dagblog - Comments for "Whither The United States"

Funny, this is one of the

MrSmith1 — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 04:34:27 +0000

Funny, this is one of the things I thought about when trying to come up with big ideas for Progressives to work towards ... except I was brainstorming on how we might eliminate the states altogether and truly make us just one nation united.

My thought was that we have done things on a Federal level to apply uniformity before, Civil Rights, for example, so why not eliminate state governmental functions altogether and Centralize all 50 state government functions into one big national government with all other governmental functions being expressed on the county or township level. It's what the Extreme Right-Wingers believe Progressives are plotting to do anyway, isn't it? ... Okay I can hear the heads exploding out there, even as I write this, and I know it's a preposterous idea, and that all progress in the last 50 years has been to de-centralize government, but lately, has anyone questioned whether decentralization is always the right thing to do?

I keep thinking about New Jersey. A state where my sister lives. In New Jersey, every gathering of three shacks or more is either an incorporated village or a township, and each village and township has its own police force and its own fire department and sanitation department, with it's own pension plans and army of snow plows and garbage trucks. In my opinion, they could use a little centralization, so they could eliminate some of the duplications in services and maybe that would help lower New Jersey's ridiculously high property taxes. And yes, I understand some people think that a strong central government would lead to fascism or pave the way for an American dictator, and that, of course, would be bad and horribly wrong, but that's not inevitable is it? Isn't that just the scary worst case scenario that we tell people we want to convince never to centralize government?

After thinking about this

cmaukonen — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 18:38:14 +0000

In reply to I'll add to this, one of the

After thinking about this more I don't believe that any spit will have as much to do with ethnic or even ideological demographics as it would with economic.

It was economics that caused the fall of the Soviet Union and it's eventual spitting up. And I'm betting this will also cause the spitting of the EU.

I'll add to this, one of the

ocean-kat — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 18:00:43 +0000

In reply to The partisan rifts are

I'll add to this, one of the biggest problems we face is the number of large states with low population density that vote republican. Each of those states, representing a relatively small number of people gets two senators, the same as high population density states. That coupled with the filibuster gives a strong bias towards republicans. Yes there are some small states, like Delaware, that tend to go democratic but over all the bias goes republican.

The partisan rifts are

ocean-kat — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 17:45:06 +0000

In reply to Whither The United States

The partisan rifts are getting bigger or at least the partisans are getting more intransigent but I'm not convinced that people are self segregating on a regional basis. Perhaps there may be some self segregating based on urban and rural populations.

I've read a few articles recently that anticipate the end of the GOP southern strategy due not only from the increase in minority populations but the influx of liberal white northerners. In many of the western ecological mags I've been reading since my move to Arizona there's a repeated refrain of long time westerners complaining about the liberal environmentalists moving into the rockies. That's not proof but it does suggest that the demography changes are more towards homogenization rather than regional splits.

While the map is all red or all blue by state most state elections are less than a 60 40 split, many times a few percentage points. Coloring a state all red or blue gives a inaccurate picture of the vote in those states. Even with a 60 40 split a regional separation would require some 40% of the population be forced into separation. Some years ago I saw these maps of the 2008 presidential election on on state and county wide basis with shades of red, blue and purple based on how close the spread was and also based on population density of the vote. There are large democratic enclaves in every red state and even many counties are split relatively closely. We're much more homogeneous than most believe

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

IMO, if the separation

Aunt Sam — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 16:58:03 +0000

In reply to Whither The United States

IMO, if the separation happened, it would just be a matter of time until there was not only a mass exodus from certain blocs, but more than one civil war. I don't see it occurring anytime within next few decades, if at all.

That said, would we really miss Texas (or should I say some Texans)? And some of the southern good ol' boy yahoos? They would migrate to Texas no doubt, so that's okay too.

The truth is that 'together we stand, apart we fall'. And there is a huge change awaiting as the younger move up and the old radical bigots and obstructionists 'move out'.

I Do not think that would be

cmaukonen — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 16:07:12 +0000

In reply to OK as long as you could take

I Do not think that would be required NCD. Such things can happen without so much fuss.

I would watch for coalitions being formed quietly.

Oh yes flower. And

cmaukonen — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 16:01:15 +0000

In reply to Not saying it's not

Oh yes flower. And historically Europe itself had many large empires which have simply vanished.

OK as long as you could take

NCD — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:38:14 +0000

In reply to Whither The United States

OK as long as you could take your guns and 100+ round drum magazines anywhere.

Not saying it's not

wabby — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:13:19 +0000

In reply to Whither The United States

Not saying it's not impossible, C. But, if it did happen, most likely it would be at the end of many border wars. I don't see how splitting the continent up into small nations could be achieved by peaceful negotiation/dialog. Just can't see it. Grass is always greener over there and all that stuff.

Once upon a time, this continent was divided up into nations. Before Columbus got here. Before that Viking dude, too. Why do those of white European ancestry seem to think nothing happened here before they arrived? Those old national borders were in constant flux back then; territory wars were the norm. What makes any modern day secessionist think it will be any different now? Because they're more 'civilized' than a thousand years ago? I don't think so.

Well Mister Day. There was a

cmaukonen — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:33:43 +0000

In reply to I ended up on the West

Well Mister Day. There was a time when having a world war was inconceivable. It would disrupt trade, cost too much and bankrupt everybody. We had two of them.

Landing people on the moon and having a hand held two way personal communication was thought just fantasy.

And on and on.

It is my belief that thinking something impossible or inconceivable to be a bad idea. If one can conceive of it happening, then there is a chance it will or could.