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 :
May '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Aaron Miller:
But, while we're talking about redrawing the lines, might I suggest that Texas be restored to its former lands? · Aug 27 at 11:06am
You might actually be able to add a bunch of land (and oil) to that northern tip of Santa Fe county...or perhaps add a new one called Alberta County. I know the idea would make many Albertans quite happy.
May '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Kenneth
Aaron Miller: Diane, courteous dialog isn't enough. I wish it was. I'm sure an American and a German could have been courteous and hospitable with each other in 1939. But it's because minds were not changed that WWII occurred.
Enemies can be friends, even while striving against each other. But that friendship doesn't preclude the necessity of war and struggle.
I respect your gesture, though. · Aug 27 at 12:33pm
You're right, Aaron. I learned that from my beloved grandmother, who shared a bit of wisdom I've carried with me all throughout my life.
"Kenneth," she told me, crinkling her eyes, "Remember violence...is always the answer." · Aug 27 at 7:21pm
Though I used WWII as my example, I didn't intend "striving against each other" to mean only war (hence, "the necessity of war and struggle").
May '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
I hope that the United States will remain unified, as a people and as a government, but I hope for that as I hope that I will live into old age. Prolonging one's life is a noble goal, but should never be one's ultimate goal. We live so we may love. Care for one's own body and mind should not exclude care for other people. Likewise, our government, our Constitution, is good, but it is instrumentally good. Prolonging its span should not be a citizen's ultimate focus. Rather, our government should ultimately be a vehicle through which we care for ourselves and others. Even as it fails, longevity is not the right focus.
This nation, like my own life, could end suddenly and unexpectedly. It would be depressing and wrong to bring that point into focus too frequently, but it is undeniably true. All nations end. Ours already failed and was restored only after years of political severance and war.
My point is that theoretical ponderance of secession and civil strife should be no more beyond limits of reasonable discussions than death and disease. There's a difference between hope and willful ignorance of grim possibilities.
Jul '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Aaron Miller:
But, while we're talking about redrawing the lines, might I suggest that Texas be restored to its former lands? · Aug 27 at 11:06am
As a native Texan, I am all about this proposal. A historical note, though: Texas voluntarily gave up those northern lands so it could enter as a slave state, and also because it needed money. The fiscal profligacy of the national Texas government left our fledgling nation with $10 million in debt. The feds assumed Texas' debts in exchange for the land. (Perhaps this is an idea that could be resurrected for California today.)
But I am a little scared that nobody has mounted a full-throated challenge to Pat's idea of a national breakup. Splitting the Union -- seriously? I invoke the words of that great patriot and orator, Webster:
"Behold the gorgeous ensign of the Republic... bearing for its motto no such miserable interrogatory as 'What is this all worth?' nor those other words of delusion and folly, 'Liberty first and Union afterwards;' but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light... that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart -- Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"
Aug '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
David Schmitt
I am trying to live out the idea that Politics is the art of Friendship on a grand (and very difficult) scale.
I like this idea. It's not possible to achieve in this life, of course -- perhaps it's not even possible to come close. Still, that doesn't matter so much. Many good things aren't wholly attainable on Earth, but that doesn't keep them from being good. · Aug 29 at 12:13am
Yes, "good," and the operative mode regardless of expected success or not. It is even a good preparation for war, when necessary. It clarifies.
Jul '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
You're right, Charlie, that's a pretty serious oversight! Guilty as charged. My only defense is that I assumed Pat was posing the idea more as a "thought experiment" than as a sincere call for actual secession or disunion. He's a bit of a playful provocateur, as you know…
May '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
This is a problem. A huge problem...and so daunting to correct, because the Left played dirty. They have polluted our academic and judicial systems and now we have to expose it and somehow undo the damage.
May '10
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Hmm…I’m thinking we had this conversation back around 1860, and the answer was “not so much.” But…boy. Some stat head should crunch the numbers and see what the countries would look like demographically, economically, etc.
How far south does the People's Republic of America go on the East Coast? New Jersey? Pennsylvania? Maryland?
And how far east from the West Coast does the PRA extend? Arizona won’t join, but New Mexico might want to. Nevada? Parts of Idaho? Could we negotiate San Diego as a free port of the Abridged U.S.A., maybe in exchange for Detroit as a Great Lakes port for the PRA? Of course, what about the Great Lakes states? Do they go to the PRA or AUSA?
All critical questions, I think you'll agree.
Re: Why Not Two Americas?
Peter Christofferson
I assumed Pat was posing the idea more as a "thought experiment" than as a sincere call for actual secession or disunion. He's a bit of a playful provocateur, as you know… · Aug 29 at 6:31pm
Guilty as charged, Peter. But I still find it interesting that the premise went virtually unchallenged. That means either readers considered the source and were treating it as an intellectual exercise, or they thought it wasn't such a bad idea. As for me, I think I'm against breaking up the Union. Buuuut....