Would we be better off if half the country secedes from the union?

[renaissanceguy]

What do you think? Are we better off separating into a peaceful, tolerant country, that doesn't have to deal with these whackos as leaders?

I realize that states aren't legally allowed to conspire. But what if the individual people were to be in agreement? How would it be possible?

Do you see this happening in the near future?

[danielleengen]

1. We can only dream....

Oh how nice would that be.

But you know it still wouldn't take away the resentment I have for W.

And wishful thinking aside, it sounds like a long shot.

=(

[newyawker99]

8. Hi danielleengen!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[genius]

24. The blue states are the rich, self-sufficient half.

[QC]

31. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back like that. n/t

[GainesT1958]

2. Umm..we fought a war about that 140 years ago...

And the side my great-grandfathers fought for lost that one (thank God!).

No, we're all in this one together--no ifs, ands, or buts. And NO secession--by anyone. Abe called it--a house divided against itself cannot stand--so we need to unite and purge this nation of this political disease!

B-)

[KnowerOfLogic]

19. And we fought the Revolutionary War about 90 years before

that. If everybody then allowed fear and inertia to control them, we would still be living under a monarchy.

[whalerider55]

3. as for me

i'd like to be in the half that succeeds

whalerider55

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. A freeper sugested expelling us

Please throw us into THAT briar patch...

That said, I foresee a civil war, and I don't think the country will survive as the United States

I foresee it breaking up... sad but true

[Oak2004]

39. I agree

There is a rift here that's not able to be healed.

Whether or not secession is wanted, after the economic collapse it's inevitable. The Northeast and West will go their ways, possibly with the Great Lakes states and parts of the Southwest, and the South and Great Plains will go their way.

[tmooses]

5. Y'know after reading some of the threads today about most people..

in the US believing in creationalism and the wingnut slamming the Park service for showing films of "liberals and homosexuals" marching on the capital mall (not to mention the creation of the Grand Canyon thing), Im getting a serious case of Heinlein, i.e. "Stranger in a Strange Land".

[HawkerHurricane]

6. Try Heinlein's "If This Goes On..."

You'll find it in 'Revolt In 2100'...

Is George Bush = Nemediah Scudder?

[KitSileya]

30. I fear so.

"In 2016 there were no elections" isn't that what Maureen says in To Sail Beyond the Sunset? Apparently we''re only a few years early....

But honestly, I have read much of Heinlein, and I have been digging out many of his books lately - the dysmal dystopias described in the different timelines, his almost spot-on predictions of the decline in US culture, his utopic vision in At the End of the Rainbow, and I have shuddered, because it is quite clear that the Admiral was right, people will vote themselves bread and circuses, or even just circuses.

[HawkerHurricane]

34. We also got to the moon earlier

than he predicted (we arrived 1968, he predicted 1980). Some stuff he missed outright (the rolling roads)... but much he saw (the suburbs caused by cheap mass transit, 'the crazy years', the rise of religious fundementalism)...

The man, for all his flaws, could predict with phenominal accuracy... I pray he is wrong on this one.

[KitSileya]

38. Yes, definitely.

I also pray he is wrong about the "crazy years" but I fear that he was much more far-seeing than Jeanne Dixon... and that the point of no return has been passed.

I wrote my Master's thesis on To Sail Beyond the Sunset and Friday, and while I am far too social democratic to agree with many of his opinions on human beings, I cannot but, in my deepest, darkest moments (I am a high school teacher, so they're quite frequent) feel that working so hard to keep everybody alive is unhealthy for humanity as a whole, and that it's time for Mother Nature to do her duty.... And that we desperately need to reach for the stars, so that we can cull the deadwood - the freepers, among others.

But then I shake it off and keep trying to broaden the horizons and enlighten the minds of today's teens - and instill in them the same love of this wonderful language as I have myself, this "noble English language, speech of Shakespeare, Milton and Poe"....

[HawkerHurricane]

43. He's already right about 'the Crazy Years'

We've been in them for almost 3 decades... I hope he's wrong about how far the Religious Fundamentalism goes.

(Fundamental, from the words 'Fundament', meaning backside, and Mental, meaning head: Fundamentalism is the process of sticking you head up your...)

If you want his opinion on humanity, read "Methusalah's Children": "you have nothing to fear from your neighbors, nor I from mine... but your neighbors will lynch me in a heartbeat, and mine will do the same to you."

We'll get past these years... it's just a matter of prevention (I hope) or surviving them.

[KitSileya]

45. LOL I love your definition of 'fundamental'

I have found that Heinlein was right in so many things - public restrooms, for one. People have no respect for others in their community anymore. And they certainly don't care about people not in their community.

As for how far things will go, I fear our worst fears will be a better bet than our hopes.

[Sukie1941]

7. Nah, it won't happen, but

if it does, blue will win all the biggest cities (for business), all of the west (for recreation)and I suppose we would have to import some food from Canada, although we do have farms and ranches in the west, also wheat country. Lots of beach access in blue.

Florida might not survive the next series of hurricanes even tho' they are rebuilding. The southern tip of Texas voted Democratic.

[DrGonzoLives]

9. Christ, not this again

Guess what, better get ready to fight, because it will be war, and last I checked, most of these "peaceful, tolerant" people really don't like doing that.

Oh, have fun doing things like getting food and gas, as most of that is brought in from red states.

[KnowerOfLogic]

18. Yeah, people in blue states would be helpless without our red

benefactors. Jeezus Christ, i think the blue states would some way to deal with these problems.

[proud_Kucitizen]

10. I'm a peaceful person willing to fight for the right cause.

I think we should invite all the Blue people from the red states to help us kick out our own red people. Then what can they do to stop us.

[jojo54]

11. Sukie made a good point

We've got the reds surrounded. East, West coasts and parts of the south (well, we ALMOST had N.M.) Honestly though, I don't think it will happen. Years and years ago (o.k., o.k. I'm 50) southern N.J. tried to secede from the state. We got almost enough signatures, but the Dems had already given up. Politics is all posturing, smoke and mirrors anyway. It makes me sick.:smoke:

[tjdee]

16. Holy lord in heaven a southern NJ state would suck!

:scared:

[demokatgurrl]

12. yes

[Bridget Burke]

13. This old tired suggestion comes up all too often.

But you're new here, aren't you?

Secession was tried; it didn't work. There are now Red States or Blue States; that's an artifact of the electoral college.

Check this link out & get back to me: www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

[jojo54]

14. How'd you know?

Yes, I'm new. Hardly any time for myself with both grandkids living here (3 and 11 mths). I feel like I'm in my 20's again. I guess that's not a bad thing........

I'll check out this website later tonight (11, midnight, 1AM) when I have some peace and quiet. Hope to catch up with you again.

[KnowerOfLogic]

20. And so does the same tired old response. And in a winner-take-

all political system, there most certainly *are* red and blue states. 51% makes all the difference in the world.

[tjdee]

15. They would invade us.

If you're proposing a blue/red state thing, they'd invade the blue states because:

1-We're richer.

2-We would hate them for their freedoms :eyes: and they'd have to pre-emptively attack us. :eyes:

[Mutley]

17. exactly what I was thinking....

Even if we managed it somehow they would only invade us and we'd still be stuck with them....

[CityDem]

21. Absolutely not

Do you really want those assholes in the red states bordering our new country? They would probably target us with nukes. It is better to be one country where we have a modicum of influence over the direction of the country.

[LOSTintheSOUTH]

22. Pointless dreaming is only a distraction.

Dont think about things that can never be accomplished. Focus on what we can do.

We've got to stop being a pansy-ass party and really stand up for what we believe.

That means go Left. Waaaay Left. Moderates are just a bunch of people who can't make up their minds. They want strength, vision; we will never deliver these virtues if we don't stand up for what we really, truly believe.

[Kablooie]

23. If the US split into two countries ...

the Blue country would hold most of the major cities which means most of the brains and economic power of the current US.

The Red country would then covet the Blue country's wealth and declare war on the Blue country. We'd still be at war, but here on our soil instead of overseas.

The Red country, being hawkish from the start, would probably have the advantage ovet the peaceful, tolerant Blue country. They'd win and we'd be right back where we are now.

Of course we could then secede again to keep the cycle going and find ourselves living in the same kind of turmoil the Middle East suffers today.

Doesn't seem like the best solution to me, but what do I know?

[KnowerOfLogic]

25. Flash- The North won the first time. When you have right on your

side, it helps. Plus, i think that most of the civilized world would be on our side (if it actually came to a shooting war), so it wouldn't just be us against them.

[Silverhair]

26. No. Look at the country by county map.

It isn't red state vs blue state. It is rural vs urban. Red states have blue cities, and blue states have red rural areas. Look at PA & NY.

[Oak2004]

41. And look at Vermont: almost all blue, and the red county voted for a

Progressive Party (ie, socialist/social democrat) state rep. over a loony right incumbent rethug.

It's not inevitable that rural states are conservative (Thom Hartmann's statement earlier today to the contrary, rural VT isn't conservative: it's just not in the least bit "hip", which is often confused with conservative by urban people who confuse cultural sophistication with political perspective.)

The rural Northeast (where I've spent most of my adult life, most in NY, most as a Republican) is not conservative in the current sense. It's Republican by tradition, but moderate republican, and there is relatively little of the fundamentalism associated with rural areas in other parts of the country. There are significant conflicts with the urban centers over issues (read: Guns; also economic policies that favor the urban areas which are perceived as exploiting the rural areas) but not a lot of the God and, other than jokes and wisecracks that are really pointed more at the urban areas, not much concern with "Gays".

Rural NY, and certainly rural VT, if push came to shove (or, as I really think might happen, if collapse came to disintegration) would identify with the Northeast - yes even with that much maligned NYC - more than they would identify with the South.

[Silverhair]

27. Like trying to separate siamese twins with one heart. Kills both.

There are simply too many common things that both sides need in each other that would be destroyed by a split.

[shimmergal]

28. Actually I don't think it'll happen, but if

anyone's seriously interested they/we should be studying how Czechoslovakia did it. That's the only successful and peaceful "split" I know of.

[KitSileya]

29. The problem is, as has been stated many times on the forum,

you can't really divide into red states and blues states. At best, you can divide into rural and urban areas by color. Almost all states are pretty much divided in half - even the most ardent "red states" had a sizeable number of people who voted for Kerry, at least 30%, I believe. And vice versa, of course. Which means that even if you do secede, the population of this new, peaceful, tolerant country will be at least 20% Bush voters, 50% non-voters, and 30% Kerry voters, give or take a few percent.

[QC]

32. Thanks for bringing some common sense to the discussion.

Don't expect it to have much impact, though. The secessionists around here, who have started at least a hundred more or less identical threads on this idiotic, impossible notion since the election, aren't much interested in common sense.

The pity, of course, is that so many of us here (even those who claim to be so much more enlightened than the "sheeple") have bought into the simplistic red state/blue state construct, which serves Republican interests by vastly exaggerating their power and understating ours. If we really want to change some things, refusing to swallow GOP prapaganda would be a much better start than sitting around babbling about secession.

[KitSileya]

33. Thank you. I must admit, though, that I am of two minds on the issue.

While I condemn red voters, and sincerely wish them enlistment papers for Christmas, I can see that the supposed blue/red state divide might become increasingly significant in time. If the Supreme Court tosses out decisions such as Roe vs Wade etc, they might revert these back to state level, and then "blue states" such as California, New York etc will be important in keeping some civil liberties alive. Working to dismantle as much federal power as possible might be the only solution we have, unless we can salvage the election process.

Secession, however, won't work. But telling red fundie voters tough luck when they lose their job, their children are drafted, and they are evicted from their homes - fair game. The hard core Bush voters cannot be reached by reason, while most of the republicans proper, those who believe in conservative fiscal theory and all that, voted Kerry or third party this year.

[Mend]

35. I would be better off

emotionally and physically with a new country, preferably on this continent...so divide away. Those "reds" in blue places could move, and vice versa.

[Bridget Burke]

36. So, what's your o-so-pure Blue state?

Why have you hidden your profile?

Are you offering homes & JOBS to people in your area?

[Mend]

37. I live in Florida

and would definitely move and start over again if it was to a free and liberal place. I am 58 years old and have lived and worked here 28 years. We are thinking we might have to go to a foreign country, so naturally we would prefer a safe blue place instead.

[Oak2004]

42. It's not just politics, it's culture

and the culture of the rural Northeast is not the rural culture of the South. The Republican Party that gets the votes in the Northeast is still the traditional, mainstream, Republican Party, and not the Bush/Gingrich/Sun Myung Moon abomination.

Secession is not as unlikely as the blue/red maps would suggest. In fact, I fear it's inevitable.

[Oak2004]

40. States aren't able to conspire, but they can negotiate compacts

which would have the effect of creating a parallel federal government.

[Dan]

44. Now this is interesting....