Just as a mind experiment, let us consider, with as little emotion as possible, what we might do to resolve the intractable divisions in our country.
The letter cited in the blog "Alabama In Between" was both dispiriting and in some ways, possibly illuminating. Of all the convictions firmly held among the author's in-laws: climate control simply part of a benign cycle, Obamacare causing more loss of health insurance than increase, every period of economic boom under Democratic presidents being attributable to prior efforts by Republican presidents, and so forth, the one conviction not mentioned is that abortion is murdered of the unborn.
Especially when you throw abortion in there, these constitute truly irreconcilable differences.
And, in civil society, irreconcilable difference form the basis for divorce.
If we've learned anything it's that keeping a dysfunctional, unhappy family together is far worse than simply dissolving those bonds.
We may have to, at long last, recognize, we simply can no longer live together, that a miserable family under one roof is untenable, and we need to find separate places to live.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
What the Alabama complaint coalesces around is a deep complaint against the idea of other people, of government, (except when it comes to abortion, where Alabama wants government to intervene.) That Alabama of the soul sees oppression in the heavy hand of government everywhere, from gun control, to taxes, to healthcare, which is to say these folks find government simply not worth the price.
In that deep seated opinion may be the solution.
Suppose, for a moment, all those Alabamans living in New Hampshire, Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin could move easily to a place where government is minimal, taxes low, guns unregulated, where they can be left alone?
Is it possible that seeing this place beckoning, especially if there were economic incentives to move, the Alabamans in Pennsylvania and Ohio would do what poor Whites and Blacks in the South did in the 1930's, 1940's and 1940's and migrate?
It's happened in the past: People followed the money. Of course back then they were following salaries, but might they follow the siren call of being able to keep almost all their money, leading a life without taxes, or with only minimal taxes? Might the guys who drive around with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks up here in New Hampshire move to Mississippi if given some incentive?
As for the Northeast, the West Coast and parts of the Midwest, there is no doubt they would be only too happy to accommodate a request for a divorce. To no longer have to carry the poor, ignorant parts of the country, no longer have to fund these malcontents, oh, yes, let them leave!
What would these new countries look like on a map?
The United States of Diversity (USD) would likely be non contiguous: It would look like those maps on election night, bicoastal, with a few states like New Mexico, Colorado and possibly Nevada in between.
Would we need passports to travel to Austin, Chapel Hill and Atlanta? Likely, we would, but is that not a small price to pay for a government which actually represents our beliefs and protects our interests?
What about our armed forces?
Likely the USD would spend less on a more streamlined military, focusing primarily on nuclear deterrence and police capacity to deal with terrorism. The New Confederate States of America would likely be more interventionist, and have larger standing armies and navy. More power to them. Let them pay for that.
In the USD, there would be Medicare, National Health Care, Social Security, free day care, highly integrated schools and workforce and more open immigration, and much higher spending on public education, public transportation and internet infrastructure.
The USD would likely have to import oil and gas from the Confederacy, which is where most of the oil and refineries are, but that could be mutually beneficial and in the USD electric cars, wind and solar power would make them less and less dependent over time.
Yes, you'd need to get a visa to go visit Grandma in Charlottesville for Thanksgiving and to go to your home in Florida, but it would be no worse than having a time share in Portugal or Greece.
Really, think about it. Would you really miss the South or the off the grid folks in Idaho, Wyoming and the Dakotas? Would your life be poorer?
Yes, I know, we fought for the Union 150 years ago, would we now turn our backs on that huge sacrifice, a war which claimed more American lives than all the other wars we have fought since put together.
Well, yes we fought for Union, but what necessitated that fight was slavery. In the end, as Lincoln noted, that war was fought to end slavery and it did. That was a good and necessary fight.
But now it's the 21st century and we are married to people we do not love and in fact, do not even like, and in fact can barely stand to be in the same room with. Let's not continue to hate them, to loathe their presence.
Let's divorce and move on.
The letter cited in the blog "Alabama In Between" was both dispiriting and in some ways, possibly illuminating. Of all the convictions firmly held among the author's in-laws: climate control simply part of a benign cycle, Obamacare causing more loss of health insurance than increase, every period of economic boom under Democratic presidents being attributable to prior efforts by Republican presidents, and so forth, the one conviction not mentioned is that abortion is murdered of the unborn.
Especially when you throw abortion in there, these constitute truly irreconcilable differences.
And, in civil society, irreconcilable difference form the basis for divorce.
If we've learned anything it's that keeping a dysfunctional, unhappy family together is far worse than simply dissolving those bonds.
We may have to, at long last, recognize, we simply can no longer live together, that a miserable family under one roof is untenable, and we need to find separate places to live.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
What the Alabama complaint coalesces around is a deep complaint against the idea of other people, of government, (except when it comes to abortion, where Alabama wants government to intervene.) That Alabama of the soul sees oppression in the heavy hand of government everywhere, from gun control, to taxes, to healthcare, which is to say these folks find government simply not worth the price.
In that deep seated opinion may be the solution.
Suppose, for a moment, all those Alabamans living in New Hampshire, Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin could move easily to a place where government is minimal, taxes low, guns unregulated, where they can be left alone?
Is it possible that seeing this place beckoning, especially if there were economic incentives to move, the Alabamans in Pennsylvania and Ohio would do what poor Whites and Blacks in the South did in the 1930's, 1940's and 1940's and migrate?
It's happened in the past: People followed the money. Of course back then they were following salaries, but might they follow the siren call of being able to keep almost all their money, leading a life without taxes, or with only minimal taxes? Might the guys who drive around with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks up here in New Hampshire move to Mississippi if given some incentive?
As for the Northeast, the West Coast and parts of the Midwest, there is no doubt they would be only too happy to accommodate a request for a divorce. To no longer have to carry the poor, ignorant parts of the country, no longer have to fund these malcontents, oh, yes, let them leave!
What would these new countries look like on a map?
The United States of Diversity (USD) would likely be non contiguous: It would look like those maps on election night, bicoastal, with a few states like New Mexico, Colorado and possibly Nevada in between.
Would we need passports to travel to Austin, Chapel Hill and Atlanta? Likely, we would, but is that not a small price to pay for a government which actually represents our beliefs and protects our interests?
What about our armed forces?
Likely the USD would spend less on a more streamlined military, focusing primarily on nuclear deterrence and police capacity to deal with terrorism. The New Confederate States of America would likely be more interventionist, and have larger standing armies and navy. More power to them. Let them pay for that.
In the USD, there would be Medicare, National Health Care, Social Security, free day care, highly integrated schools and workforce and more open immigration, and much higher spending on public education, public transportation and internet infrastructure.
The USD would likely have to import oil and gas from the Confederacy, which is where most of the oil and refineries are, but that could be mutually beneficial and in the USD electric cars, wind and solar power would make them less and less dependent over time.
Yes, you'd need to get a visa to go visit Grandma in Charlottesville for Thanksgiving and to go to your home in Florida, but it would be no worse than having a time share in Portugal or Greece.
Really, think about it. Would you really miss the South or the off the grid folks in Idaho, Wyoming and the Dakotas? Would your life be poorer?
Yes, I know, we fought for the Union 150 years ago, would we now turn our backs on that huge sacrifice, a war which claimed more American lives than all the other wars we have fought since put together.
Well, yes we fought for Union, but what necessitated that fight was slavery. In the end, as Lincoln noted, that war was fought to end slavery and it did. That was a good and necessary fight.
But now it's the 21st century and we are married to people we do not love and in fact, do not even like, and in fact can barely stand to be in the same room with. Let's not continue to hate them, to loathe their presence.
Let's divorce and move on.
One thing to keep in mind, if you split the country as you suggest, who will fill the military - so many enlistees now come from the South and the MidWest. How many people from California and the Northeast do you think will be enlisting?
ReplyDeleteMad Dog,
ReplyDeleteParts of our Southeast, especially along the coast, is far too lush and lovely to lose, so I say give em Texas..Visits there have indicated we wouldn't be losing much and it's great size could accommodate the large migration. We'd wall in the whole place-gladly-and assure our new neighbors we won't cross the border. Ever. Hopefully they'll promise the same and they can live happily ever after in their own right wing Shangri-la. They won't have much in the way of services, government, taxes or diversity. Oh, but they'll have an abundance of guns and plenty of that old time religion..The Promised land...
Maud
Anon,
ReplyDeleteYou make a remarkably good point-who will fill our military if we have a mass exodus of the current enlisting crop? This will require more thought and reflection..
Maud
I love the way you think Maud! Would you be willing to run for public office? We clearly need people like you in government!!
ReplyDeleteMadame President Maud*, Anon:
ReplyDeleteOur military in the USD will require only a small force for Navy, Coast Guard and Air Force, and a reactive boots on the ground force no larger than the Marine Corps. And lots of drone operators. We will be invading no countries and need no overseas bases. Our biggest problem will be border patrol to keep those Confederates in their place.
New England and California will likely provide enough bodies for that.
I read somewhere that before the Civil War, there were 12 x the number of murders annually compared to the much more populous North. This may say something about what life in the Right Wing Shangri-la will be like.
Mad Dog
* I hope to be a member of the Constitutional Convention for the USD and hope to push an article requiring the President possess two XX chromosomes. Considering adding an age requirement, likely drawing the line around age 50, maybe higher. Hope you will be eligible; if not you can run when you age into eligibility--assuming after all these years I'm safe in my assumption about your XX status.