One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
What do you consider is the number one reason the United States is so divided?
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
Aug 5, 2022 13:27:26   #
Elwood Loc: Florida
 
Quora.com



James Madison

Frankly, because it is too big and culturally diverse to be governed centrally. And contrary to prevailing opinion, there are some very astute thinkers on the left as well as the right who have offered some compelling arguments to that effect.

The constitutional framers were fully aware of the immense cultural, political and economic diversity of the United States when they convened in Philadelphia in May, 1787. Despite several appeals to bind the 13 self-governing states under a national government, the framers settled on a system that Madison characterized as a compound republic: a “republic of republics” in which states retained sovereignty as well as many of the attributes of nationhood while delegating to the general government a handful of powers that were more effectively exercised at a continental level: national defense, foreign policy and a means of raising revenue that only sufficient to pay off the Revolutionary War debt but also to ensure that the general government was effectively equipped to garner sufficient revenue to carry out these tasks.

Some nationalists, notably Hamilton, wanted the general government to be equipped with a veto on state legislature to safeguard its relatively narrow prerogatives, but this was rejected.

States reserved the power to chart their own domestic policies.

Today, the federal government, significantly through passage of the 14th Amendment, has garned significant control over state domestic policy - a measure that many Americans would applaud for the role it has served in securing the descendants of freed slaves many of the common rights of citizenship of which their forebears were deprived in the years following emancipation.

Even so, the growth of federal power at the expense of the states has created plenty of mischief and ill feeling along both sides of the blue/red divide.

In what can be regarded as an unorthodox but courageous column, Michael Malice stressed in The Observer some 6 years ago that the United States has functioned as a united country only at a few times in history: in the “Era of Good Feeling” following the collapse of the Hamiltonian Federalist party, during the FDR presidency as the nation battled its way through a global depression and another world war and, more recently, after the Iraqi invasion and the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Aside from that, the term “the United States” has served to obfuscate a number of historical complexities. Malice argues that this includes an especially inconvenient and painful truth: that the United States has never possessed a common culture and never will, despite the efforts of Abraham Lincoln and a host of public intellectuals and academics to invent one.

Yet, there other painful realities that should be addressed and likely will at some point as the divisions are felt more acutely: namely, the fact that the country possesses a population now exceeding 300-million, rendering effective central governance on a constitutional, democractic basis increasingly impractical.

Years ago, in fact, the progressive decentrist Gar Alperovitz has raised one of the great ironies bound up in James Madison's legacy: that he favored big national polities, albeit only up to their optimal levels off efficiency. Beyond that point, he stressed in a letter to his mentor, Thomas Jefferson, that a sprawling nation-state supplies elites at the center to exploit division and undermine democratic government.

We arguably passed that inflection point decades ago. Indeed in the early 1990's a revered nonagenarian diplomat, George F. Kennan, argued in his memoirs that the country would be far better off divided into ten or so “constituent republics,” vested with virtually all the powers of domestic governance, while the general government is restricted only to those powers assigned to it by the framers.

Whether the country ever manages to work out a means whereby effective governance is restored in the form of viable federalism and genuine democratic policy-making remains an open question.

If it is not resolved, there is the increasingly likelihood, as Alperovitz stesses, that large states such as California and even regions will begin unilaterally functioning more or less as de facto nation-states. And if this occurs, we may face an unraveling effect not all that far removed from the late Soviet Union.

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 14:47:55   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
Elwood wrote:
Quora.com



James Madison

Frankly, because it is too big and culturally diverse to be governed centrally. And contrary to prevailing opinion, there are some very astute thinkers on the left as well as the right who have offered some compelling arguments to that effect.

The constitutional framers were fully aware of the immense cultural, political and economic diversity of the United States when they convened in Philadelphia in May, 1787. Despite several appeals to bind the 13 self-governing states under a national government, the framers settled on a system that Madison characterized as a compound republic: a “republic of republics” in which states retained sovereignty as well as many of the attributes of nationhood while delegating to the general government a handful of powers that were more effectively exercised at a continental level: national defense, foreign policy and a means of raising revenue that only sufficient to pay off the Revolutionary War debt but also to ensure that the general government was effectively equipped to garner sufficient revenue to carry out these tasks.

Some nationalists, notably Hamilton, wanted the general government to be equipped with a veto on state legislature to safeguard its relatively narrow prerogatives, but this was rejected.

States reserved the power to chart their own domestic policies.

Today, the federal government, significantly through passage of the 14th Amendment, has garned significant control over state domestic policy - a measure that many Americans would applaud for the role it has served in securing the descendants of freed slaves many of the common rights of citizenship of which their forebears were deprived in the years following emancipation.

Even so, the growth of federal power at the expense of the states has created plenty of mischief and ill feeling along both sides of the blue/red divide.

In what can be regarded as an unorthodox but courageous column, Michael Malice stressed in The Observer some 6 years ago that the United States has functioned as a united country only at a few times in history: in the “Era of Good Feeling” following the collapse of the Hamiltonian Federalist party, during the FDR presidency as the nation battled its way through a global depression and another world war and, more recently, after the Iraqi invasion and the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Aside from that, the term “the United States” has served to obfuscate a number of historical complexities. Malice argues that this includes an especially inconvenient and painful truth: that the United States has never possessed a common culture and never will, despite the efforts of Abraham Lincoln and a host of public intellectuals and academics to invent one.

Yet, there other painful realities that should be addressed and likely will at some point as the divisions are felt more acutely: namely, the fact that the country possesses a population now exceeding 300-million, rendering effective central governance on a constitutional, democractic basis increasingly impractical.

Years ago, in fact, the progressive decentrist Gar Alperovitz has raised one of the great ironies bound up in James Madison's legacy: that he favored big national polities, albeit only up to their optimal levels off efficiency. Beyond that point, he stressed in a letter to his mentor, Thomas Jefferson, that a sprawling nation-state supplies elites at the center to exploit division and undermine democratic government.

We arguably passed that inflection point decades ago. Indeed in the early 1990's a revered nonagenarian diplomat, George F. Kennan, argued in his memoirs that the country would be far better off divided into ten or so “constituent republics,” vested with virtually all the powers of domestic governance, while the general government is restricted only to those powers assigned to it by the framers.

Whether the country ever manages to work out a means whereby effective governance is restored in the form of viable federalism and genuine democratic policy-making remains an open question.

If it is not resolved, there is the increasingly likelihood, as Alperovitz stesses, that large states such as California and even regions will begin unilaterally functioning more or less as de facto nation-states. And if this occurs, we may face an unraveling effect not all that far removed from the late Soviet Union.
Quora.com br br br br James Madison br br Fran... (show quote)


I'm a bit more basic inasmuch as I understand the divisions to be spiritual & probably unfixable especially if the Left wins & Conservatives are quashed. Allow me explain. The America I was born into in 1940 found the morals, values & faith in our homes were basically the same
ones found in our neighbor's home, taught in our schools, churches, our town, state & nation. They were traditional nation wide. The GOP & Democrats argued & fought over political issues yet were able to come to equitable compromises because neither side was called on to compromise those traditional American morals, values or faith. Enter Marxism into the Democratic Party and their new raison d'état, the Communist Manifesto, demanded for them to intentionally destroy traditional morals, values, faith & love of country. They have been wildly successful in those goals. These neo-Marxist Progressives have turned evil into virtue and convinced their ardent followers they are a benevolent organization concerned with the state of mankind and to fulfill all his needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Marxist do have a reputation to treat all people equal, rotten is their idea of equality! They have raised multiple American generation to deny God, hate America & pursue every form of illicit & unnatural sexual pleasures. They've destroyed the sanctity of life, traditional marriage & the nuclear family; they promote lawlessness and they scoff & ridicule anyone objecting to their "new morality."

America can wade thru politics; we cannot abolish traditional American morals, values, faith, love of country (nationaslism) & survive.

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 15:58:15   #
Elwood Loc: Florida
 
padremike wrote:
I'm a bit more basic inasmuch as I understand the divisions to be spiritual & probably unfixable especially if the Left wins & Conservatives are quashed. Allow me explain. The America I was born into in 1940 found the morals, values & faith in our homes were basically the same
ones found in our neighbor's home, taught in our schools, churches, our town, state & nation. They were traditional nation wide. The GOP & Democrats argued & fought over political issues yet were able to come to equitable compromises because neither side was called on to compromise those traditional American morals, values or faith. Enter Marxism into the Democratic Party and their new raison d'état, the Communist Manifesto, demanded for them to intentionally destroy traditional morals, values, faith & love of country. They have been wildly successful in those goals. These neo-Marxist Progressives have turned evil into virtue and convinced their ardent followers they are a benevolent organization concerned with the state of mankind and to fulfill all his needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Marxist do have a reputation to treat all people equal, rotten is their idea of equality! They have raised multiple American generation to deny God, hate America & pursue every form of illicit & unnatural sexual pleasures. They've destroyed the sanctity of life, traditional marriage & the nuclear family; they promote lawlessness and they scoff & ridicule anyone objecting to their "new morality."

America can wade thru politics; we cannot abolish traditional American morals, values, faith, love of country (nationaslism) & survive.
I'm a bit more basic inasmuch as I understand the ... (show quote)


Well said. You have nailed it! It is indeed a sad state of affairs.

Reply
 
 
Aug 5, 2022 18:04:00   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Elwood wrote:
Quora.com



James Madison

Frankly, because it is too big and culturally diverse to be governed centrally. And contrary to prevailing opinion, there are some very astute thinkers on the left as well as the right who have offered some compelling arguments to that effect.

The constitutional framers were fully aware of the immense cultural, political and economic diversity of the United States when they convened in Philadelphia in May, 1787. Despite several appeals to bind the 13 self-governing states under a national government, the framers settled on a system that Madison characterized as a compound republic: a “republic of republics” in which states retained sovereignty as well as many of the attributes of nationhood while delegating to the general government a handful of powers that were more effectively exercised at a continental level: national defense, foreign policy and a means of raising revenue that only sufficient to pay off the Revolutionary War debt but also to ensure that the general government was effectively equipped to garner sufficient revenue to carry out these tasks.

Some nationalists, notably Hamilton, wanted the general government to be equipped with a veto on state legislature to safeguard its relatively narrow prerogatives, but this was rejected.

States reserved the power to chart their own domestic policies.

Today, the federal government, significantly through passage of the 14th Amendment, has garned significant control over state domestic policy - a measure that many Americans would applaud for the role it has served in securing the descendants of freed slaves many of the common rights of citizenship of which their forebears were deprived in the years following emancipation.

Even so, the growth of federal power at the expense of the states has created plenty of mischief and ill feeling along both sides of the blue/red divide.

In what can be regarded as an unorthodox but courageous column, Michael Malice stressed in The Observer some 6 years ago that the United States has functioned as a united country only at a few times in history: in the “Era of Good Feeling” following the collapse of the Hamiltonian Federalist party, during the FDR presidency as the nation battled its way through a global depression and another world war and, more recently, after the Iraqi invasion and the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Aside from that, the term “the United States” has served to obfuscate a number of historical complexities. Malice argues that this includes an especially inconvenient and painful truth: that the United States has never possessed a common culture and never will, despite the efforts of Abraham Lincoln and a host of public intellectuals and academics to invent one.

Yet, there other painful realities that should be addressed and likely will at some point as the divisions are felt more acutely: namely, the fact that the country possesses a population now exceeding 300-million, rendering effective central governance on a constitutional, democractic basis increasingly impractical.

Years ago, in fact, the progressive decentrist Gar Alperovitz has raised one of the great ironies bound up in James Madison's legacy: that he favored big national polities, albeit only up to their optimal levels off efficiency. Beyond that point, he stressed in a letter to his mentor, Thomas Jefferson, that a sprawling nation-state supplies elites at the center to exploit division and undermine democratic government.

We arguably passed that inflection point decades ago. Indeed in the early 1990's a revered nonagenarian diplomat, George F. Kennan, argued in his memoirs that the country would be far better off divided into ten or so “constituent republics,” vested with virtually all the powers of domestic governance, while the general government is restricted only to those powers assigned to it by the framers.

Whether the country ever manages to work out a means whereby effective governance is restored in the form of viable federalism and genuine democratic policy-making remains an open question.

If it is not resolved, there is the increasingly likelihood, as Alperovitz stesses, that large states such as California and even regions will begin unilaterally functioning more or less as de facto nation-states. And if this occurs, we may face an unraveling effect not all that far removed from the late Soviet Union.
Quora.com br br br br James Madison br br Fran... (show quote)


Woke progressive leftism is not compatible with the Constitution.

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 19:06:46   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Woke progressive leftism is not compatible with the Constitution.


Wrong again.

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 19:13:20   #
RascalRiley Loc: Canada
 
Milosia2 wrote:
Wrong again.

It is the Republicans that want to change the Constitution.

19 GOP-controlled states, including four in 2022 alone (Nebraska, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin), have passed applications and calls for a constitutional convention

https://www.businessinsider.com/constitutional-convention-conservatives-republicans-constitution-supreme-court-2022-7?op=1

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 19:33:39   #
Elwood Loc: Florida
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Woke progressive leftism is not compatible with the Constitution.



Reply
 
 
Aug 5, 2022 19:52:04   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Woke progressive leftism is not compatible with the Constitution.


👍👍👍👍👍

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 19:56:36   #
Elwood Loc: Florida
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Woke progressive leftism is not compatible with the Constitution.


I agree!

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 20:24:37   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
RascalRiley wrote:
It is the Republicans that want to change the Constitution.

19 GOP-controlled states, including four in 2022 alone (Nebraska, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin), have passed applications and calls for a constitutional convention

https://www.businessinsider.com/constitutional-convention-conservatives-republicans-constitution-supreme-court-2022-7?op=1
Oh, crap! Not again?
Simply put an Article V convention of states IS NOT a constitutional convention,
it is merely a constitutional process for proposing amendments.

One again a foreigner, without a clue to the principles of our constitution, has made a fool of himself.

No Science, Only Spite Behind Trudeau’s Travel Ban



Reply
Aug 5, 2022 21:42:06   #
RascalRiley Loc: Canada
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Oh, crap! Not again?
Simply put an Article V convention of states IS NOT a constitutional convention,
it is merely a constitutional process for proposing amendments.

One again a foreigner, without a clue to the principles of our constitution, has made a fool of himself.

No Science, Only Spite Behind Trudeau’s Travel Ban

The ultimate purpose of it is to change the constitution. Need to control.

> constitutional convention,
it is merely a constitutional process for proposing amendments.

It is a significant first step.

Will the future federal MAGA dynasty punish states that vote democrat to bring enough states on board.

Trump punished states that did not support him.

Reply
 
 
Aug 5, 2022 22:36:54   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
RascalRiley wrote:
The ultimate purpose of it is to change the constitution. Need to control.

> constitutional convention,
it is merely a constitutional process for proposing amendments.

It is a significant first step.

Will the future federal MAGA dynasty punish states that vote democrat to bring enough states on board.

Trump punished states that did not support him.
Will you just shut up.

Article V is the provision in the Constitution of the UNITED STATES for adding amendments designed to improve our constitutional principles so they benefit ALL American citizens.

This has nothing to do with Trump or anything he could do.

But, you just will not let it go, will you? If you couldn't make everything about Trump, you'd have diddley squat to talk about.

So, here is a nice little fact you can put in your pipe and smoke:

Make America Great Again IS NOT a campaign slogan, it's a War Cry.

Reply
Aug 5, 2022 23:22:15   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
RascalRiley wrote:
The ultimate purpose of it is to change the constitution. Need to control.

> constitutional convention,
it is merely a constitutional process for proposing amendments.

It is a significant first step.

Will the future federal MAGA dynasty punish states that vote democrat to bring enough states on board.

Trump punished states that did not support him.



Let's say it is a constitutional process for proposing amendments. So what? That is the constitutional way and better than the way the democrats try to change the constitution with their own misguided interpretation of the constitution, which they hate, by the way.

The future federal MAGA is a return to constitutionalism. And, I hope it will be a process by which to eliminate the deep state from public service. This is neither a Democrat nor Republican issue. It is a Patriotic American issue.

Reply
Aug 6, 2022 06:21:37   #
Big Kahuna
 
Milosia2 wrote:
Wrong again.


The Demorat party is not fit to be a viable party in the U.S. any longer. It is now a marxist party full of hatred for the US with insurrectionists, murderers, sexual perverse, kneebenders, and anti-Constitutionists. Anyone being a demoKraut nowadays should be in prison for treason or insurrectionism.

Reply
Aug 6, 2022 06:23:19   #
Big Kahuna
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Will you just shut up.

Article V is the provision in the Constitution of the UNITED STATES for adding amendments designed to improve our constitutional principles so they benefit ALL American citizens.

This has nothing to do with Trump or anything he could do.

But, you just will not let it go, will you? If you couldn't make everything about Trump, you'd have diddley squat to talk about.

So, here is a nice little fact you can put in your pipe and smoke:

Make America Great Again IS NOT a campaign slogan, it's a War Cry.
Will you just shut up. br br Article V is the pro... (show quote)


Let's beat that war drum and people like RR too.

Reply
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2022 IDF International Technologies, Inc.