is the united states too diverse in its political ideas to function?

[KeepCongressBlue]

I sometimes think so. Thanks to people like Lee Atwater and Pat Buchanan its difficult for the American electorate to find a consensus. This is only a pipe dream but I think it would be interesting to see if the US was broken up. If this is offensive, let me know and I will delete this.

The first country would be South Canada. It would have DC, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. The general consensus in that area would be a very pro-education government, especially with all the preparatory academies and ivy league schools. It would be liberal and similar to Canada in its governing styles. The capital would obviously be DC and John Kerry would probably be president of this country.

The second country would be the Great Lakes Republic. It would have Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa. This country would mirror the US the most as it would be a swing area but not swing because of the opinions being far left and far right and cancelling each other out, but swing because of the high amounts of independents. The capital would be Chicago and either Barack Obama, or Tim Pawlenty would be the president of this country.

The third country would be New Israel because of the very religious flavor to the nation. It would have Virginia and West Virginia, Kentucky, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The consensus here would be a very socially conservative, pro-military government. The capital would be Houston and Mike Huckabee would probably be the president of this country.

The fourth country would be the Big Sky Republic. It would have Nebraska, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Idaho and Nevada. The general consensus would be a staunch libertarian style of government with minimal government and states rights. But outside of maybe Utah, it would lack the social conservatism of New Israel and most of the citizens of this nation would support abortion rights. The capital would be Phoenix and I could see John McCain being the president of this country, although he wouldn't have much power because of the emphasis on states rights.

The fifth country would be Pacifica. It would have Oregon, Washington, and California. This would probably be almost as liberal as New America and marijuana would be legal. There would be conservatives in the eastern part of this nation, but their opinions would be drowned out by the hippies, environmentalists, and potheads on the coastline. The capital of this country would be Los Angeles and I could see Jerry Brown being the president of that country.

Alaska and Hawaii would each become a country and the governors of those states would be the president.

[villager]

1. The Nine Nations of North America:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America

It would seem likely that the empire will necessarily "devolve" as money, predictable weather, and many other things start to fray and run out...

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. You beat me to it

I've been reading it, and it is somewhat dated... but the analysis is sound.

I expect three to five, worst case, seven successor states.

[villager]

7. I don't see any way around it, when our "Rome" phase is finally finished...

What sort of timelines do people see, for this starting to happen?

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Recent articles in places liike oh Foreign Affairs

say VERY SOON.

Sooner than people expect actually. I read that in my lifetime, rather sooner than later (10-20 years max)

[mwb970]

2. I've thought about this a lot.

Projecting current trends, it's hard to see how the nation can remain a single entity. In my mind, there are already conceptually "two Americas" (sorry), the conservative one and the reality-based one. When and whether this translates into a geographical divide I don't know.

We surround each other now. In my little section of a residential street there are very liberal people and there are people with Palin stickers on their SUVs. Which group would have to move out?

[TreasonousBastard]

3. It's probably less diverse than any time in history...

Before the internet, before TV, before radio... we were a number of isolated regions and this lasted pretty much until at least the 60s.

Try just the sainted FDR's time-- he had to come up with answers to the Depression and a response to Hitler, but he had a most of the country fighting him tooth and nail-- an enormous isolationist and pacifist movement tried to scuttle Lend Lease and anything else that would help Britain hold out against the Reich, the local economic and social pressure groups ranged from well-organized Communists and Socialists who didn't agree with each other on much to what we'd now call libertarians who hated government as much as Grover Norquist ever could. And the Democratic Party consisted largely of southern segregationists and northern machines with damn few idealists in the mix. Even after Pearl Harbor some in Congress continued to attack his prosecuting of the war. And, there was the ever-popular Father Coughlin.

Before that, you had the likes of T. Roosevelt, La Follette fighting the establishment as the kind of liberals/progressives we don't see any more (they had popular AND workable programs) Bryan was in there too, representing the Midwest against the hated Northeast.

And there was that whole Confederacy thing.

Nah, we're pretty homogenized now compared to the past.

[Realityhack]

10. Well put.

I think we tend to forget the reality of history.

[damntexdem]

4. No, it's too narrow in its political and media cultures to function.

[Brickbat]

5. If we somehow switched to a more parliamentary type system with multiple parties, that would take

some of the rancor and steam out of the discussion. IMO.

[mmonk]

9. Actually I was thinking the opposite.

Budget cuts in the present environment across the country is an indicator the beliefs are too close to function. The hyper partisanship is in vying for the largess of our corporate run system.