Would you support the "divided states" of America?

[lightbulb27]

The Divided States of America. It's clear there is a great political divide, and what is going to resolve the divide? Nothing I know of... the left is extreme and the right isn't changing anytime soon. The country is harshly divided and has been for some time, before Trump, but it's worse now. One solution to resolve the conflict so there is less friction... just divide the country into states and each state aligns with a party!

Were together, eventhough we are divided

If you like the Democratic thinking, then their leaders will select states that are their own... California, maybe New York. It's done like a football draft pick and they get first pick. There they can have their policies... no guns, immigrants permitted, prison laws, etc.. Ohio, Michigan, Carolina could be Republican as example and there you can own guns, live under stricter laws, etc.. Whatever Republican leadership chooses to instill. The laws are to be determined by that state. If you don't like the state you are in, leave and go to another that aligns with your thinking!

Would you support this concept... directionally. There are many details to work out obviously. But just think of the democratic bliss in California, and Republican bliss in Wyoming or Dakota. Everyone happy, no need to argue.

Each would have to contribute to national defense evenly.

Yes I like the idea

No

Not sure

[nightdrot]

Let's keep some perspective here. You mean compared to the civil war when 650,000 Americans killed each other, so robust were they divided politically? Suffice to say, the nation has been here before. Indeed, the nation has been through much worse.

To start, it is well to keep in mind that the nation lacks historical perspective and because it lacks such perspective, the media focus makes every dispute look unprecedented. When you have no standard to judge against, each headline makes the world look new.

So part of that sense of division is born of the fact that Americans travel fast because they travel light. Without that sense of proportion and perspective that comes from an educated understanding of the past.

That said, the nation has been here before. The current social tensions and populism parallel the mood and tone of the 1960s and 70s. Distrust of elites and authority, A sense that liberty is an end in itself. Racial tensions, campus radicalism, assassinations, mass protests, race riots, etc. Even radical fashions. (Then the Nehru jacket, beads, tye die shirts and long hair, now colored hair, tattoos and beards.)

Speaking of political divisions, from the end of the Eisenhower administration to the beginning of the Reagan Administration, not one President successfully completed two terms in office. Kennedy is assassinated, Johnson is so unpopular that he is defeated in the NH primary election and is forced to withdraw for re-election. Nixon has the Watergate scandal. Ford is not only not re-elected, he is never elected, having been appointed VP in the wake of Agnew's resignation and then becoming President when Nixon resigns. Carter is defeated after one term of galloping inflation, foreign policy defeats and legislative gridlock.

The difference then is that the technologies tended to reinforce a common language and a common culture where now they tend to exacerbate those divides. Specifically social media which reinforces the very human habit of living in one's own head. Thus, there is even less perspective on the divides that, in fairness, do exist in the country. Even then, you can measure the differences with a micrometer.

That all said, the tensions are also intensified by changes in the economy. The economy is shifting from a manufacturing/extractions base to a service/high tech base. This putting enormous pressures, particularly on the lower middle class and blue collar workers, thereby intensifying social antagonisms.

Yet even here, there is a parallel to the 19th century. As the economy shifted from an agricultural/mercantile base to a manufacturing/extractions base social tensions rose. Hence one of the causes of the Civil War, and later the cries against the "Robber Barons" and "Yellow Journalism, " which you may note have their modern analog in "the Swamp" and "Fake news."

CONT.

[nightdrot]

Disraeli said, "Finality is not in the vocabulary of politics." Lincoln said that the only words that were true for all times and all circumstances is, "This too shall pass away." Yet, Lincoln added, we can hope that it is not quite true. That certain principles may endure.

Thus, Edmund Burke said, "A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman." Reform is to be preferred to revolution but society does not learn and impatience boils over and feeling takes precedence over reason.

Thus, the current times. As the Bible says in another context, "we know not the day nor the hour..." so the job of the good citizen is to ride out the storm and preserve what can be preserved, given primacy to reason and custom over emotion and trendiness.

The tumults of the 1960s and 70s led to the relative - and it is ALWAYS relative - stability, peace and prosperity of the 1980s and 90s. This may just be another swing of the pendulum, or the final swing. It is, to borrow one more quote - this from Dickens - "the best of times, it was the worst of times." Such is the way of the world.

Put it all together and with a bit of perspective and it seems a wee bit disproportionate to divide "this last best hope of man on Earth" just because the sledding gets a bit rough. As I say, we have been here before.

[NaultD]

Biggest part of the USA strength is the connection of two oceans. Wars was held to achive a mile of ocean access, also hard negotiations for river access for inland countries. America also have control of the Panama canal, the greatest shortcut in the world.

If you divide the state's in such a way all of them are pretty weak in general.

[lightbulb27]

yep good points, that's what lincoln was all about... I conceptualize a national cohesvion to the independent states of America. Less federal influence, more states rights and states are defacto declared their political affiliation.

[Anonymous]

How is that any different from what we have now? Last time I checked the states all have their own governors and legislatures. It's pretty much what the plan has been all along. This isn't a new discovery all of a sudden.

Also, the country is no more divided than it ever was. It's been close to a 50/50 split for the past 30 years now.

[lightbulb27]

good points. I see two differences. One is it would be defacto declared vs this constant power struggle. There is equal division. Secondly, it moves the power further to the states such that, someone like libby california could declare they want to allow illegals and don't watn the wall. They welcome all illegals, provide them jobs, job training, health care, etc.. and federal has no right to object since it is their state. The federal role is diminished. That ensures libs get what they want. In a republican state, say North Carolina... they declare everyone can own machine guns. If you are MS13... get out, or else. They make it clear they get death penality day after conviction of selling drugs or committing crimes vs libby Maryland which provides them social rehabilitation, job training, etc.. It allows freedom of policy vs what we have now is constant conflict and head butting.
The problem I have is situation gets worse in my view, I've never seen an emotional divide in my life time. I'm sure it existed before... like civil war, and these things may go in cycles.

Just thinking out loud. I dare a candidate to propose it;)

[Texaskid1]

Nice idea on paper. But it's implementation would require uprooting 10s of millions of people. Not to mention the many, many people who would not want to leave their homes. There are liberals in Texas that would not want to leave same for conservative minorities in California or New York

[SkipStop]

If only this solution was simple. But CaliExit should not be that hard to achieve. Shove all the far leftist into that deteriorating state and lock them up.

[Rangers]

I'd support us becoming independent, then we'll finally be able to keep our guns in peace without hearing whiney, uninformed idiots crying about it constantly.

[Fiiggy]

I feel the West Coast should include Utah and Colorado or New Mexico and Colorado. This plan will only make the political divide worse actually.

[Stoner710]

I’m in complete agreement with you man

[Stoner710]

I’m curious how do you think it would be divided up because like me I’m in Washington arguably more to use my term regressive as California would I have to move? And Idaho is pretty conservative. Like how do will get it so the least amount of people have to move lol

[lightbulb27]

A simple draft system like football, coin toss by Fed Chairmen gets first pick (he's the top guy... we all know that). They pick a state and goes from there. Washington DC remains neutral. The end of the bitching and complaining... thank God... if she exists (quote from Helen Reddy... lol;)

Not sure if states can choose neutrality like switzerland... maybe. but then there can be no party, just people who run. not allowed to encroach your ideas on other states, if CA wants to take in and baby psychopaths, they can do that.

how do we choose president then... ugh.. I think the fed gets back to the constituion they've crapped all over, their powers are lessened to where it doens't matter so much, they just control national defense.

[Stoner710]

What do you mean by the fed normally I’m think the Federal reserve. (I’m a libertarian I think the reserve is terrible idea)

[lightbulb27]

Federal Reserve is what I meant, but that's a good point, I'm more libertarian as well and it's existence is another big question... but that's a whole another question.

[Stoner710]

Personally I think I’ll banking should be left private and not get the government involved Andrew Jackson fight against the tanks for years and one is dying words were I killed the banks but it wasn’t until the arguably third worst president of them all Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve into existence Very bad idea in my opinion

[lightbulb27]

Exactly... you know the history... they know what a theft ring it is... but sure makes feel rich w all the leverage

[Stoner710]

Pretty much the world bank had control on all of Europe and the U. S didn’t want them to come in they realized the importance of local banks but they didn’t want a federal one. ( American and east Asia historian that your survive lol )

[lightbulb27]

you are history major?

[Stoner710]

Yup history major Japanese minor lol I’ll be done with my major by the end of this year and minor by spring of next year (Japanese is the hardest language for English speakers) haginimasute boku no wa Josh desu Beru wa nomimasuka? ハグ沼ステ僕のわJoshです　ビル　飲みますか？　hello my name is josh do you drink beer

[lightbulb27]

Pleased to make your acquaintenance. Ohio (thats hello and goodbye... and all I know:)
We're doing what the Japanese did in their banking system (it was likely our idea). doesn't look so good...

[Stoner710]

Ohiyo it means good morning syonada is goodbye lol.

And yes we probably expose them to the virus of the world bank.

But I find kind of funny is 7/11 in a bank over there

[lightbulb27]

u mean sayonara = goodbye?
7/11 - I guess they like sugar:)

[Stoner710]

Right lol

I Guess a Japanese guy bought 7/11 and started a 7/11 bank pretty funny I think of course they love KFC for Christmas dinner

[Girther10]

All I can say is you are very creative. But no. 😎