straightUp Loc: California

I'm initiating this thread because it was a topic that was taking focus away from another thread (Nancy Pelosi Derails The Stimulus Bill). I know that NEVER happens, right?

Someone had suggested that the east and west coasts are dictating to the entire country. (I'm sure others have the opposite opinion on that) There were a few responses but I made the suggestion that the U.S. is too big and that the "one-size fits all" format just isn't working for us. I suggested that we break into smaller sovereign nations to give people better representation. I think there would be no shortage of hurdles to clear, but I think there are only two things really, that dissuade us from even considering it.

1. A ruling class (plutocracy) that likes the control they have over a population of 300 million.
2. The American people may not have the courage to break free.

Just to be clear, I might be satisfied with a loose confederation which would still retain *some* level of centralized government as long as it gives the population more freedom to determine their own destiny.

This may surprise some of you, being that I'm a liberal but I do advocate smaller government. I think democracy works better in smaller batches. But you can't have a small government and expect to keep a giant country. IMO, that is as absurd as those women who cram their feet into shoes that are two sizes too small. If a government is too big, it means the country is too big and we need to face that.

So...

I've been thinking about this for years now and I've done a fair amount of research. I think for this to work we would have to go beyond the state level. If we look at the political and cultural contention in this oversized nation, we can see that the divisions don't actually run along state borders, it seems they run closer to the edges of urban zones, which is why blues states like California, New York and Pennsylvania still have a lot of red space between their cities.

So, I would suggest each county or district be given a choice and like-minded counties can join together to form new sovereign entities. I think much of the decision would be influenced by the prevailing industries in those regions and I would expect the result to look something like the maps we see from megalopian studies.



I can't imagine getting there would be easy to do... but I think ultimately, it would be better for everyone on all sides of the spectrum and it may be time to start talking about it.

Gatsby

All that is truly necessary is strict interpretation of the 9th and 10th Articles of the Bill of Rights!

President Trumps re-election may just get US there! 4 more years!

American Vet

VERY interesting. However, I think that would end up as a mass of squabbling 'states' and we would quickly fall prey to the other world dominating powers (China, Russia). Make no mistake, they would move quickly IF they thought they could get away with it.

Our massive size and cohesion (when necessary) is our primary defense.

straightUp Loc: California

Hmm... interesting choices. Personally, I don't think either one of them are foolproof. I can probably write 6 conflicting interpretations and claim each of them to be strict. So I'm curious about YOUR interpretation. As you probably know, both of them make a strong impression on our court system. I also know that Trump is putting a high priority on reconfiguring our court system, so your little rah-rah at the end intrigues me even more.

In any case, would there be a reason why you couldn't enforce the same concepts with a newly created constitution for your new sovereign state?

straightUp Loc: California

Ah... the fear factor. Watch out, the boogeyman will getcha! ;)

Nah, I hear ya... a lot of people share that concern with you. And don't get me wrong, I'm not making light of it, I just think that on the big list of threats, a military invasion isn't as close to the top as it was 100 years ago. I have several reasons for saying this, but for now I'll just mention the biggest. I believe we've been living the past 40 years under a "new" world order that is currently 98% globalized. Let's just call this world order, "financial markets". Conquering a financial market will essentially get you anything you could ever ask from conquering a physical country, but with a lot less effort. Why invade America when you can just buy it?

Again, there are other reasons like peak resources but this global order is the biggest.

I think you're still affected by all that Cold War propaganda, which even in the 50's and 60's was based on WW2 thinking. I run into this a lot. I made a bet on this site about 6 years ago that healthcare is now more critical to our national defense that the military is. I used the argument that a pandemic is a greater threat to our well-being than any foreign military force. He laughed and thought I was another idiot liberal.

Well... since then we haven't been invaded by any military force but we DID get hit by a pandemic that has shut down businesses, put us in lockdown and has so far killed 104,000 Americans.

I don't know about the squabbling... Maybe. But I think any solution beyond lip-service is going to cause disruption and some degree of squabbling.

Cuda2020

I agree with American Vet in the respects of our defenses. Yet how would this work, to stay separate yet still brothers, if you will. We know the blue would prefer to put more funds into education versus military, therefore how would it work if we were attacked?

We both would support R & D, but most probably in different areas.

How would it work in healthcare? Our rules on it would have to be strict and lines to be drawn, but possible.

People would need to be clear on the different laws, as on one side you'll land in jail and the other you're
fine. Which is I guess how it is now, ironically with pot smokers. Do they get one get out of jail card for being stupid and we can retrieve them back home?

I believe things would be more simplified with two regions as far as governing, yet to be able to exchange goods as we always have, that way one region doesn't suffer due to agricultural benefits/differences.

woodguru

Not if he succeeds in killing of so many of his supporters in red states as hes trying, he is going to be in trouble in Michigan, Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee...these are states where there are easily discerned optics that are going to put the blame right square on him for ignoring this pandemic for two months.

woodguru

You think we will have cohesion when the social divide will be exacerbated by examples like a state like Tennessee that listened to Trump while Kentucky's dem governor acted to curb Covid, and the 300 versus 1300 current ratio blows into a thousand versus 10,000 in a few weeks and way beyond that in another month or two. When Kentucky sees it controlled within six weeks and Tennessee is facing hundreds or thousands of deaths and they haven't begun to see progress. You think Tennessee won't wish they'd had a governor like Kentucky does, or that Kentucky republicans won't realize how lucky their state is to have had a leader that got it?

We will see, I think people will come out of their blind faith in trump when this happens... the reasons for the differences will be too easy to figure out.

Cuda2020

Thinking about this a little further, I think the only way this could work is to be two completely separate governments, and working with each other possibly as we work with Canada. If it were to bring peace, I'm all for it, sad to think, but maybe, in the long run, the divorce would be better for the children, I believe we have irreconcilable differences.

straightUp Loc: California

Yeah, it's a common perspective.


An alliance, if you will. ;)


Considering the fact that our military-industrial complex is almost entirely located in blue regions. I would think there would be some interest in those regions to support that industry and I'm fairly certain it's the technology produced by that industry that gives our military its edge.

BTW, a lot of the military-industrial complex is centered on universities and research labs typically funded by blue-thinking people.

Personally, I think we could defend ourselves easily with about a third of the current budget. I'm pretty sure the only reason why we spend as much as we do on "defense" is because the military-industrial complex is like... Cha-Ching! Do you need rocket launcher? No? Well, the Pentagon says you do. (LOL) Oh, you don't have the money? Don't worry, we'll get our people to pay for it... after all, your defense is our defense. (wink, wink, nudge, nuge)... Cha-Ching!

So I don't know bro. Maybe it will depend on which the of blue republics we're talking about, in any case I don't think defending ourselves from the unlikely event would be impeded by a more perfect separation.


I think healthcare is one area of concern that would benefit greatly, at least in the blue republics. In simple terms, it would be sufficiently funded. The beauty of this is that we wouldn't have to care about what the red republics are doing. They can decide not to force healthy people to pay for treatment of unhealthy people and when those healthy people get sick and have to pay more cost out of pocket because their system is underfunded they won't be able to siphon funds from us because our system is ours. They have their own.


I don't think there's a solution for stupid. People need to be aware of the rules in the jurisdictions they visiting or living in. That's kind of a universal rule.


Honestly cuda, I don't think it matters how many ways you slice the world up, trade will always resolve itself one way or another, it's human nature.

straightUp Loc: California

I'm glad you gave it a little more thought. Yes, I am in indeed suggesting completely separate governments not just two but several... and negotiations between them would be on the international level. That doesn't mean we can't have trade blocks and alliances it just means we won't have the levels of government gridlock and disenfranchised citizens that we have now.

It *is* kind of sad, and I realize it screws with our sense of nationality but I think you're right about our irreconcilable differences and the future of our children.

American Vet

Where did I say anything about a military invasion?

Your comment about predicting a pandemic 6 years ago: I was involved in discussions about that in the 70's (in the military)- as well as 'economic wars'.

So it is not a 'fear factor', just plain old common sense.

Cuda2020

I really can't see the point in several regions, I think that overcomplicates things, too many rules/laws with too many governments, with families, possibly split up to visit too many regions, not sure, and I think they can be more vulnerable, look at Russia. Therefore, my question, why do you prefer several?

Also, how do we know the military complex groups don't flock to the red region who seems to work more for
their support. I mean if they were to stay with the blue, wouldn't we see the same exact thing happening all over again, them pushing themselves into controlling our government and how funds are spent, money talks.


I agree with you on health care and trade

straightUp Loc: California

Is that not what you were concerned about when you said "Our massive size and cohesion (when necessary) is our primary defense." ???

I'm not sure what other type of defense would require both massive size and cohesion. Maybe you can explain.


I didn't say I predicted it. I said it was a greater threat than a military invasion.

As for your involvement in military discussions about the threat of pandemics and economic wars in the 70's, I'm not sure how that proves your point. I've read enough reports from the military community to believe those discussions happened, but that doesn't mean they were ever translated into policy. If they were, feel free to point them out because the pandemic is happening now and I am not seeing any indication of preemptive military action.



Think about this my friend... some anonymous user on a political website says that the massive size of our population and it's cohesion is critical to our defense and when I suggest that might be a scare tactic, he comes back and says it's not because he was involved in military discussions about pandemics and economic wars in the 70's...

So, am I supposed to assume you're an expert and just trust whatever you say? Or is there actually a logical connection? I'm not trying to be contrary here, I'm just trying to understand your argument.

Here's why I think it's probably a scare tactic... we are a massive population of consumers being controlled by a centralized government. There is no better situation for a business to profit from this massive consumer base than through an agreement with that centralized government and there is no better way for that centralized government to control that massive consumer base than enforcing cohesion and there is no better way to force that cohesion than to suggest dire consequences for the alternative, which may or may not be true.

I used the term "fear factor" but in the in the world of rhetoric there's a specific name for it... this particular type of fallacy is called a "false dilemma" and it's one of the oldest tricks in human history. Religions have been using that trick for thousands of years... "do what we say or you will burn in hell"... Governments do the same thing, "conform to our order or you will be attacked by the enemy".

Now, I don't have any reason to doubt what you claim... at least not yet, but this need for a massive population in lockstep isn't holding up to my assessment. I did initiated this thread to learn about the concerns people might have on the matter, so if you have a valid concern that I'm just not understanding, I would appreciate further explanation - at the very least, a connection.

straightUp Loc: California

Is Russia more vulnerable than we are? Vulnerable to what exactly? I don't understand the reference. I understand your concern about needing more rules if we disperse. But I don't think it's a given. We maybe one nation but we have a deep hierarchy of laws and jurisdictions that more than make up for it.

In fact, it's interesting that you bring Russia up on the heels of your statement about "too many rules"... I can remember a conversation I had with a database architect who studied law in Russia and he said he was astounded by the sheer volume of laws that exist in America.


Because the point is to improve representation. As I stated in the OP, I think democracy works best in small batches. So, to get the numbers down to where people can actually be heard we would need a bigger divisor than 2.


What exactly do you mean when you say the red region works more for their support? You mean, they are more willing to pay for it?

Here's my thought on the matter... The MIC is a network of companies, universities and research labs, many of them working together as contractors and sub-contractors. Now, moving a company is one thing but moving an industry is quite another. It would be disruptive and costly. Also, keep in mind that the scientists and engineers working in the MIC live in blue regions and they have families there. So if that blue region became a republic, wouldn't it make sense to keep the technology and the military superiority it creates in the republic that your family lives in?

Also, keep in mind that it won't matter if the red people are willing to spend more of their money on the military if they don't have the money anyway. As it is now, they are depending on the federal government to force the blue states to pay in because the blue states have the money, the red states don't. I know this sounds kind of brutal but sometimes the truth *is* brutal.


Yes, I expect so... the difference is that blue people tend to be more educated and I think less prone to be misled by the MIC. They are much less likely to believe that we need enough warheads to blow the planet into oblivion 50 times over just to defend ourselves and the MIC won't be able to depend on a federal government to leverage the gullibility of the red people to force the sale.

As a result, I think we would see a closer match between the money and the need, leading to a smaller but smarter and more effective defense system as well as billions of dollars diverted from the pockets of investors and into the public systems that would make the blue republics worth defending.

BTW, There's a good chance that the blue republics will be dependent on the red republics for food, if that turns out to be the case, it would be in the best interest for the blue republics to protect the red republics.

So far, I'm not really seeing any compelling argument for preserving the union that can't be disputed. It's just a bit uncomfortable to think about because it's outside the box.