I’m in favor of giving Texas and the Louisiana Purchase area to the theocratic, gun loving folks who make me crazy with their crap. We could get them to take a healthy portion of the nation debt, coordinate overall defense, cooperate on trade issues, in short, everything on which we agree, but…
The coasts and the lakes could get some decent gun control laws, forget arguing forever about women’s rights, minority rights, etc. with a clearly secular, more European society model…they can be happy in their theocratic based country where they can starve their poor and elderly, let the rich take over 99% of the wealth with a reestablished feudal system, give their women over to submissive relationships only, etc. etc.
I am really tired of their crap, when decent politicians can’t afford to say that reasonable gun laws make sense for everyone, will help preserve gun ownership forever for honest people, etc.
Do you think we could keep the same Constitution for both countries and then let the evolution of liberal thought and conservative thought shape the court decisions in each country, creating the kind of country each of us want?
How simplistic! And how often has this proposal come up here? Use this map to draw the borders.
Your profile mentions North Carolina, which seems to have some pretty obvious red spots. The Republicans* in control of your General Assembly* are agin’ Obamacare. Here’s theirplatform.
Splitting before was not by mutual consent, but, perhaps Lincoln could have avoided 600000 dead Americans by letting them go and then suing them for the value of the Federal facilities lost. The South might have made it clear that the Feds could use all their forts and other military installations in perpetuity and might have urged negotiations on an amicable split. Instead, they attacked Federal installations and made it into an Us and Them situation.
Realistically, the split was not for the same reasons as today’s split would be. A negotiated split might be preferable to the war that is coming between right wing nut cases and the rest of us if they don’t wise up soon.
the best ideas are the least complex ones. We will need extensive immigration/emigration to make everyone happy. Actually, the truth is that most people wouldn’t really care which country they were in, but the nut jobs on each end of the spectrum would have a place to go.
Why does everybody cite the Civil War as the reason the USA can never split? Completely different conditions in a completely different century. And maybe it’s a bad idea, but reject it on its own merits rather than with kneejerk cites of “we tried that once, a zillion years ago, and it didn’t work.” Maybe your first try was a good idea that only failed because it was badly executed.
Personally, I don’t think splitting the US would solve anything, but not because of the 1860s.
I suppose the real question is whether the competing political and philosophical paths represented by the fringes of our population are so intractable as to render the future of our country a constant foment?
And, yes, I agree that the 1860’s doesn’t teach us how to do it right, when differences are unnegotiable.
We already have all of this. There is greater freedom of movement now than we could have under a two state scheme. Extremists currently gravitate towards certain areas. Most folks don’t care too much about state politics, instead putting economic opportunity and family ties first in their decisions about where to live.
The Federal government is a moderating influence on the states, and that’s generally for the good of all. If you really believe that red states would turn into predatory, theocratic oligarchies (and I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you), then your plan is immoral because it would abandon the most vulnerable people- those who lack the means to move away. While it would be convenient to wash your hands of any responsibility for the well-being of poor people in states you don’t like, it is a cowardly position. “Oh, look, the Republic of Texas just legalized burning homosexuals at the stake. Well, it’s on their conscience, and besides all the gay people should have moved when they had a chance.”
Also, there is no armed conflict coming between the right and left. People have always loudly talked shit when they didn’t get exactly what they want, actual internal violent conflict has been vanishingly rare for a very long time.
The first thought I had on this was while its tempting to “get rid” of those who don’t think the way I do, I really don’t want to live in a country where everyone thinks the same, has the same political, religious views etc. However annoying those on the other side of the aisle from us can be, I don’t want to live somewhere that other beliefs aren’t tolerated. There are countries that actively discourage and even prohibit different points if view, and none of those places are anywhere I would be willing to live. Learning to tolerate different ideas is a better idea.
Probably not on a large scale; the right trends too old, they lack cannon fodder. We’ll probably see more militia-standoffs and Timothy McVeigh style terrorism though.
Maybe, but that assumes an awful lot of influence on the part of the frothing, big talking watercooler bullies who espouse this stuff. As you say, the cannon fodder of semi-competent, ready to kill and die young men is lacking and maybe not as motivated by the political entertainment business as one might think.
The brief flowering of the '90’s milita douchebag movement resulted in a small number of deaths and no lasting effect. They are the punchline to an off-color joke, and nothing more. Partitioning the country to appease people who might one day possibly do stuff like that again maybe, is totally fucking nuts. More people die from smoking, and nobody wants to kick out North Carolina to stop it.
On another board, I was just convinced how terrible it would be for the economy to get rid of all the guns, seeing as how so many people would be out of work. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, police, rehab, newscasters, headline writers, gun and ammo magazine publishers, etc. etc. In fact, disposing of guns might well cause an economic downturn. If we redirected the money we spend on useless military every year into infrastructure and education we would have something to show for it, but, there is no equivalent argument for taking guns out of society. some 50000 job openings per year are created by gun deaths and injuries, as well.
I suppose it would be best to let the boys play with their toys, so long as they don’t point them at me.