Notice that every part falls under the sway of some foreign power.
That part has the ring of truth.
We become a global joke if we can't keep our union together.
Notice that every part falls under the sway of some foreign power.
That part has the ring of truth.
We become a global joke if we can't keep our union together.
The major problem with this idea is that the control lovers wouldn’t be happy with their section. They would look at the more prosperous liberty loving country and be eaten up with envy. Then they would move in... take over small enclaves, gradually increasing their representation... tweaking elections here and there... etc., just like they’ve done with the whole US. The deal is, they wouldn’t be happy to live and let live—authoritarians never are. As long as one person is outside of their control, they will not be happy.
That is why the country cannot be split. We must fight by whatever means necessary—limit “social” programs, force government onto a diet, and educate, educate, educate.
The liberal will just screw up their side and move to our side.
Democrats would never allow it as there would be a very sharp contrast highlighting exactly why their positions are so wrong.
Every worker would move to the land of the free leaving a horde of system leeches behind in the tightly controlled land of “The Man”. The liberal gov’t would only last as long as the outside monies kept coming in, would be impossible to remain solvent otherwise.
Does *ANYONE* think that those that desire to control the lives of other human beings will willingly *ALLOW* those that do not to simply go their own way?
Nanny-staters of both camps will fight tooth and nail to keep control of their subjects.
One peaceful solution would be a return to federalism, where states simply refuse to comply with unconstitutional federal laws (as determined by the residents of individual states). A return to federalism would allow states like California and Illinois to continue their love affairs with socialism while allowing other states to live free.
I know this probably wouldn’t work, because leftists are not keen about letting other people live free. For one thing, there would probably be a mass exodus from left-leaning states to liberty loving ones. In the long run, they’d cut their own throats, but at least the rest of us would be spared from the totalitarian future they plan for themselves.
I do agree with Walter Williams that there’s a great divide between Americans who want government to do everything and those who simply want to be left alone. How is it even possible to still compromise with folks who are so diametrically opposed to the things we hold dear? Seriously! How can one even “reach across the aisle” to compromise with people who literally want to control every aspect of other people’s lives (except abortion)?
AND people fear social conservatives, growing angry if we merely mention the need for self-restraint (or Jesus). Some are so fearful of losing their porn, they fight as as though we are like the leftists who want to control what you drive, what you eat, where you live, how much you keep...
I’d be willing—as long as the conservatives get the West.
...or maybe we can just put all the idiots (liberals, that is) on a big boat and send them all to Europe where they can live under the socialism that they clamour for.
Yes.
NO “America” does not need to split, the anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, anti-Americans need to split.
“Does U.S. Need To Split Along Political Lines?”
Sure, as long as those who wish not to support, preserve and defend the Constitution head to Sweden or Kenya or Russia or where ever else they can find a government to coddle them cradle to grave.
Any time from now would be just fine with me.
The reds will carry on while we enjoy watching the blues beat the hell outta each other and starve to death.
I favor the wall and guns solution to support the blues. Build a wall, throw in guns, come back, if anybody is left, throw in more guns, repeat. These blue areas are pretty much worthless anyway, no loss far as I’m concerned.
For an in depth treatment of the split up America, see the novel Friday by Robert Heiniein
It is a detailed analysis of the forces causing the split circa 1960
I guess it might be dated now but it is a great analysis
Yes.
I’m in favor of it! The US will have a sea of Red surounding islands of blue cities. Red will control the food production, energy production, water, gas and everything else that is shipped to a blue city.
Wall them in and listen to them squeal like a bunch of rats as they devour each other!
I’ve been thinking about this proposal for quite some time, but it doesn’t get any easier to digest.
First of all, the division is real. No matter how many of us want and demand a return to the Constitution, limited government, a civilized tax burden and the God-given freedoms we all deserve, a large percentage of our countrymen (and very possibly our own government) do not.
Put up THE BEST conservative candidate you can find, against THE WORST liberal socialist (oh wait, that’s Obama) and the vote will still come down to 51-49, or maybe 54-46 if it’s a real blowout. That isn’t overwhelming, folks! There is a HUGE percentage of our population that adamantly and vehemently disagrees with our beliefs, our values and even religion itself. They will never surrender and they will always fight us over every little issue. Always.
So let’s say we do split the country. For argument sake only, let’s use the Mississippi River as the demarcation line. Everything east of the river is liberal, everything to the west is conservative. (Relax, this is just theoretical.)
I live in Massachusetts so I am completely screwed. How do I get out of this blue hell-hole? Do I trade my house with somebody from Arizona? Do we set up a national clearinghouse for home-traders?
I like my house and my neighborhood and I don’t want to leave. Do we set up “protected” blue enclaves in red states and vice versa? I can’t find a solution that works, we are surrounded by enemies, and we are rapidly running out of time.
I believe our only hope is for individual states to reassert their sovereignty. They must declare loyalty to the king or declare independence. No other choice. The states have tried to avoid taking sides but the “middle ground” is quickly becoming squishy and untenable.
That means We The People need to focus our political attention on our state governments. There is a chance we can fix at least part of the federal problem IF we still get to vote in November, and IF we get some candidates worth voting for, and IF the voting process hasn’t been totally corrupted by ACORN and its friends, and IF amnesty doesn’t dilute our voting power with 20 million new single-issue voters. Then maybe we can start taming the beast in Washington, but I’m not holding my breath.
I honestly believe we are headed toward a cliff and we’re rapidly accelerating. Six months is all the time we have left. Good luck and godspeed, America.
Belgium is indeed split into Sam Adams divisions, socialist Wallonia in the South and Flanders in the North, and the King has had to deal with a possible actual split. For the home of the European Union, Brussels is politically schizophrenic.
A wonderful, detailed series on the extensive contributions of the Flemish to the Pilgrims and thereafter is presented here with Part one of a six part series:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4029
The Brussels Journal can be searched for the current Belgium experience in dealing with a similar issue as presented by this article.
This is not an answer to the question being posed, but an observation.
IF the States were able to walk it all back and regain their ability to actually be States, not just administrative pass-throughs for unfunded federal mandates, and IF the federal government actually was limited to pretty much providing for national security, some national standards on commerce, some national interstate highways, etc., the States would evolve their own identities in much more detail and they would naturally attract like-minded people and naturally repel the others.
Say if Virginia were able to get rid of the federal government’s role in education altogether and go totally to a state-controlled system. And the citizens of Virginia wanted school vouchers, so everybody — from border to border — got a voucher and had complete choice to apply to any school in Virginia. After a while, a very new type of education and educational system would emerge. And people who wanted that would say, hey, let’s move to Virginia. And those who wanted the old government schools would say, time to jump in the Yugo and head back to Massachusetts.
Imagine if there were very few federal taxes, so a state’s taxing structure really made a difference. You would see people moving to states that had their preferred level of taxation and government services.
The point of all this is that, had the federal government never gotten so out of control that it completely squeezed out a state’s ability to create its own style of government and, really, culture, we wouldn’t be having this question. There would be no need to ask whether the states should split from the union.
It would be an individual’s decision to try to move to a state that worked for them, and there would be all kinds of state environments from which to choose. Some would be welfare states through and through, so long as they could continue to fund it. Others would be minimalist in terms of government provision of services and regulation, with an emphasis on wide-open freedom and private, not State, action. But, unlike now, you really would have a choice.