USA: time to split up?

[CaptainPanic]

The US is incredibly divided.

 

The US political landscape has a grand canyon running straight through it. You're either a loyal republican or a loyal democrat... but it's impossible for the two sides to reason with each other. And I get the feeling that it has polarized over the last decade. The political discussions - especially the presidential campaigns - are fought with a ferocity that I can only call it propaganda. Presidential campaigns, I am sure both sides know quite well, have little to do with facts, and a lot with emotions.

 

From my outsider's point of view, the discussion between democrats and republicans has almost become religious. People who believe in a different god will also never agree about religious issues. At a very fundamental level, the two sides disagree with each other.

 

Both sides have become blind for the fact that they are (from a European point of view) quite similar. Because of the two-party system, the politicians have forgotten how to cooperate. It's always very simple: politics are like black and white. There is no grey. There is no cooperation. And the entire country seems to follow in this kind of thinking. And both sides just cannot believe that the other side can be so stupid to think that their plans for the US are going to work. The internet (including this forum) is full of blogs and posts by democrats and republicans alike, both wondering why the other side doesn't behave more reasonable.

 

Both sides paint hitler moustaches on the other side's presidents and presidential candidates. (This site shows examples of Bush, Palin and Obama - all depicted as the ultimate evil).

 

When emotions take over the rational political debate, and when emotions decide what people vote for, rather than reason, isn't it better to avoid the inevitable conflict and just peacefully split up the country?

[Leader Bee]

Sounds to me like the way to start a civil war. infact, wasn't this the exact same reason civil war broke out in 1861?

[CaptainPanic]

Sounds to me like the way to start a civil war. infact, wasn't this the exact same reason civil war broke out in 1861?

I always thought that the American Civil War started because of the one-sided declaration of secession if the southern states. The rest of the union never agreed to the separation.

What I propose is that both sides agree to this. Both sides basically agree to disagree... and therefore to split up.

 

I actually think that civil war is more likely if the core of the problem isn't addressed, but if instead the US behaves like there's nothing going on. It's all so emotional now.

[Leader Bee]

1) I always thought that the American Civil War started because of the one-sided declaration of secession if the southern states. The rest of the union never agreed to the separation.

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2) I actually think that civil war is more likely if the core of the problem isn't addressed, but if instead the US behaves like there's nothing going on. It's all so emotional now.

 

1) If the Southern states wanted to leave the union there had to have been a political division, one of the catylists was that northern states were looking for emancipation of the slaves while the southern states industry relied heavily on exportation of goods produced within the salve trade (Cotton Etc.) and needed to keep them. it's not possible that this political agenda was enough to make the south wish to withdraw from the union?

 

2) The UN/NATO would surely have something to say about that? if things did kick off in the US then that would surely force the hand of other countries to join the conflict?

[CaptainPanic]

Leader Bee, sorry not to answer your question, but I want to discuss the divide that currently exists in the US politics, and if that could be solved by a possible (peaceful!!) separation.

 

It should be an internal affair, so UN / NATO are irrelevant. And the civil war, as far as I'm concerned, only serves as a warning and an example of how NOT to do it. You shouldn't wait until one side simply say they've had enough, and split off. You should act before that moment arrives.

Edited July 26, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[Incendia]

Maybe it's because most people in America seem to forget that there are more than two parties...

Isn't disagreement the entire reason for federalism in the first place?

Edited July 26, 2011 by Incendia

[swansont]

I want to discuss the divide that currently exists in the US politics, and if that could be solved by a possible (peaceful!!) separation.

I think the answer to that is no, since the divide is not geographical, or geographical to the extent that such a divide would work. "Red" and "blue" states do not divide so neatly as north vs south. And that's an issue before you get into the messy details.

[michel123456]

The good way is to discuss and find some arrangement. When you separate, you are still neighbours, so even then you must find some arrangements, otherwise it is war.

I understand that most politicians earn their lives finding disagreements instead of finding arrangements.

The wise man shouldn't follow such politicians.

[jackson33]

The US is incredibly divided. [/Quote]

 

CP; Divided how? Most people in the US are Christian, in some ways even more so than when the Nation was founded (25M Hispanic, usually Catholic). They believe in the family unit, a desire their children live better than however they perceive their own status, have equal or better opportunity for success than they have and are the most charitable society ever to have existed. More than 95%, on any given day, have no idea what's going on politically, really don't care and simply believe Government will do as it pleases.

 

The US political landscape has a grand canyon running straight through it. You're either a loyal republican or a loyal democrat... but it's impossible for the two sides to reason with each other. And I get the feeling that it has polarized over the last decade. [/Quote]

 

Maybe there are divides, but it was self imposed and primarily between those that feel a Federal Government, should be the end all of any problem, the State or maybe themselves, not one thing any different than it was in the Colonial America or after. Federalist/Anti federalist fought out these issues for years, finally coming to an agreement, with a second Government and the current Constitution. Territories went though hoops to qualify and gain entrance into this union, basically agreeing with the general Governance concept. I couldn't list all the "issue of the day" from the 1600's to 1789 or on through 2011, but it was from a very few that we even have a Country, once formed whether to side with France, women's suffrage or slavery/indentured servitude (long before the Civil War and follow up issues long after), a couple times a central bank, even whether alcohol consumption or hundreds of other issue...

 

Here then is the "split up" concept that was allowed and remains in our system today; States were and still maintain a certain amount of control over their own affairs and if a person, family or business, feels that State is or has past their personal tolerance for any reason, can simply pack up and move to another, or if opportunities seem better elsewhere, they can and virtually everyone has or recent family done exactly that.

 

As for loyal Republican or Democrat, the truth is the reverse and fewer and fewer every election are loyal anything, opposed to 60-80 years ago. Among other words, Liberal, Socialist, Libertarian, Conservative, Moderate and independent, come to mind....

Edited July 26, 2011 by jackson33

[doG]

I'm far from Republican or Democrat and don't much care for the ideology of either, I find both repulsive. IMO it's time for another Constitutional Convention.

[CharonY]

Also, without a counterpart on which blame can be loaded on, how can a single party survive? And another question is whether the divide is real or made up. I.e. are actually enacted policies significantly different between either party?

[zapatos]

In my opinion the main problem between the parties is that any particular political office can only hold one person at a time. If the Democrat is in, the Republican wants him out, and vice versa. And if you want to be voted in and the other person to be voted out, you have to show that you are different. Otherwise the incumbent may as well stay in. If the politicians were more concerned about America and less concerned with having a particular job the US would be in much better shape.

 

Democrats and Republicans are very similar. The majority of both parties want tax revenue, job growth, a strong military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, low federal debt and deficit, fair voting, equality for all, a fair justice system, perks for their constituents, to stay in office as long as possible, etc. The difference is in the details, and the fact that only one person can hold office at a time makes them latch on to the details as if their political lives depended on them. Which they do.

 

Dividing the country would accomplish nothing, and would be acceptable to very few. People change parties all the time. New people are born with political views that do not match their parents. You will always have a divide. The divide is just particularly nasty now. It won't be later. Just the normal ebb and flow of politics. It will probably get better as soon as people in both parties have a common cause significant enough to let them target their anger at it (extraterrestrials, disease, poor grammar, food shortages, etc.) instead of each other.

Edited July 26, 2011 by zapatos

[jackson33]

I'm far from Republican or Democrat and don't much care for the ideology of either, I find both repulsive. IMO it's time for another Constitutional Convention. [/Quote]

 

doG; I hear this quite often, but generally from people wanting to advance an agenda. Although a means to have another Convention exist, theoretically either through the States or Congress, a purpose would be essential for calling one and that purpose was intended to "amend", not replace the current Constitution.

 

 

According to Article V, Congress must call for an amendment-proposing convention, “on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States”, and therefore 34 state legislatures would have to submit applications. Once an Article V convention has proposed amendments, then each of those amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (i.e. 38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution.[/Quote]

 

 

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

 

Since every State has attempted to call for a National Convention, at one time or another, but the 34 States required have never concurred, what would your propose be that purpose?

 

 

 

Also, without a counterpart on which blame can be loaded on, how can a single party survive? And another question is whether the divide is real or made up. I.e. are actually enacted policies significantly different between either party? [/Quote]

 

CharonY; For all practical purposes the Republican Party was formed as a divide off of the "Whig" Party (around 1854) and under the Abolition umbrella. Unlike either of the Socialist Parties of today or the Libertarian Party, with set agenda already in place and members run with existing parties, it's conceivable the current "Tea Party" could in fact form a completely new party or take on the Republican Handle.

 

In my opinion the main problem between the parties is that any particular political office can only held one person at a time.[/Quote]

 

Democrats and Republicans are very similar.[/Quote]

 

zapatoes; Ironically this was not true in the beginning and only really changed as parties formed. Technically it's still not true, but has never been challenged. To explain; Electorates are chose by the States, under each States law, but are not bound to vote as the constituents they represent. As I recall Jefferson was chose the President (First Term) after 30+ ballots by those State electorates, Aaron Burr with nothing in common with Jefferson, came in 2nd, becoming the VP. He then chose Clinton and won his second term.

 

Without going back through time for each Representative of the two major parties, the platforms and rhetoric of each has rarely been the same, certainly not since Eisenhower, but when governing, especially with a loyal opposition of another party (most often), they only seemed similar, while compromising to get something done. Remember Bush 43, ran as a Compassionate Conservative, which to a Conservative is not possible and Obama ran as a centrist, while campaigning as an outright liberal and had a record for voting that way. Neither did a very good job of following their parties platform...

[swansont]

CP; Divided how? Most people in the US are Christian, in some ways even more so than when the Nation was founded (25M Hispanic, usually Catholic).

This raises an interesting point. Would the purported divide maintain the basics of the Constitution, or involve a rewrite? Meaning (with this example) would you create RedStates of America without first amendment rights to freedom of religion? Would they have freedom to be any flavor of Christian, or would you pick an official religion?

 

On a higher level, how many of the "American values" that divide us are contrary to our basic rights as described in the Constitution (and shaped by the courts)?

[jackson33]

This raises an interesting point. Would the purported divide maintain the basics of the Constitution, or involve a rewrite? Meaning (with this example) would you create RedStates of America without first amendment rights to freedom of religion? Would they have freedom to be any flavor of Christian, or would you pick an official religion? [/Quote]

 

swansont; The Constitution and the first 10 Amendments (Bill of rights), spell out everything needed to govern a collection of States (the Union), including change as any society changed. Specifically for Religion, with many opposed to State Religion (Church of England) it was intended to be secular, including to the States to the limits of A-1. No rewrite would be required or should be considered, for any State wishing to go outside those intentions, that is NO State, by agreement, has the right to deny or endorse a specific religion.

 

Now if the collective society, wishes to change or void any part of the Constitution or BoR, the process is really quite simple, as explained in the above link.

 

 

On a higher level, how many of the "American values" that divide us are contrary to our basic rights as described in the Constitution (and shaped by the courts)? [/Quote]

 

None IMO; Where this is arguable is in subsequent law/policy (which you mention), based on individual values/belief/ideology of the founders, not necessarily the Constitution or the agreement they all subscribed to.

 

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2

 

To reverse the question, noting the 10th A, how many laws have "been shaped by the Courts", in some manner to conform with some agenda and are being enforced outside the Constitution, because one or a few of the founders might have questioned that final document?

[swansont]

swansont; The Constitution and the first 10 Amendments (Bill of rights), spell out everything needed to govern a collection of States (the Union), including change as any society changed. Specifically for Religion, with many opposed to State Religion (Church of England) it was intended to be secular, including to the States to the limits of A-1. No rewrite would be required or should be considered, for any State wishing to go outside those intentions, that is NO State, by agreement, has the right to deny or endorse a specific religion.

 

Now if the collective society, wishes to change or void any part of the Constitution or BoR, the process is really quite simple, as explained in the above link.

 

The question I asked is if we are assuming that they abide by the Constitution or not. Quoting the Constitution doesn't address that. If a group of states were to secede and form a new country, I don't see why they would be bound to follow it. If you contend that they are, then why does it matter if the majority of citizens are Christian (as you brought up), since the first amendment guarantees freedom of religion?

[doG]

doG; I hear this quite often, but generally from people wanting to advance an agenda.

The only agenda I'm interested in is clarifying what we have and amending it if necessary. I'm very much opposed to "living document" interpretations of law including the Constitution. The law needs to say what it means and mean what it says, regardless of the era in which it is read or interpreted. We currently have endless debates on the exact, explicit meaning of many of the amendments as they are now written. Our current President has even given rise to ask what exactly is meant by "natural born Citizen" and the Constitution specifies no criteria of any kind to be met for this requirement. If there are reasonable questions as to what the Constitution means exactly then it should be clarified and the only way I know of to do the job right is to have a convention. There should be no doubt what the law says or means. It should not be written so that one court can say it means one thing and a different one something else. As written it is outdated and due for a makeover to remove the many doubts it currently creates.

 

swansont; The Constitution and the first 10 Amendments (Bill of rights), spell out everything needed to govern a collection of States (the Union), including change as any society changed. Specifically for Religion, with many opposed to State Religion (Church of England) it was intended to be secular, including to the States to the limits of A-1.

The first Amendment currently states:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

In this Amendment is "establishment" a verb, a noun or both? Does it just limit Congress from the establishment(v) of a national religion by law or does it also limit them from recognizing a particular religious establishment(n) like a particular belief or church? Most people read it to mean that Congress cannot establish a national religion but Jefferson read it to mean that he could not recognize the Dansbury Baptists, a religious establishment, when they asked him to give them some federal land. Should we simply interpret the word as it was used when the Constitution was written or should we practice some variety of "living document" interpretation according to the current usage of the word? Bottom line, is the exact meaning of this clause debatable or not?

[JohnB]

Are Americans that divided though?

 

I would have thought that if the majority of supporters (rather than pundits) were asked (or were sitting down having a beer), they would pretty much agree on most things.

 

It strikes me that the Glen Becks and Young Turks and the rest are making all the noise, but don't really represent the majority thinking. From the outside, having watched some Beck, MSNBC, etc, it is plain that the most objective and reasonable political reporter in America is Jon Stewart. Having seen him interviewed by both left and right pundits, it's plain that the pundits view him as being in the same category as they are and he's a comedian. I think this should be of great concern.

 

Frankly I think the "Great Divide" in American politics is a media beatup and the people aen't that divided at all.

[CaptainPanic]

Reading the replies so far, I am confused. The posts seem to contradict each other (at least, that's how I read it).

 

A couple of people mention (civil) war if the country would be split up. This suggests that the situation is volatile?

On the other hand, and contradicting the previous, a lot of people say that the US is actually quite united, with many morals that are the same for all people living within the borders. Christianity, and the constitution (spelled with a normal or capital C?) seem to unite the country too?

How can Christianity unite people when some states are practically entirely non-religious? And how can the constitution unite people when politics divides people?

And finally, some posts suggest that there isn't a dislike of one particular party, but instead an equal dislike to politics in general.

 

From where I sit, I really got the feeling that the average person from Massachusets or Vermont is quite different in a lot of ways to a person from Alabama or Texas (taking quite random examples)... and that these people want quite different things from their government, and would probably want to lead very different lives in general. Or am I stereotyping too much?

 

Looking forward to see some more replies.

[swansont]

The first Amendment currently states:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

In this Amendment is "establishment" a verb, a noun or both? Does it just limit Congress from the establishment(v) of a national religion by law or does it also limit them from recognizing a particular religious establishment(n) like a particular belief or church? Most people read it to mean that Congress cannot establish a national religion but Jefferson read it to mean that he could not recognize the Dansbury Baptists, a religious establishment, when they asked him to give them some federal land. Should we simply interpret the word as it was used when the Constitution was written or should we practice some variety of "living document" interpretation according to the current usage of the word? Bottom line, is the exact meaning of this clause debatable or not?

 

Court interpretations have held it means that you cannot favor any particular religion. Laws have to have a secular purpose.

[Genecks]

Personally, I think it's time for a civil war in America.

I think if we had this civil war, though, America would easily be split into 5 regions.

We could easily isolate a lot of American issues if we start using nuclear power.

The problem from that would be an attack on such power plants (a nuclear war of sorts).

[Brainteaserfan]

Personally, I think it's time for a civil war in America.

I think if we had this civil war, though, America would easily be split into 5 regions.

We could easily isolate a lot of American issues if we start using nuclear power.

The problem from that would be an attack on such power plants (a nuclear war of sorts).

I don't think that a civil war would be effective because we have too strong a central government/military. Any "rebellion" would be quickly quelled.

 

We do use nuclear power, just not as much as we should. Cars could travel long distances for almost free, thinking of the heat recently, cheap AC etc. But even if we were in a separate nation that used nuclear power, can you imagine how mad that would make those in other parts of the split US? We might 'contaminate' them!

 

Reading the replies so far, I am confused. The posts seem to contradict each other (at least, that's how I read it).

 

A couple of people mention (civil) war if the country would be split up. This suggests that the situation is volatile?

On the other hand, and contradicting the previous, a lot of people say that the US is actually quite united, with many morals that are the same for all people living within the borders. Christianity, and the constitution (spelled with a normal or capital C?) seem to unite the country too?

How can Christianity unite people when some states are practically entirely non-religious? And how can the constitution unite people when politics divides people?

And finally, some posts suggest that there isn't a dislike of one particular party, but instead an equal dislike to politics in general.

 

From where I sit, I really got the feeling that the average person from Massachusets or Vermont is quite different in a lot of ways to a person from Alabama or Texas (taking quite random examples)... and that these people want quite different things from their government, and would probably want to lead very different lives in general. Or am I stereotyping too much?

 

Looking forward to see some more replies.

As an American, I feel that we do agree on most issues, however on the few that we don't, only a small fraction of people are represented. Only those in the "middle". Those on the other sides (more than two) feel irked and dissatisfied. I do not want to split, I want stronger state's rights so that more people can be represented and happy.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[CaptainPanic]

As an American, I feel that we do agree on most issues, however on the few that we don't, only a small fraction of people are represented. Only those in the "middle". Those on the other sides (more than two) feel irked and dissatisfied. I do not want to split, I want stronger state's rights so that more people can be represented and happy.

Do Americans among each other share more similarities than people in - for example - the UK and the USA?

 

I mean, as humans, we agree on a lot of issues already. As Western people, we agree on even more. And as English speaking people, we agree on even more. If you set aside all those things, is there anything left that's typical for only Americans? What I'm trying to get at perhaps (I'm not really sure) is: What makes an American an American? And is that common thing strong enough to form a bridge between the political (and cultural?) differences between the different parts of the USA?

Edited July 27, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[jackson33]

The question I asked is if we are assuming that they abide by the Constitution or not. Quoting the Constitution doesn't address that. If a group of states were to secede and form a new country, I don't see why they would be bound to follow it. If you contend that they are, then why does it matter if the majority of citizens are Christian (as you brought up), since the first amendment guarantees freedom of religion? [/Quote]

 

swansont; This really is absurd, but if somehow a State or States were to successfully break their contract (admittance to the union), they could do whatever they please. That should be common sense....

 

There should be no doubt what the law says or means. It should not be written so that one court can say it means one thing and a different one something else. As written it is outdated and due for a makeover to remove the many doubts it currently creates.[/Quote]

 

doG; I don't like the phrase "living document" either, but IMO both the founders and the document were/is aware that society can change sentiments, by allowing for change. Again the actual Constitution is a format/plan on how to Govern, which issues a Federal is to maintain, the States or the people themselves. In my mind it's very clear cut, but what's needed is to obide by the process for change, the amendment process.

 

Does it just limit Congress from the establishment(v) of a national religion by law or does it also limit them from recognizing a particular religious establishment(n) like a particular belief or church?[/Quote]

 

Both, neither Congress or any State can establish or recognize one religion over others, so long as other law is not involved. Utah for instance, spent 40-50 years trying to get into the Union, not because of a predominant Mormon populace, but that religion practiced polygamy.

 

From where I sit, I really got the feeling that the average person from Massachusetts or Vermont is quite different in a lot of ways to a person from Alabama or Texas (taking quite random examples)... and that these people want quite different things from their government, and would probably want to lead very different lives in general. Or am I stereotyping too much?[/Quote]

 

Actually CP, your being quite perceptive, but are you considering that's the reason our Constitution reads the way it does because even then, people from NY and Virginia had different life styles, no less than today. Said another way people living in NY, today or then, didn't question what or how folks Virginia lived, with regards to most issues, expecting the same respect from Virginian's toward them...Any divisive perception has come from an intrusive Federal saying one States people, now must act more like another States people, loosely stated.

 

What makes an American an American? And is that common thing strong enough to form a bridge between the political (and cultural?) differences between the different parts of the USA? [/Quote]

 

Think about this CP, if you walk up to 20 people today and ask "where are you from", most are going to name a State or maybe a town, not America. It's not difficult for any older person to tell you what being American has meant to us and to probably 60-80% of the educated people on this planet, could give you an instant answer, many of which would be here in a flash if permitted. The the freedoms and opportunities that this country offered people around the world, that made it great, where they settled melding into some local culture only existed, maybe still does, only because the collective majority has lived and played by the rules, THEY and their ancestors set up...

 

 

Personally, I think it's time for a civil war in America.

I think if we had this civil war, though, America would easily be split into 5 regions.

We could easily isolate a lot of American issues if we start using nuclear power.

The problem from that would be an attack on such power plants (a nuclear war of sorts). [/Quote]

 

Genecks; Frankly, I'm not sure the only US Civil War was necessary and most certainly don't think another one for any reason is advisable. However, as I do think could have resolved that first war, a political uprising of the people that has occurred many times in the past and currently in progress, can accomplish a whole lot more.

[doG]

doG; I don't like the phrase "living document" either, but IMO both the founders and the document were/is aware that society can change sentiments, by allowing for change. Again the actual Constitution is a format/plan on how to Govern, which issues a Federal is to maintain, the States or the people themselves. In my mind it's very clear cut, but what's needed is to obide by the process for change, the amendment process.

Clear cut? Hmmmm. The 2nd Amendment says,

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

What are Arms? Sidearms? Cannons? Suitcase nukes? Just exactly how clear cut is the intended meaning of this word in the context used by the framers? BTW, do we even still have or need a well regulated Militia? I favor the right to keep and bear small arms but I'm not convinced we need a Militia in the current age.

 

Both, neither Congress or any State can establish or recognize one religion over others, so long as other law is not involved. Utah for instance, spent 40-50 years trying to get into the Union, not because of a predominant Mormon populace, but that religion practiced polygamy.

 

You avoided the key question there. Is the meaning of that clause debatable or not?

Edited July 27, 2011 by doG