Maybe we should return to federalism instead of mentioning "secession"?

[Selatius]

In my opinion I think we could make more progress at the state level than we can at the federal level at this point.

We're simply running into tremendous opposition from corporate interests with respect to things such as health care, public education, the environment, etc. With social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research, we run up into differences over cultural values.

I was wondering what you people feel on advancing through the avenue of states' rights.

For example, if we believe in the idea of universal health care, why not rally states that are more readily acceptable of the idea and establish a regional health care system where states that support it pool their revenues into one fund that would benefit the citizens of those respective states? States that want it can do it (blue states). States that don't want it (red states) won't have to do it.

There could conceivably be two regional health care systems comprising states in the northeast and states on the west coast, or if they wanted, they could combine the two systems into a bicoastal one and leave out all the states in the south and midwest that don't want it.

We could apply the same model to issues such as the environment and public education as well: Pooling resources together and fighting for reform and something better without fighting inside the federal government to do it.

This is not secession or sedition. This is a non-violent way towards change. If the south or midwest doesn't like liberalism, then that's fine, but we shouldn't throw up our hands and give up. Rather, we should continue to fight for our ideals in other arenas.

I mean, look at California and the new emission standard they recently adopted. The Bush Administration and the Republicans have totally stonewalled efforts on these things. I cannot honestly believe so many people would actually vote for these corporatists.

Well, regardless, we should not have to suffer for their choices at the ballot box. If they choose to go one way, we should not have to be dragged along with them. We should strike out and move in our own direction. Let time tell which path was the correct one. With respect the California, I see it as a potential new way to deal with the splits in this country.

What do you people think? Do you think federalism could be a viable alternative?

[Q3JR4]

1. ...

I like the idea, but with Bush's insane policies in place, no blue state will have the money to contribute to it.

[Selatius]

2. We should continue to fight against Bush

That's a given. If we're going to go down this route, then it is important that we keep Bush in check and fight hard to contain the damage but at the same time prepare to return back to federalism. I wouldn't advocate totally abandoning the front in the federal government. Rather, we should fight a holding action there, while we move forward in individual states.

[TaleWgnDg]

5. and consider this too . . .

here's what George Walker Bush says about the "blue states:"


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

However, as a permanent resident of Massachusetts, we, here can say that

1.) Massachusetts has the best public schools and colleges in the nation . . . in the world as for Harvard and MIT;

2.) Massachusetts and the northeast has the highest educated population in the nation;

3.) Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation . . . despite the stupid fiction about no-fault states have the highest divorce rates (Massachusetts is a proud "no-fault divorce" state) . . .(the Bible Belt has the highest divorce rate);

4.) Massachusetts has the lowest out-of-marriage birth rate in the nation . . . (the Bible Belt has the highest);

5.) Massachusetts has the toughest gun control laws in the nation;

6.) Massachusetts has the lowest gun violence in the nation;

7.) Massachusetts is listed as 40th down on the list of taxes paid in the nation. We are not "Taxachusetts;"

8.) Massachusetts is one of the highest states in the nation re per capita income; and

9.) Massachusetts respects all of its citizens. We don't discriminate against gays, in real estate, jobs, and marriage. It's law here Massachusetts!

[TaleWgnDg]

3. My first knee-jerk reaction is that most of the blue states . . .

pay out more in federal income taxes than they receive in return. As opposed to the red states, who, overall, pay out less in federal income taxes than they receive in return.

In other words, the blue states are paying for the red states federal services, programs, etc. So much for the fiction of "states rights" now and yesterday up to and including the Civil War rationale.

Tell me why, seriously, now, should the blue states continue to pay out but get hardly anything in return when it comes to the red states except epithets of hate and discontent?!

Let's get it out in the open. There. I've said it.


. . . . . . . . . . . .


edited to add: And with this rightwing Congress and White House, they will pork-barrel more and more to their home states. What do you think is buried in fine print in these end-of-the session after the election humongous appropriations bills other than pork-barrel shit to the red states??? These bastards are on the teat of the blue states sucking us dry.

[autorank]

4. Thought provoking concept.

I've thought the same sort of thing myself even though I live in Virginia, a supposed Red State. We have reasonably decent social services, excellent education K-12 in some parts, first rate university system, and a varied base of business and government agencies. So, if something like that happened, Northern Virginia would probably opt to be with the more progressive faction.

Here is the real question: who controls the military forces. It is really useless to have a federal system if some asshole president can start wars all over the place and everybody has to pay for it. How about nuclear weapons? Are they under unified control?

I think it will be a lot easier to shift about 5% of the vote our way nationally and follow a combined Midwest populist/Montana model on a state basis for the middle of the country than it is to go through all the trouble of a federated system. It would look like a corporate reorganization -- spend a lot of time making structural changes to paper over fundamental flaws that need to be fixed right away.

Good topic as the McKenzie Brothers used to say.

N.B. I suspect that a vigorous dialog on this topic would scare the s**t out of the urban areas of Red states. Just like the Blue states, these urban have a negative net cash flow with their state governments. This issue is hardly ever broached in states as it is rarely broached between states (Arnold was the last national figure to bring this up...OMG).