Two Americas: for how much longer can we prop-up the failed "Blue" America?

10/31/03

[pabianice]

In reading other posts here on FR and in spending most of the day just reading (I'm a reporter), I am again struck how the US has split into two countries: "red" Bush America and "blue" Gore America. That's nit news. What's most compelling is how Bush America is increasingly having to prop-up the utterly failed Great Society/Gore America, and for just how much longer such a situation can exist.

Item: teacher disciplined for telling Mexican kids in her US class to stop disrupting the class (she's a "racist" for so doing). The other kids in the class continue to get no education and the Liberals think that's just fine -- for other kids. The LIberals opt out of the system by sending THIER kids to private schools.

Item: A conservative estimate puts as much as 35% of the American economy underground. Taxpayers are fed-up with having 50% or more of of their hard-earned pay taxed by the feds, the state, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. So peopledo the natural thing: opt out of the system by going cash-only, off the books.

Item: the blue states lead in victim disarmament, where the law-abiding are denied the constitutional right to self-defense while the Liberals turn a blind eye at violence from career criminals ("poor victims of a racist system"). Liberals make sure they live in guarded, gated communities, and never have to set foot in any scruffy areas as they drive their SUVs from gated home to gated office building. Others who can, opt out by leaving such areas for places where they can carry concealed if they wish and where criminals know they are likely to be shot.

Item: International embarrassments like Ted Kennedy give long, boozy speeches about the evils of President Bush while his devotees urinate themselves in the glow of their self-righteousness. Others simply ignore such crap and tune-into talk radio.

Item: "Blue" America is financially bankrupt, and California is a glaring example. "Blue" America has degenerated into a coven of grasping, mentally diminished, selfish, thuggish special interest groups who have become increasingly violent in fighting over what is left of the Big City Democratic machines that have run things for the past 150 years. The "blue" islands on the 2000 map can best be described as cancers on the national MRI -- blighted areas of malignant, imploding selfishness that are trying to spread across the entire national body. And the "red" nation has to keep paying for it.

I have to wonder how much longer this will be the case. The defacto separation of "red" and "blue" has already occurred, and is fat too profound to be fixed by any social "bussing." At what point does the whole scheme collapse? And how is this going to be expressed and dealt with in the coming 2004 elections?

[dvwjr]

During the 1980 Presidential election, the Republicans were uniformly "Blue" and the Democrats were "Red" on the electoral maps used by the broadcast networks. They all looked like the map shown below for Ronald Reagan's 1980 elctoral blowout, which was described by network anchors as a "Republican sea of blue"...

Then during the 1984 election the various broadcast networks used different map colors from one another for the Republicans and Democrats, "Blue" or "Red" depending on the network. Below is a quote from the Democrat Vice-Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro about the night of the election and the network electoral map colors.

"One after another, states were going for Reagan. One network map of the United States was entirely blue for the Republicans. On another network the color motif was a blanket of red...and still we hadn't heard from the West Coast. It was ridiculous. We couldn't just sit there like corpses watching the Democratic ticket being slaughtered on television."

Source: Ferraro, Geraldine. My Story. New York: Bantam, 1985. pp 297-299

This mixed "Blue" and "Red" color scheme continued in the 1988 Bush(41)/Dukakis contest, with variations in network maps. However, by 1992, the Bush(41)/Clinton/Perot election all of the three of the broadcast networks and CNN had standardized on the "Republican Red" and "Democrat Blue" electoral map color scheme. Previous thread statements that "Blue" was for the incumbent party are incorrect, it was just a matter of network preference which gradually shifted during the years 1980 to 1992. After the introduction of color television in the United States, the need for backwards compatiability with older black&white televisions made the map colors less relevant as long as they could be discerned on the least-common-denominator, B&W TV. As of the 1972 Presidential elections the market share of color televisions had increased enough so that from the 1972 to 1980 Presidential elections, the Republicans were typically denoted by "Blue" and Democrats by "Red" on the network electoral maps. Then the color shift occured.

dvwjr

[tm22721]

Yeah but the problem is self correcting.

The dollar will continue to fall until it is no longer the reserve currency, and we have joined the third world.

BUMP

[SSN558]

In effect, California is running a deficit in order to support the heartland.

For 50 years it was the other way around. CA's economy and infrastructure was built on federal government spending. It is not really the fault of the federal government that CA doesn't manufacture much of anything anymore. The governement has needs and puts out competitive bids for goods and services in an unbiased manner.

The things that the government needs consist of durable goods like trucks, planes, steel, and such. CA has taxed and regulated themselves into a position where they are uncompetitive in almost every area of durable goods manufacturing. Energy intensive industries such as wafer manufacturing are increasing manufactured overseas or in the heartland because CA halted power plant construction.

When it comes to social spending CA recieves a lions share of the funds. However this produces nothing of lasting value and only increases the demand for more social spending. The demand for fruits and nuts is an internal economy of CA and I see no reason why the producing states should be forced to pay for it.

[winodog]

I was suprised when we became red in 2000. I was also suprised when not much was said about it.
It is not based on a incumbent President as you have shown. It is based on the desires of the media and whoever controls them.
Conservatives have always been "blue" but I suspect that has changed and we will see red next year as well.

[Landru]

"The problem: It's too far gone for correction by conventional elections and politics. The notion that we control this country by voting is illusion."

You're absolutely 100% correct.

That's been reality for a very long time.
The odds of changing (any single portion of) this mess range from 0 to none at this stage of the game.

Truth is, there're not nearly enough who'd actually commit to making the kinds of sacrifice(s) it'd take to change the situation one iota.
The bloodsuckers know that very well too, so it can only get worse & it will as sure as God made little green apples.

...way too many who're way too comfortably numb, I'm afraid.

[Landru]

Great map.

Too bad conservatives couldn't register all those trees to vote, eh?

If the success rate just equalled the 'Rats *best* efforts, let's face it.
There're a lot more trees.

...than there are the dead.

[Landru]

"Item: 'Blue' America is financially bankrupt, and California is a glaring example. 'Blue' America has degenerated into a coven of grasping, mentally diminished, selfish, thuggish special interest groups who have become increasingly violent in fighting over what is left of the Big City Democratic machines that have run things for the past 150 years."

Remember that.
Because all the while as the hordes of barbarians have been growing at a geometric rate, the other side & in inverse numbers have been successfully pacified either through a myriad of public education sponsored indoctrination, by *legal* means, or a myriad of other forms of brainwashing & the end result isn't hard to guess the outcome when the days comes these two forces inevidably meet.
As the time approaches we see people right now who'er simply unable to fight back [read: deprogrammed to "violence"], too afraid (for a variety of reasons), too damned lazy (& fat), or all of the above.
Can see that much right now almost anywhere one chooses to look.

"The 'blue' islands on the 2000 map can best be described as cancers on the national MRI..."

Or the makings of an army for some not-so-distant time in our future?
Think that'd be out of the question for the kind of cowards who're leading us now? :o)

"-- blighted areas of malignant, imploding selfishness that are trying to spread across the entire national body. And the 'red' nation has to keep paying for it."

Or else.

"I have to wonder how much longer this will be the case. The defacto separation of 'red' and 'blue' has already occurred, and is fat too profound to be fixed by any social 'bussing.' At what point does the whole scheme collapse?"

Now there's an excellent candidate for the $64 question, eh?

"And how is this going to be expressed and dealt with in the coming 2004 elections?"

HA!!
Why of course, as it always has been expressed & dealt with before. Of course.

God bless ya arch.
You're the only person I know who has suggested a peaceful & orderly solution for combating this mess.
I only hope my fear(s) aren't realized & that you'll -- somehow -- be made to pay, for, "Let no good deed go unpunished."

You may not be "the" last effort made to do so, arch.

...but you'll surely be amoung the last.

[Reagan Renaissance]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/710795/posts?page=2

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/960047/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/638655/posts

[austingirl]

This is what happens when nearly 50% of the population pay no federal income taxes - it will only get worse. Thank God I live in Texas, even though Austin is insanely liberal.

[austingirl]

Several people seem to think if the Union dissolves, Texas will go it alone - I think we're up to it!

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

please add me to CW2 list. thanks.

[archy]

please add me to CW2 list. thanks

You've been added.

-archy-/-

[Question_Assumptions]

No one put a gun to New Jersey residents and forced them to develop their land. If farm subsidies are so great, convert your land back into farms. While you are at it, why not donate some more land for huge Federal Parks.

My point isn't that the farm subsidies are so great. My point is that they are being paid for by money from other regions of the country. It is redistribution. Second, we don't have lots of otherwise worthless dry wilderness area worth making large Federal Parks out of but most of our parks (with the exception of Gateway, which we share with NYC) are state parks paid for with state dollars.

[Question_Assumptions]

Sure, it isn't perfect. But the point is that it isn't as if the blue states are sucking money and the red states are providing it. A lot of blue states are sucking money and a lot of red states are benefitting.

[reed_inthe_wind]

And, my point is that farm subsidies benefit you to some degree since you are a buyer in the food market. I made the point to back up my comment that the tax payment and return ratios quoted by others must be fraught with assumptions. Consequently, I asked for the source of the information and instead received your bombastic retort.

Regarding federal parks, (another one of your tangents)the land is hardly worthless. The government made a massive land grab in the Western States just after the frontier was seeing population growth, the land was coming under modern property rights, and land values were still nominal.

State parks (your tangent) are created because the majority of the State's citizens agree that they want the park. congratulations and enjoy your State's parks - but who cares.

Regarding wealth transfer. Is their any more obnoxious form of wealth transfer than when the ownership of significant areas of a State's land is transferred to the federal government. Careful, if you answer no you might be a leftwing commie.

[moodyskeptic]

On the right track, but too general, because in a given blue county or state there is a concentration of "givers" that pay for the majority "takers".

Los Angeles County is a good example. The drive for Valley Secession was an effort to cut loose the huge areas of underclass dependents, so that working Valley residents would not be footing the bill for people 60 miles away.

Take a look at any gerrymandered demo voting district, it captures plenty of "poor" area and just enough taxpayers to hold control.

The real battle is inn the cities: the good vs bad part of town. The bad part of LA has been growing for 40 years.

[Kay Ludlow]

Your article is so true. I would say, though, that if you look not just at the state "red/blue map" but also at the county level, what you'd see is red/blue is really an urban/rural issue.

Rural americans have gone about their lives for the last 50 years assuming they live in a representative republic and their freedom is guaranteed. They've only begun, in the last decade, to notice how much the federal and state government has been incrementally infringing on that freedom. Rural people have failed to be active in the legislative process (farm subsidies are lobbied for by farming conglomerates headed by urban people). A consequence of that is urban conservationists have been pushing programs down to the state and local level that seriously infringe on individuals rights, and show an great lack of understanding of what rural areas really are like.

The failed social programs were all aimed at urban voters, who tend to believe taking care of things is someone elses (governments) responsibility. Rural people are more independent, and believe they should solve their own problems.

In my view, the battleground today is in the suburbs BECAUSE it's where the urban and rural meet. Will the urban people come to understand freedom and independence by living with rural people? Or will they bring their urban ways into rural communities, pass urban regulations, and destroy the rural way of live? At the state and federal level, most legislators are urban people these days, and it shows in their priorities. They need to be lobbied by both sides on those rural vs urban issues, but the rural people have only recently seen that need.

I see this battle going on in communities across Pennsylvania, with urban people moving in and demanding the community change to suit their urban sensibilities. In some areas they win, in other areas they are laughed out of town.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out in a couple more decades. It appears that the young, even the urban young, have developed some awareness of the freedom that's being lost; how they choose to address it (through political activism or through complete disregard for the law) may play a big role in the future.

[Question_Assumptions]

Consequently, I asked for the source of the information and instead received your bombastic retort.

If you haven't noticed, I posted sources. As for benefitting from farm subsidies, the question is whether the benefits that New Jersey gains equal the amount that New Jersey loses. You assume it does. I assume it doesn't. Unless one of us is willing to do the research to prove it one way or the other, we are at an impasse.

Regarding wealth transfer. Is their any more obnoxious form of wealth transfer than when the ownership of significant areas of a State's land is transferred to the federal government. Careful, if you answer no you might be a leftwing commie.

While I'm quite sick of everyone on Free Republic declaring "If you don't agree with me, you are probably a leftwing commie.", I agree that the Federal government should not have grabbed much of the land it has grabbed from the Federal states. My point seems not all that dissimilar to yours -- which is that the Federal government should step back and let states deal more with their own affairs.

[Question_Assumptions]

"Federal states" = "Western states"

Because the Federal government has grabbed so much of the land in some of those states, that typo isn't, alas, as inaccurate as it should be.

[Brilliant]

As I said before, I would not bail out a billionaire who got into financial trouble just because he pays more in taxes than someone else. I don't think it's a good idea to bail out States that waste money, particularly when they are the richest States in the nation.