Social Question

LostInParadise's avatar

Is it time for the U.S. to split into two separate countries?

Asked by LostInParadise (17841 points ) October 1st, 2013

The Congressional stalemate is getting tiresome. Compromise is nowhere on the horizon.

With such vast differences of opinion, why even try to come together? Let’s split along the lines of the Electoral College results of the last presidential election. The Northeast and part of the rust belt along with the west coast form one nation, and the South and the remainder of flyover country will form the other one.

It will be a win-win situation. Those in the red states can do away with government health care and outlaw abortion and gay marriage. They can dismantle all government regulation. Prayer can be returned to the schools and they can teach science straight out of the Bible. What is for them not to like?

Those of us in the blue states can get rid of the obstructionists and finally get something done. Since the red states are net recipients of Federal aid, we will even save some money.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

41 Answers

rojo's avatar

There are reds & blues in all states. And, the last time this was tried we ended up in a big fight.

ETpro's avatar

No, it is time for us to pull together as one nation, and it’s time to educate our youth and the many adults that are clueless as to how democracy should be structured to work for everyone.

janbb's avatar

I’m with @rojo. Someone today compared the Tea Party to the Secessionists but they were in one geographical area; these guys aren’t. But I am heartily sickened by this.

Tried to help a patron with a request and the Library of Congress web site was shut down.

zander101's avatar

It should be a possibility I believe, USA is divided beyond reconciliation, there’‘s always a conflict with policies, people, government, it should be a possibility future wise.

rojo's avatar

Never happen. I want Texas, or at least a big chunk of it, and it has been gerrymandered red for so long it will take the Supreme Court (and not this one) to make the playing field level again.

There are actually a lot of us blue’s here but we have been rendered powerless

Neodarwinian's avatar

You think we have problems along these lines?

Try Iraq for an example of real separation of ” opinion ” problems. Or, if that is not to your taste try many African countries and some South American countries for separation anxieties.

We are not anywhere near the dichotomy you suppose yet and I think only ideological commitments are supporting your vision of this recent national disagreement.

drhat77's avatar

As soon as we’d schism there would be infighting in the newly established countries. We need our straw men.

DominicX's avatar

I think people in this country really overreact to differences of opinion. I’m with @Neodarwinian on this one; I don’t think the division in this country is near great enough to warrant a true separation. But I do agree that the American government really doesn’t know how to compromise, and that is from people on both sides.

Dutchess_III's avatar

No.
We just need to vote to keep the sane politicians in and kick the insane ones out.

ucme's avatar

Snap off the Florida panhandle & allow it to form it’s own banana republic, no one will notice.

bolwerk's avatar

There are already plenty of fully sovereign tinpot authoritarian regimes in the world. Adding places like Texas and Mississippi to the list just means they aren’t constrained by a constitution that at some level still respects rule of law and human rights. Seems like a bad deal for the citizens of planet Earth. Not to mention bad for the victims of those regimes living in those places.

Pachy's avatar

No—it’s time to stop electing stubborn, ignorant, mean-spirited, narrow-minded, short-sighted, compromise-adverse, demagogues.

rojo's avatar

Hey, @Pachyderm_In_The_Room those are the ones who win the primary and get on the ticket. They have the money/fanatical base following to overcome the cynical lethargy of the general populace and get elected because of it.

You want to keep ‘em off, you gotta have mandatory voting so that people say “That guy is an asshole, I am not voting for him” as opposed to “That guy is an asshole, I’m not voting”.

rojo's avatar

Or, worse yet, “That guy is an asshole, but he’s not a (Democrat/Republican) so I will have to vote for him”.

Yetanotheruser's avatar

No, it’s time to get moneyed interests out of politics.

drhat77's avatar

Making people vote. That is BRILLIANT!
You wouldn’t even have to make them vote. They just have to spend 1 minute in the booth. whatever they do there is their business.

Yetanotheruser's avatar

@drhat77 Actually, in many states they won’t have to go to the polls. They can use the mail-in ballot!

drhat77's avatar

@Yetanotheruser ugh MAIL! that’s so 20th century…

Yetanotheruser's avatar

But so is going to the polls.

drhat77's avatar

Going to the polls is more like a social event. The seniors hit it on their way to the early bird special. The professionals make a post commute appearance. The shiftless 20 somethings taking their half day off to smoke weed behind the community center. Fun for all (voting) ages

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

We do not really need to split the nation, what we need more is a strong 3rd or 4th party so it is not a tug-o-war, and more cooperation involved.

drhat77's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central I was wondering tangential to a thread the other day do you think a parliamentary system would work here? with dozens of parties blocing to get legislation passed? That way it’s not just a “us vs them” game. Today’s enemies could be tomorrow’s allies.

rojo's avatar

@drhat77 Worth a try.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@drhat77 I was wondering tangential to a thread the other day do you think a parliamentary system would work here?
I do no know enough about how a parliamentary government works, but I believe that Congress and the Senate would work more efficiently if there were 3–5 near equal parties involved. One group’s ally might be an enemy in the future, but maybe that will keep people in an open cooperative way.

flutherother's avatar

The US is fine it is the elected representatives that are the problem. The Republicans have gone on strike. I think they should be sacked and replaced with workers who will do the job.

Blondesjon's avatar

Yeah.

Hey Doc! Since my cancer is so bad can you just split it in to pieces and place it around all the vital parts of my body? Thanks!

talljasperman's avatar

Can you please take Quebec for us? They are getting a bit racist and possessive of the French rights in the province.

DWW25921's avatar

Why split into only 2 countries? I think Alaska and Texas would be ok on their own. Than the Northeast would probably become part of the European Union. The West would do their thing. Than there’s the south…

DWW25921's avatar

@talljasperman We’ll be glad to take Quebec if you clear out the frog infestation first!

drhat77's avatar

@talljasperman no one wants the Quebecois

Dr_Lawrence's avatar

The US needs a multi-party political system with a two-house structure such as Canada, Great Britain and Australia use effectively. Both houses should be elected. The US does not have to continue to fail to serve all the American people.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@flutherother Yes, they are elected but if I’m any example, the only office I ever made any effort to “elect” was the president. I ignored the governor’s office and all the rest, assuming it would all work out.

Well, not any more.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

This commentary is appropriate.

I believe that many people will enjoy reading it. Please do.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

And this article might make some people with very long memories a bit misty eyed for ye olde countrie.

I love the last sentence: “Maybe, if we ask nicely, Britain will take us back?”

rojo's avatar

No but it is time for the Republican and Democratic parties to split and give us a third party. All the middle of the roaders from both parties should get together and form said third party and leave all the ideologues to fend for themselves.

Yetanotheruser's avatar

@rojo Historically, third (or fourth or fifth) parties are not middle of the road. On the contrary, they tend to be from the extremes of the two major parties. The Republican party is essentially split right now between moderate “traditional” Republicans and the more right-leaning “Tea Party” Republicans, who are holding the more traditional Republicans hostage with well-funded primaries.

rojo's avatar

I don’t doubt that but at this time we have a party that, as you said, has an extreme wing that has taken over and has no intention of splitting off and losing the brand familiarity, probably knowing full well that, as a third party, they would have little success.

Yetanotheruser's avatar

@rojo Add that to the fact that independent polls (Quinnipiac) show a disapproval rate of the Congressional stalemate in the 70% range. It seems like the Tea Party “Republicans” are refusing to recognize the democratic (small “d”) process in the election and the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and are resorting to these extreme measures in order to bully their way around the law.

bolwerk's avatar

“Moderate Republican” is delusional or deliberately misleading agitprop from mass media elements vying to keep the Republikan Party viable or denying that it’s largely mentally ill. There are no moderates in the Republikan Party, and the republican (“Democratic”) party is controlled by milquetoast center-rightists with an overbearing sense of noblesse oblige – basically, classic conservatives.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther