I say we do like the English Football leagues, and “relegate” one state every year. So maybe this year we kick out South Dakota (I hate those bastards), and they can come back if and when when they get their shit together.
In the meantime, we promote the best-looking team from the minor leagues to take their place. I’m thinking of Nova Scotia.
How many Americans nowadays even die in the same state where they were born? A majority, probably, but not an overwhelming majority. We have become a very mobile, a very national, society. The most important divisions within this country are not geographical divisions, they are differences of social class, ethnicity, religion, cultural traditions, and political views – and you will find these divisions within any state and almost any county.
From BrainGlutton
Well put. Completely agree with you on this. I think that, if anything, such regional associations are getting less and less in the US. And the reason, as you say, is our mobility. I live in New Mexico, and I work with people who moved here from all over the country (and even all over the world).
To take the point further, I think that we (as a species) are on the path to having our NATIONAL associations break down…eventually. To continue with my own analogy, I have friends scattered all over the world. I have people that I work with every day that are from other countries…and I associate with THEM and their thoughts than I do with a lot of my own countrymen on many issues.
I doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime, but I really think that we’ll see a time of national consolidations, where current soveriegn nations form larger unions (through trade or whatever) with other soveriegn nations, binding themselves tighter and tighter together…until the concept of the old ‘nations’ ceases to mean anything.
I like to use Europe as an example. I really think that in our lifetimes we’ll see a EU SUPERnation emerge, where folks will no longer really BE French, Germans, etc…but will associate themselves with larger entity. I also think that Asia will eventually go there (if China ever shapes up), with a supernational Asian consolidated country. Maybe even the ME and Africia will go that route (in the FAR distant future). As barriers (trade, travel, work, etc) come down, as standard currencies are put in place, as languages merge, as people are free to move around, to settle and work anywhere, the boarders will become more and more irrelevant I think. I suppose we’ll see…Europe will be first IMO.
Oh, I think the people of the old ‘nations’ will retain their ethnic roots BTW…but it will be like in the US, where I am hispanic, I’m from New Mexico…but I’m an American, and more truely associate myself with that.
-XT
>> In a hundred years, we will have something like the United Nations,
> Don’t you think there would be fierce opposition to this in
> the US? Political tides may change, but I still think the US
> will remain vastly anti-globalization for quite a while;
No. The United States will be the model for breaking down the borders between countries. In the old days, the borders between states was a big deal. Now, the only indication that you’ve crossed into a new state is a cheerful sign by the side of the road and a change in the tax rate. You can even cross into a different country (Canada) with just a wave to the border patrol (and not even that if you just walk around behind the guard shack).
Europe seems to be working towards this goal. With the new Euro as a start, it shouldn’t be too long before the borders between European countries is largely symbolic. And, the United States doesn’t seem particularly opposed to a united Europe.
Next: The world.
I knew CA was a schizophrenic state, but… 
Nah, I don’t see it happening. The US just isn’t a sovereign state which contains large, distinct “peoples” who identify themselves under a sub-nation. There’s no equivalent of Quebec, Scotland, Catalonia, etc. in the USA. Besides, where will the will to split up come from? Politicians? Social leaders? The media?
You know, this very same thought has lately been bugging me in my subconcious. It is just now that I was able to put words to it.
I see it as possible. Within the next century? Quite possible.
Not that it would necessarily be a bad thing. It doesn’t have to be bad. We are a collection of United States all under one striped banner, afterall.
I used to laugh at this concept whenever it came up in role playing games and cheesy science fiction movies. But since the big problems lately have been effecting individual states (Florida’s recount, California’s recall, North Carolina’s hurricane Isabelle), more importance has been put on the Governors of such states than I can remember, for a long time.
Communications has brought everyone globally closer together. But I definitely sense an opposite and equal force pushing people apart geographically.
I imagine that this would be a gradual thing. Slowly, political differences would separate a state, or small group of states, from the union. This would happen until the question, “Why are you even a state?” would be asked.
The benefits of letting Montana and the Northwest Contingent leave the union would be weighed against making them stay.
Yeah, I could see this happen.
More or less impossible. Differences in law between states hasn’t caused states to break away from the Union since 1861, why should it begin now?
Possibly, but somehow I doubt it. You’d have to convince a lot of nations that giving up self governence is in their best interest, and deciding what laws/tax code to live under.
In 1000 years, sure. 100 years, not likely.
I think you’d need something really massive to break up the US.
For instance - if the Yellowstone supervolcano popped off it would cause continent-wide devastation (at the least), kill lots of people, and severely disrupt both the economy and the cross-continental links (roads, powerlines, etc) that bind the country together. You’d wind up with a stinking hole bounded on both sides by a devasted and now marginally habitable strip of land.
I’d expect the vultures and jackals to show up shortly afterward, and then the US of A would cease to exist.
Or, if a really horrible plague wipe out a substantial chunk of the population (either on the continent or world-wide) local survival will trump concern about what’s going on across the hill and THAT would collapse the union.
But JUST politics? Nope. Don’t think so, not in the next century. Not enough state/geographical identity, too many cross-ties across parts of the country.
In his sf novels Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson portrayed a near future in which the U.S. (and, implicitly, every other nation-state) has broken up – not into smaller regional republics, but into microstates which are essentially federations or, rather, franchise chains of autonomous neighborhoods. The main character, Hiro Protagonist, is a citizen of New Hong Kong, which means he has a passport to enter any New Hong Kong “burbclave.” Obviously this was conceived as a logical extrapolation of the new walled-and-gated suburban communities. In his later novel The Diamond Age, set a generation or so later, the burbclaves have evolved into “tribes.” Most but not all tribes have their own bits of territory; public space, not belonging to any tribe, is ruled by a sort of treaty arrangement. The idea is that modern communications technologies make all this possible.
I doubt that we’ll see a state or group of states secede, but I see a revolution as increasingly likely.
There are only a handful of states that are capable of separate economic survival, mainly those in the Midwest. Most other states are too dependent on others for fundamental resources such as food, power, or water to go it alone. And these states are the ones least likely to desire secession, politically.
Breakup- no; greater state & regional power leading to a more confederated, less federal, national gov’t- perhaps
Speaking of course from the Canton of Kentuckiana G
2012- John Liberal is elected, after a fiece campaign. His platform is very left leaning, and amongst it’s planks is gun control. Specifically, the outlawing of handguns and most longarms.
President John Liberal immediatly signs an executive order. It is immediatly contested in court, but until a decision is made, the order stands.
2013- An FBI/BATF taskforce exchanges gunfire with an elderly farmer who refuses to give up his hunting rifles. The man is killed. Several weeks later, agenst approach another rural home to seize weapons and a fierce firefight erupts. The agents are driven back, and the National Guard is called out (think Waco).
National Guard troops refuse to fire first on civilians. Many guardsmen are sympathetic to the civilians. Nobody is certain exactly what happens, but elements of the Nat. Guard are arrested and charged for aiding and abetting.
Meanwhile, armed standoffs are cropping up all over the country, and National Guard units are less and less likely to respond to these situations.
President Liberal, fearing a poltical disaster, activates the US Army, which immediatly puts down several standoffs with deadly force.
Somewhere in the MidWest, however, a National Guard unit clashes with a US Army detachment.
Things rapidly go downhill, and the US essentially splits, not geographically (at first) but politically, with the extremes of right and left actually fighting it out. Eventually both sides have enough territory to be “independant”, and one side claims to be the US, while another may also claim to be the US, or may outright declare itself a new and independant nation.
It’s possible. Not likely, but possible.
I fail to see the romance involved in this. It won’t work, because the trend is for consolidation, towards earning more and using more resources. Splitting up won’t get us to that goal. It would break the country up into smaller, less wealthy and useful “republics” or whatnot, and create a whole new level of problems.
Too much hassle.
Tristan: One big problem, President’s don’t get elected with extremist viewpoints. Banning Firearms, while the Liberals Wet Dream, is unsupportable politically for now.
Oh, and the classic “You can’t use the Army on American Soil.” arguement.
Sorry for the brief hijack, but I just have to say I would love to see Tristan’s post novelized.
Hmm. Well, during the Detroit race riots back in the '60’s, President Johnson sent in regular troops without the request of the governor. As I recall, there was some debate as to whether or not he had the legal authority to do so.
2012 1/2 - John Liberal assassinated.
Which is not to say that’s what I’d want necessarily … it’s more of a prediction.
It is also possible, Tristan and furt, that in this scenario John Liberal would win. I don’t think more than a small minority of Americans would be prepared, under any circumstances, to rebel against the government solely to defend their right to bear arms.