Will the USA split into smaller countries?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I think it's quite ludicrous to believe that you can expect people from Texas and people from Massachusetts to have a civil discussion and come to a rational agreement.

For Europeans viewing this thread, take a look at a map of America, then take a look at a map of Europe. France and Germany are right next to each other. How much do they have in common? See how far Texas is from New York? How much do you think they have in common? Over an area this large, is it any wonder that we can't agree on anything?

There's a Russian professor, Igor Panarin, who has a prediction of his own. http://bigthink.com/ideas/21432 . Allow me to be the first to say his map is EXTREMELY flawed. There is no way, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina would throw in with the New England. They're Southern states. I know West Virginia split with Virginia to fight for the north and Kentucky was neutral, but they're still culturally South.

My point is, this country is way too big and too polarized to continue being represented by a centralized government.

states' rights ftw! I think it'd be a great thing for this to happen

isn't that the entire point of having state legislatures ?

the US doesn't only really has "centralised government" in relation to a very few strands of government. in everything else states call the shots on almost every contentious issue from whether or not abortion is legal to things as baseline as the age of adult responsibility and sexual consent.

the truth is the "big government" in Washington doesn't have a "big" amount of power except in a few key areas like national security, defence and various commerce related regulatory agencies (which despite what some people say are required in a modern economy).

the real problem the US has developed is that people see their own democratically elected representative government as their enemy (especially if the party they don't support is in power) which to people outside looking in sometimes seems, quite frankly, nuts.

what is wrong with the US is not that its full of wide and varied "grey" points of view and so thusly can't be a country somehow.

what is wrong is that it waaaaay too black and white.

what you could really do with are at least another two national political parties (personally i'd suggest "the tea party" should form their own and the libertarians should also be separately and openly represented because atm people who should be in separate parties are kinda hiding in the "broad churches" of what you're stuck with)

the result of having more parties would be that political debate would become more measured, less infantile and involve consensus building and compromise because at the moment all American politics is is "you're wrong!" "no! you're wrong" ad infinitum.

it's simply not working.

to the point its possibly just about to end your run as the pre-eminent nation on Earth.

and the REALLY stupid thing is rigidly two party systems like yours are fully understood to be poltically unhealthy FOR EXACTLY THESE REASONS.

over time I think it will be inevitable the U.S.A is still very young and its bound to undergo some form or separation and reunification over its (for want of a better word) lifetime look at Russia or Austria or Hungary or Korea or even the U.k there is still divisions between Scotland ,England and Wales after all these centuries not to mention northern Ireland.

However its not in the central governments interest to let this happen so would take a fair bit of external pressure.

Does anyone find the idea of "under Canadian influence" hilarious? What are they going to do, ask politely? Those wacky Canucks.

They don't have to come to an agreement, we have things like majority. Not everybody has to be in agreement for government to work.

It would be interesting to see how things would change if the USA did split down political/cultural lines. We could see some states becoming more European in politics while others become much more fundamental Christian states. Would be interesting to see how the spectrum changes. I would say there would have to be free travel between these states as i could see resentment from groups stuck in an area they don't associate with.

Though I don't see why each state has to fall under the influence of a foreign power. Yes each region may see some political shifts which may see it move closer to their foreign neighbours but they will still be in control of themselves. The American ego is waaaay to large to be under a foreign influence.

I also don't see why Alaska and Hawaii have to be given to a foreign nation. America - even a fractured one - would never tolerate giving up land to a foreign power. At least in Alaska's case not until they've drained it dry of oil.

Karma168:
I also don't see why Alaska and Hawaii have to be given to a foreign nation. America - even a fractured one - would never tolerate giving up land to a foreign power. At least in Alaska's case not until they've drained it dry of oil.

Not to mention Alaska going to Russia and not Canada. 'Sif Canada would sit idly by, they'd wage a full on polite suggestion not to do so, thank you.

Dags90:

Karma168:
I also don't see why Alaska and Hawaii have to be given to a foreign nation. America - even a fractured one - would never tolerate giving up land to a foreign power. At least in Alaska's case not until they've drained it dry of oil.

Not to mention Alaska going to Russia and not Canada. 'Sif Canada would sit idly by, they'd wage a full on polite suggestion not to do so, thank you.

Canadians can be very convincing. Their espionage tactics of delivering home-made muffin baskets and thoughtfully worded thank you letters have won them a great many things in their history.

The western United States becoming part of China? That's the most absurd thing I've heard of in a long, long time.

That will never happen. The most that can happen is the states demanding a return of greater state power.

irrelevant83:
I think it's quite ludicrous to believe that you can expect people from Texas and people from Massachusetts to have a civil discussion and come to a rational agreement.

For Europeans viewing this thread, take a look at a map of America, then take a look at a map of Europe. France and Germany are right next to each other. How much do they have in common? See how far Texas is from New York? How much do you think they have in common? Over an area this large, is it any wonder that we can't agree on anything?

There's a Russian professor, Igor Panarin, who has a prediction of his own. http://bigthink.com/ideas/21432 . Allow me to be the first to say his map is EXTREMELY flawed. There is no way, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina would throw in with the New England. They're Southern states. I know West Virginia split with Virginia to fight for the north and Kentucky was neutral, but they're still culturally South.

My point is, this country is way too big and too polarized to continue being represented by a centralized government.

We answered this question in 1865...
and also, while there are differances, people can still come together. The United states is UNITED, and peoplewill come together, because as differant as we all are, on the 4th of July we are not Missourians and Citazens of Illinois, we are americans, and we shall be americans in times of trial

I'd see another civil war happening in the United States before we just fraction up and fall into the grasps of foreign powers.

Americans value freedom and the idea of it and wouldn't just give it up to anyone. A revolution is more likely because in the Constitution it does state that we, the people, have the right to abolish the government if it's doing a poor job and instill a new one.

I see that time coming, soon, if things don't change for the good.

Sleekit:
-snip-

The point of having separate state and federal government systems is to break the country down into smaller, more manageable pieces. The smaller pieces can then deal with local and regional issues on a more personal level, rather than one, gigantic supergovernment trying to handle everything at once.

On top of making dealing with local problems more manageable, it also makes it easier for the people to interact with the government. If they want to propose a bill or express concerns about something, they can contact their state representatives. Those people permanently live there in the state and spend all of their time talking about their states issues--and ONLY their states issues. They already have intimate knowledge of what's going on locally. A federal senator or representative would still have an idea of what's going on with their state, however not nearly as intimately as their state counterparts. Their concerns lie more on what's going on in Washington DC and in international affairs. They don't care if Proposition whatever is putting Joe's candy shop out of business. That is a concern for local governments.

Lastly, it gives states the chance to custom-tailor things like taxes, budgets, and ordinances to fit their needs. What works in another state may not work in another. Some states need higher or lower taxes than others, and other states might prefer to have taxes weighed differently (higher sales tax than property tax, or vice versa). Some states need to have things in their budgets weighed differently, like more infrastructure or less public transit. Some states even need their own unique laws, which wouldn't work if applied other states. Alcohol is illegal in certain parts of Alaska, because the native Inuit people do not handle alcohol well at all.

The separation of state and federal government forms a chain of command. Local city councils and mayors report to their local districts. Districts report to the state governments. State governments report to the federal government. This breakdown allows us to have several smaller branches of government with their own manageable workloads, rather than one monolithic government with an insurmountable workload. Plus it just makes more sense.

aei_haruko:
-snip-

That's all well and good, but I'd like to point you to my other post up above. The point of having separate state governments isn't because we don't like each other. It's because it makes things a hell of a lot more manageable and allows the different regions of the country to deal with local problems on a local level.

Lilani:

aei_haruko:
-snip-

That's all well and good, but I'd like to point you to my other post up above. The point of having separate state governments isn't because we don't like each other. It's because it makes things a hell of a lot more manageable and allows the different regions of the country to deal with local problems on a local level.

hmm... I would agree, but a nation needs a millitary, and a state level govenrment couldn't do that though. I agree, most issues should be local, aka, make the governments goal less, and work towards settling the debt and protecting us, but other than that let the state government do what it needs, leave the big government out of it, but if we were to dissolve, then we'd be nothing.

aei_haruko:

Lilani:

aei_haruko:
-snip-

That's all well and good, but I'd like to point you to my other post up above. The point of having separate state governments isn't because we don't like each other. It's because it makes things a hell of a lot more manageable and allows the different regions of the country to deal with local problems on a local level.

hmm... I would agree, but a nation needs a millitary, and a state level govenrment couldn't do that though. I agree, most issues should be local, aka, make the governments goal less, and work towards settling the debt and protecting us, but other than that let the state government do what it needs, leave the big government out of it, but if we were to dissolve, then we'd be nothing.

Hun, nowhere in my post did I say we didn't need a federal government. I know that. My point was we need both in order for things to run smoothly. Big government deals with big problems. Little government deals with little problems.

Whoever made that map is a quack. The places under Canadian and Mexican "influence" are more powerful than those countries all by themselves. He also has little knowledge of American cultural regions and their political leanings. Why in the hell would the Carolinas, Tennessee, the Virginias, and Kentucky go with the 'Yankees' instead of other people that are similar to them?

There is next to nothing that could tear the US asunder in such a way, and none of them are economic. Only something truly devastating could, and it wouldn't be along nice little state lines either. To many people are loyal to the country above all other institutions to see it break up. Contrary to popular belief very few people living in even the most radical areas want to be their own country. Personally, if Georgia tried to secede from the country and start shit with the rest, I would have little issue in aiding to quash it and reel it back into line. Thats coming from someone who really loves their state and is proud of their region.

Lilani:

aei_haruko:

Lilani:

That's all well and good, but I'd like to point you to my other post up above. The point of having separate state governments isn't because we don't like each other. It's because it makes things a hell of a lot more manageable and allows the different regions of the country to deal with local problems on a local level.

hmm... I would agree, but a nation needs a millitary, and a state level govenrment couldn't do that though. I agree, most issues should be local, aka, make the governments goal less, and work towards settling the debt and protecting us, but other than that let the state government do what it needs, leave the big government out of it, but if we were to dissolve, then we'd be nothing.

Hun, nowhere in my post did I say we didn't need a federal government. I know that. My point was we need both in order for things to run smoothly. Big government deals with big problems. Little government deals with little problems.

ah, thatd be my bad, but yes, I'd say I agree with the libertarian approach you have described, I'd say that I want less people involved in my affairs, or anyone elses

aei_haruko:
ah, thatd be my bad, but yes, I'd say I agree with the libertarian approach you have described, I'd say that I want less people involved in my affairs, or anyone elses

...And that wasn't my point either. You are trying to read way too much into this :-P

It's not that I want less people involved in my affairs. It's that I like the idea of there being people who can deal specifically with my local area being involved in my affairs. And, if the problem turns out to be bigger, they can turn it over to the federal government.

And it's not an "approach," as in a theory. That is how our government works today. Right now. I only joined in this conversation because it seems a few people here have forgotten how important it is.

Shock and Awe:
Whoever made that map is a quack. The places under Canadian and Mexican "influence" are more powerful than those countries all by themselves. He also has little knowledge of American cultural regions and their political leanings. Why in the hell would the Carolinas, Tennessee, the Virginias, and Kentucky go with the 'Yankees' instead of other people that are similar to them?

There is next to nothing that could tear the US asunder in such a way, and none of them are economic. Only something truly devastating could, and it wouldn't be along nice little state lines either. To many people are loyal to the country above all other institutions to see it break up. Contrary to popular belief very few people living in even the most radical areas want to be their own country. Personally, if Georgia tried to secede from the country and start shit with the rest, I would have little issue in aiding to quash it and reel it back into line. Thats coming from someone who really loves their state and is proud of their region.

This guy's map is completely wrong, as I mentioned when starting the thread. He's a Russian and predicted the fall of the Soviet Union and predicts the same for the US. I support his prediction of a rupture, but not his map. He's clearly a Russian and doesn't know the cultural boundaries of the US. He thinks Colorado belongs with Nebraska, Wyoming, and Kansas. I got one word for that, "Nope." He also thinks Utah belongs with California, Washington, and Oregon. I got two words for that, both of them are "Nope."

Yeah, the guy referenced in the OP is kind of batshit insane.

BUT, it really seems high time for the USA to split, at least in two (generally into democratic homeland and republican homeland,) if not down by even more cultural lines. The idea of a homogenous USA from coast to coast to coast just doesn't seem right. I think that seriously splitting the country down cultural lines would actually be a great herald for the future: it'll rebuild regional culture, and encourage more localized regional economies. But at the same time, it could let the incredibly varied political views within the country be mediated, as different regional interest groups won't have to shout to get their opinions heard in smaller governments.

Specifically, I'd say something like an independent country on the west coast, with Washington, Oregon, California, at least a bit of Nevada, and maybe also the more central rocky mountain states (Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado etc.) Utah could be its own little thing, as well as Texas (potentially.) Certainly North and South countries along the Atlantic. But crazy Russian guy's dream of a chinese west coast and such doesn't seem very realistic, because its based on rather faulty assumptions.

Dags90:
Does anyone find the idea of "under Canadian influence" hilarious? What are they going to do, ask politely? Those wacky Canucks.

They don't have to come to an agreement, we have things like majority. Not everybody has to be in agreement for government to work.

Well excuse us for being peaceful; I mean we COULD try to improve our military, but we'd rather have the worlds most stable banking system.

OT:
Each state has it's own set of laws, and is essentially almost like it's own country; The national government just regulates the economy and handles national defense.

Greatjusticeman:
I'd see another civil war happening in the United States before we just fraction up and fall into the grasps of foreign powers.

Americans value freedom and the idea of it and wouldn't just give it up to anyone. A revolution is more likely because in the Constitution it does state that we, the people, have the right to abolish the government if it's doing a poor job and instill a new one.

I see that time coming, soon, if things don't change for the good.

If you're going to make a claim about something being in the constitution, be prepared to cite article, section, and line number

Squee, a new Californian Republic. Fallout, yay! They'd not be Chinese, though, that's not in line with the two-headed bear. And ideologically, they'd be closer to Europe, anyway.

Hell, all of these "part of" or "under influence of" make little sense to me. The Southern states in particular would do everything to stay as separate from Mexico as possible. The Northern states may be "under influence of" in the sense of more diplomatic cooperation, but I doubt they'd become an actual "part of" Canada. As for Atlantic America, somehow I see the United Kingdom becoming "part of" that rather than Atlantic America becoming a "part of" the EU. Looks to me like this professor simply looked on a globe to see which other countries the various parts of the USA are closest to geographically with no regard to ideology, politics or what have you. That might have been the case back when our borders were decided by direct supply lines and we could only project power in a rather direct line, but clearly that has not been the case in quite a while.

Anyway, it's an interesting thought but I wonder how it'd play out and what the various states would stand for. It would definitely be an interesting experiment to see different policies enacted in different states. Especially if the Southern and Bible Belt states decided to go all the way, unfettered by their mates, into extreme Conservatism and Theocracy. Seeing as my political ideals are very different, you won't be surprised to hear that I'd predict utter disaster for them, but I'm sure the people actually pushing for such policies wouldn't see it that way.

The Gentleman:

Greatjusticeman:
I'd see another civil war happening in the United States before we just fraction up and fall into the grasps of foreign powers.

Americans value freedom and the idea of it and wouldn't just give it up to anyone. A revolution is more likely because in the Constitution it does state that we, the people, have the right to abolish the government if it's doing a poor job and instill a new one.

I see that time coming, soon, if things don't change for the good.

If you're going to make a claim about something being in the constitution, be prepared to cite article, section, and line number

Well I would refer you to the second amendment but it leaves to much room for interpretation. So I'll just go with the "Right of Revolution". This was also asserted as justification in the Declaration of Independence.

Odude:
The western United States becoming part of China? That's the most absurd thing I've heard of in a long, long time.

It almost seems like the premise of a comedy movie to me.

Anything's possible, though this guy's theories sound like an export of Madbonia. Last I checked, when the Soviet Union collapsed, rival nations across the ocean didn't suddenly get the right to snatch up the pieces like it was some kind of weird game of Nationopoly.

Lilani:

Sleekit:
-snip-

-snip-

i know all that. in fact i'm a big advocate for Federalism in general (and applying it to the UK) all i was trying to say was that the states doesn't have nearly as much "central government" as the OP seems to think it does right down to some very fundamental things which are basically wholly at the discretion of the individual states.

Katatori-kun:
Anything's possible, though this guy's theories sound like an export of Madbonia. Last I checked, when the Soviet Union collapsed, rival nations across the ocean didn't suddenly get the right to snatch up the pieces like it was some kind of weird game of Nationopoly.

Nope, but the mob and more corrupt leaders had no problem doing so... and that was the best case scenario if Czechoslovakia is any indication.

This actually brings me to my next point, which is to say that a wholesale break up of a nation like the US is extremely unlikely given that there's only three cases of countries breaking apart in recent decades: The Soviet Union, Kosovo, and Sudan. Seeing as one of that was due to reforming too rapidly (Soviets) and the other two were formed out of the ashes of genocide, I'm inclined to say the US is not in a situation that would result in a geographical fracturing like that.

That said, let's keep the current crop of right-wing crazies out of office so that I can't be proven wrong.

Skeleon:

Anyway, it's an interesting thought but I wonder how it'd play out and what the various states would stand for. It would definitely be an interesting experiment to see different policies enacted in different states. Especially if the Southern and Bible Belt states decided to go all the way, unfettered by their mates, into extreme Conservatism and Theocracy. Seeing as my political ideals are very different, you won't be surprised to hear that I'd predict utter disaster for them, but I'm sure the people actually pushing for such policies wouldn't see it that way.

The South was settled mostly by the Scotch-Irish. Think of every Irish stereotype you ever heard. Drinks a lot. Beats their wife. Extremely religious. Plays the fiddle. Sound familiar? Yep, that's the South.

To be fair, I'm Midwestern. Think of every German stereotype you've ever heard. All work and no play, completely humorless. Midwesterners have deviated somewhat from Germans, but I know for a fact, that Jeff Dunham and his freaking puppets are considered funny here. Don't ask me why. They just are.

No way in hell will this happen anytime soon if at all.

If you ask a German what he is he'll say he's a German. Ask a Frenchman, and he'll say he's French.

But ever since the American civil war, ask someone from Virginia what he is and he'll say he's American, just like anyone from any other state.

Currently, we see ourselves as Americans, not members of states who just happen to have a tenuous relationship with some other states.

irrelevant83:
I think it's quite ludicrous to believe that you can expect people from Texas and people from Massachusetts to have a civil discussion and come to a rational agreement.

For Europeans viewing this thread, take a look at a map of America, then take a look at a map of Europe. France and Germany are right next to each other. How much do they have in common? See how far Texas is from New York? How much do you think they have in common? Over an area this large, is it any wonder that we can't agree on anything?

Have you ever lived anywhere else than where you are right now? I have lived in Texas, california, and Connecticut. the people living in those regions have more in common than you would believe. For the most part they all have the same wants and needs. the only major differance between them is the accent.

littleseabass2003:

The Gentleman:

Greatjusticeman:
I'd see another civil war happening in the United States before we just fraction up and fall into the grasps of foreign powers.

Americans value freedom and the idea of it and wouldn't just give it up to anyone. A revolution is more likely because in the Constitution it does state that we, the people, have the right to abolish the government if it's doing a poor job and instill a new one.

I see that time coming, soon, if things don't change for the good.

If you're going to make a claim about something being in the constitution, be prepared to cite article, section, and line number

Well I would refer you to the second amendment but it leaves to much room for interpretation. So I'll just go with the "Right of Revolution". This was also asserted as justification in the Declaration of Independence.

It was all fine and dandy under the articles of confederation. Not under the constitution.

It would be interesting if it happened, for one it would really shake up Trans-Atlantic politics. It would also probably be a catalyst for actual EU integration of military capabilities, since the USA isn't a military superpower to do NATO's work.

However, it will never happen. I think by and large Americans view themselves as American more than they view themselves as being, say, "Michiganese", "North Carolian or "Nebraskan". There will need to be a shift in identities in order for America to "break up", and with the massive cultural power that the US is as an entity, that's not going to happen.

Hafrael:

It was all fine and dandy under the articles of confederation. Not under the constitution.

What wasn't fine and dandy under the Articles?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked