Why Not Two Americas?
The arrival of the Great Uniter in the White House has left us more divided than at any time in almost 150 years. It’s not just a matter of Red States vs. Blue States or super-heated political rhetoric; rather, there’s such an enormous chasm caused by distrust, and even disdain, that it’s hard to imagine finding a way to bridge the gap. The political well has become so poisoned we all may die of thirst. John Edwards—who seemed to enjoy having two of everything—campaigned on the notion of there being two Americas, and he may have been correct, at least numerically. Each of the two seems to have less and less regard for the other, and the result is the geographical whole is in serious trouble.
In this age of 24-hour political news and Internet echo chambers, it’s hard to imagine any sort of real accommodation between the sides. And, while most of us here at Ricochet share a belief in who’s to blame and which direction we should move, maybe it’s time to throw up our hands and concede that America, as we know it, is simply not working. Maybe it’s time to create—quite literally—two Americas.
The logistics would be incredibly complex, but it’s not that hard to imagine cobbling together two distinct geographical regions, each with political and social philosophies distinct enough from one another so that most citizens would be comfortable living in one or the other. Each would be more likely to live in harmony with the other because, as separate nations, they would become more concerned with things like trade and treaties rather than with each other’s internal workings.
I have a pretty good idea as to which side would thrive and which would eventually have to come, hat in hand, begging for help, but I’m sure we’d be happy to share our bounty with our less-fortunate neighbors in Obamaland.
- Comment (69)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Two comments:
Jun '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Nah! Never work, breaks down over who has to take California
Edited on Aug. 27 at 8:47amJul '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Great idea, a seccession. But the non-productive, liberal, progressive side would rouse itself from its professed pacifism and not permit it --loss of tax-revenues and all that. On the other hand, didn't Robert Ferrigno already describe the two Americas of the near future? Either way, not a pretty sight.
Have you been reading about the thousands of Americans giving up their US citizenship and getting the heck out of here? The US embassy in London, e.g., is so overwhelmed that the soonest it schedules an appointment is next Spring.
Jun '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Political policy differences didn't create two Americas. The difference between believing that America is a divinely-inspired Shining City on a Hill, and believing that America is an evil imperialist burden on the World is what creates two Americas. The differences in tax policy are nothing compared to whether you believe America has been a force for good in the World, or a force for evil. That's the two Americas.
May '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Given that I live in San Francisco, I might be a little concerned that it could turn into West Berlin in this new scheme, with copies of the New York Times, Mother Jones and organic foodstuffs being airlifted in. Of course nowhere near as complicated as the figurative slicing off of lower Manhattan, which I suppose would have to become part of Hoboken.
Jul '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Pat, you've hit on something that has been troubling me lately. I almost posted a question in reply to Rob's request for yesterday's Podcast, but I didn't quite know how to put into words. I'll try now.
I really enjoy coming to Ricochet and talking with everyone here, but I know going in that we'll all pretty much agree on most things. The disagreements are all around the edges, if you see what I mean. I'm so used to my ideas and beliefs being lampooned, spat upon, and dismissed by the other side that I avoid talking to them any more.
But that sets up the problem you've touched on. How can we ever learn how to talk to each other if we don't even try? We need to be able to talk to folks who disagree with us the way we talk to each other here, but every discussion seems to degenerate into a screaming match. How do we talk to people we fundamentally disagree with -- not just chat, but discuss important issues -- in the polite, reasoned way we do here?
Aug '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Excellently well said, Pat.
There were once thirteen Americas, and they decided - after fierce discussion - to surrender a little bit of sovereignty to the federal government in the interest of commerce.
One clear benefit of having The Alien in the White House is that we're waking up and realizing we've become bond servants to the Ruling Classes in Washington D.C. Many states - Texas and Arizona particularly - are discussing the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which states:
Time once was the states had unique personalities, ideas, styles, regulations, and most important, freedoms. We sold our birthright for D.C. Ruling Class handouts. God help us to reclaim our sovereignty.
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Peter, it's a great question and a serious issue. I can't put my finger on exactly when it became almost impossible to talk about such matters in a respectful manner. My sense is that it has something to do with the Internet. Along with all the wonderful things it's done, the Internet (and the chat rooms and comment sections in particular) has done three things that have injured the idea of civil discourse: first, it's allowed people to weigh in anonymously. Anonymity tends to bring out the worst in people, as witness the decline in obscene phone calls with the advent of Caller ID. Second, it gives a sense of empowerment to people who, frankly, don't deserve it. The guy with the dirt-encrusted t-shirt who lives in the basement with dead cats can suddenly see his thoughts on the same screen on which he can read his local newspaper. And, third--and you alluded to it--most of us are guilty of spending more time reading or "talking" online only with people we agree with. The other side becomes, well, the other side.
May '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Pfui! America doesn't work? America sometimes veers scarily, like my car. But America is self-correcting. What we're seeing this election cycle. Though, as River says, we could do with a bit more Federalism.
The frustration (to put it mildly) of the Prez and libs of my acquaintance stems from having the world's biggest and most fascinating toy to play with, and then yanked out of their hands at the last minute. What's the matter with Kansas?
May '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
I think we're part of an experiment that can begin to tackle that issue ever so gently -- not solve it mind you -- but become part of the solution. In this first stage we are establishing the general rules of civility -- pay-to-play definitely helps. But I think at some point soon we can begin to invite in folks that may pose more subject-matter challenges. To those paying close attention, the would-be Fox-FCC-license- withholding-Journolist UCLA law professor (who is also a former classmate) chimed in on a topic. I hope he comes back.
May '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Two Americas was actually the theme of Robert Ferrigno's engrossing trilogy on the rivalry between the Islamic States of America and the Bible Belt.
Not quite the same as carving California, Oregon, and Washington on the West, plus NY and New England on the East, into a new socialist paradise while the rest of us go back to the previous Constitution. The risk is that it ends up in three, like India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, because the geographic challenges are too great.
Peter, Rob, et al, stop reading: Psst, everyone else, wouldn't it solve a lot of problems if we just ceded coastal California back to Mexico? Maybe donate Vermont to Ottawa?
Jun '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Pilgrim: Nah! Never work, breaks down over who has to take California · Aug 27 at 8:46am
Edited on Aug 27 at 08:47 am
Isn't it ironical that twenty years ago, the two sides would have fought about who got to keep California. Sad commentary on California.
I tend to agree with Kennedy that America has been self-correcting, but, to use a new cliche, I believe we really are at a "tipping point." Once you're in the ditch, you're not going to get back on the road anytime soon.
If we are unable to unravel the nightmare created by the healthcare bill, I fear that the self-correcting mechanism will have failed. For a far more thoughtful analysis of this issue, take a look at Peter's interview of Tom Sowell on the NRO website. He says some pretty scary, and all too true, things.
Edited on Aug. 27 at 9:38amJul '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Pat, I tend to agree with your premise. We have two distinct paradigms at work that are antithetical to one another. When one side wants the government to stay out of their lives and the other thinks government should have input into every aspect of their lives, where is the middle ground for compromise?
Regarding the internet, it's interesting that with all the utopian ideas tossed around about how the internet was going to change the world for good, it has instead opened up a dystopian window into the darker side of man's nature, as well. I can understand us having no ground for compromise, but in losing the ability to have serious discussions between the two sides with civility, we're losing the fabric that holds society itself together.
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
One practical problem with the two America solution can be seen from recent state history. Liberals destroy the local economy in, say, New York, and then move to thriftier, lower tax, market-oriented states like Florida. But like locusts swarming from a depleted field for the lush greenery over the next hill, liberals don't change their habits. Instead, they vote for the same policies as before, tending towards the same result.
In short, for two Americas to work we would need an awfully big fence.
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
I'll bring the mortar if you'll bring the trowels.
Aug '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Here's why I'm not sure two Americas could work:
There's that old misconception on the Left that a conservative is just a puritan -- someone mortified by the prospect that somebody somewhere might be having fun. Hardly true, but I think something faintly similar is true of many on the Left:
Leftist are mortified by the prospect that somebody somewhere is living a life free of Leftist "enlightenment" (meddling). How else do you come up with "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Those danged Kansans haven't simply chosen to live life differently -- no. There must be something wrong with them. They must be deluded, unable to take care of themselves.
I'm not sure that Left America could feel content leaving Right America alone. Left America would want to take over Right America -- for its own good, of course!
May '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Pat, I'm not sure the internet is to blame. I couldn't place exactly when it started exactly, but at some point the boomer left took control over many levers of society, academia, the mainstream media, etc… and drummed out most other voices. The rise of conservative talk radio and so on, primarily in response to this monopoly, thus began to provide conservatives their own sphere. Like the old sitcom trope, the two sides then began to tape off the room to distinguish what belonged to whom, with a fight ensuing whenever anyone crossed over.
I think the internet only exacerbated these groupings by diminishing physical space between the like minded. For me, this is a good thing. I’m a covert conservative in a liberal bubble, and get more of “the other side” than I really want. Ricochet, talk radio and whatnot thus become my escape, rather than a bubble to avoid the other side
Edited on Aug. 27 at 10:36amMay '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
That being said, I have experience in English academia, and really didn’t have this same issue. Everyone was quite clear about their leanings, there was no real monopoly on ideas, and (with a few exceptions) we actively engaged one another in formal and informal settings with cordiality and respect, even when disagreeing. That is not the case at my present American university, where I feel confident I would be socially ostracized, if not my career inhibited, if my conservatism became openly apparent.
Aug '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Peter Christofferson How can we ever learn how to talk to each other if we don't even try? ... How do we talk to people we fundamentally disagree with -- not just chat, but discuss important issues -- in the polite, reasoned way we do here?
Carefully.
I've found it's better to gain their firm friendship before you give an inkling of your political leaning.
First let them explain their ideas and listen, asking politely about what they mean by the terms they use.
Try finding common ground (for example, dislike of large corporations). Then little by little explain your perspective on the issue (for example, that the largeness of many corporations is more a result of regulatory interference and subsidies than it is of a free market; that the federal government is the largest corporation).
Never assume they understand where you're coming from, what the terms you use really mean. Always be willing to patiently explain until they feel they understand.
Generally assume that their knowledge of conservatism is based on misconceptions and stereotypes. Don't chide them for this. Patiently excavate the misconceptions.
Give them time to cool off when they need it.
And pick your battles.
May '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Adam Freedman: Two comments: · Aug 27 at 8:37am
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! Don't you dare make the Midwest into Obamaland. Just carve out Chicago and mush it into New York City. You guys won't even notice. The rest of the conservative farmers and business owners in Illinois will hail you as their hero and us little flyover people in Missouri won't have to hurt you for suggesting such a horrific idea.