you not impose your ideology on me. In return, I’d like nothing better than to not impose anything on you; not even my merest interest in your affairs. So long as what you do over in your corner of reality doesn’t pose an imminent threat to myself, I’m happy, at this point, to live and let live.
The bitch of it is, our country is ideologically split almost 50-50, and more politically polarized than at any time I can remember; worse, our winner-take-all electoral system means disenfranchisement for some large percentage of the population every time somebody new gets elected. I’m tired of it. I’m sure you are too. Hey, now your man is in office, but maybe someday it’s a Kucinich or some other looneybat, limp-wristed, gay-lovin’, tree-huggin’, Birkenstock-wearin’, commie-card-carryin’, miscegenatin’, market-reformin’, education-equalizin’, dope-smokin’, God-hatin’, peace-lovin’, left-wing-liberal-traitor-type pinko whatever. You don’t want that, right? You HATE that. I can sympathise. I can sympathise so much that I want you to get out of my life. I’m sure the feeling is mutual. I’ve given up on you, as I said. I don’t want to fight with you, change your mind, influence your affairs, any of it, if you would do me the simple courtesy of treating me in the same manner.
The ONLY way I can possibly think such a happy arrangement can be realised is if we have some much greater degree of political autonomy. While I fully acknowledge the map isn’t a perfect split of reds and blues, there are still regional differences that I think define “cultural regions” like “The Northeast”, “The Pacific Northwest”, “The South”. When we say those terms, we don’t just conjure a geography. We conjure a culture; and it’s not an entirely inaccurate mental picture that we have. Why fight with nature? Can’t we just get along? Certainly! We can get along much better when we aren’t so intimately tied that what one percieves as odious is not forced upon the other by political fiat.
You feel me here?
This word does not mean what you want it to mean. I have voted in the last four presidential election; my candidate has never won. I am not disenfranchised.
And what about your conservative neighbor? Would he be “disenfranchised” simply because he lives in a state where he is a minority? Perhaps he can declare soverignty over his back yard.
If he can tolerate living where he is, great; if he can’t, he’ll have the ability to move to a place more to his cultural liking without visa hassles and so-on. I understand this isn’t entirely fair; the arrangement simply couldn’t be in its initial phase of realisation. However, over the long term, I think fairness would be greatly enhanced for those who find themselves in a comfortable space.
Kind of gets to the heart of it though doesn’t it? After all, you are asking this theoretical conservative (in reality, minority but still large percentage of the population in New England) to be tolerant or to move out of your fantasy land. Why can’t you follow that same advice? Bush won’t be in office forever. Even assuming he wins another term (which doesn’t look good atm), he will be gone in no more than 4 more years. And I can pretty much guarentee you that after Bush is gone, the country will swing 180 degrees on the political spectrum and we’ll have a Democrat president (hell, maybe it will be Hillary).
However, if you don’t like democracy (i.e. if you really can’t handle that sometimes your particular candidate or view isn’t the majority), if you want to live in a nation where everyone thinks just like you, and there is never a government elected you don’t agree with…well, you are living in a fantasy world for one thing. However, if the US doesn’t suit, there really are myriad other options. Didn’t you say your family was originally from French Canada? Move there, they’d love to have you. Hell, move to France for that matter as you speak the language. You don’t HAVE to stay in the US if its really that painful for you. We will do our best to muddle along without you. 
-XT
Well, a recent trip to New Zealand gave me extremely serious pause…as in, at the gate of the plane, wondering if I should get on and fly home. Sad fact is, all my family, all my wife’s family, the neices and nephews and so on, are all on this continent. NZ is rather expensive to get in and out of, especially if you want to go to North America. I’ve actually looked into Canada, and that might be a future possibility.
Thing is, I have no problem with Democracy. However, I tend to wonder if Democracy tends to get a little unwieldy when the size of the population participating in it grows to the multiple hundreds of millions that we have. Now you’ve got this vast expanse of land, and the cultural and ideological differences that physical separation engenders. Yet everybody is supposed to be part of the whole, right?
But why? I look at the European Union, and I think they’re onto something. Granted, they approached a state of affairs that I would think is ideal from rather the opposite direction, but imagine: An “American Union” with mostly politically autonomous regions, yet perhaps joined by a common currency and some other agencies; perhaps the postal service, aviation regulators, things like that. People can move freely across borders, work in any other region; but the regions do have a distinction from one another that the general population finds agreeable. They can run their internal affairs quite differently, if they so choose.
Part of what’s great about democracy is diversity, but to a point. Also, there’s a weird kind of approach toward monoculture with large nations that perhaps isn’t as healthy as we’re led to believe. What’s the matter with a diverse collection of semi-autonomous states that can evolve in their own way without forced homogenaity? You’ve still got diversty, world diversity. And it’s not like, within the states, there would be a unanimity of oppinions. But perhaps the smaller states/regions would have enough diversity to be healty, but not so much that they become schizoid and are undermined by equal but opposite forces constantly at loggerheads. I like to think of the LA freeway as an analogy: Gridlock. Too many different destinations on the same road. If people had more choices of what route to take, they’d get to their destination faster, and happier. Plus, every once in a while, they could go freely on another road for a visit, and take home something of a novell experience. That’s the fun, and the value, of visiting different countries, right? People lament the dumbing down and standardization of culture, where everybody some day will speak English and listen to Britney Spears. Maybe some diversity can be augmented with autonomy, without destroying the useful aspects of political association. Just, you know, make certain that the association isn’t inextricably binding.
Kinda like the EU, maybe. Is that so bad?
Your wisdom is manifest, Lord Mountbatten.
Let us not forget that Ghandhi also saw the inevitablility of partition, and the Indian Subcontinent may be better for it, at this stage, given Hindu-Muslim animosity past and present. For failing to keep the Punjab, Gandhi was killed by a Hindu. For failing to reunite Ireland, Mountbatten was killed by the IRA.
People don’t know how to share.
LD:
It’s really pretty simple. All you have to do is convice people that they have more to gain than they will lose by secession. If you can’t do that, then it’ll never fly.
Just being pissed off at that current administration is not enough. Most people are able to take longer timeframes into account.
There is an ongoing push for succession by a group in Northern California/Southern Oregon who wants to start a state called Jefferson. They even have merchandise!
He was too busy blowing the election.