It is of no surprise to me that there is increased talk of secession around various parts of the country.
http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/12/batty-secession-schemes-gain-a-foothold-among-rural-conservatives/
The US Government is currently partially shut down and congress has been deeply divided for several years. The media has been fragmented to reporting news that its constituency wants to hear, we have conservative news channels and liberal news channels. It seems America is drifting to be a blue culture and a red culture, with little interest on each side to respect or listen to the other’s ideas.
So as our country’s cultural and political philosophy’s continue to digress, and our federal government becomes more dysfunctional, why wouldn’t you see push on both sides to ‘do their own thing’? If Americans of red and blue persuasion share little in common and can’t stand each other, what is the glue that encourages them to share a government? Is there anything on the horizon that shows a lessening of the split into dark red or dark blue philosophies?
The secession movements may be batty now, but think of the headlines and news appearances that could be made by talking up a secession movement. I think its inevitable that at some point some enterprising politician, pseudo-politician, or cable news talking-head will grab this idea and build a movement and base of support around secession. Until we start seeing hope of a federal government making progress governing under a shared philosophy, I fear this will gain popularity and even further our philosophical differences.
I really don’t think secession would really gain real traction although a lot of people certainly like the idea in principle. Are the MAJORITY of people REALLY that far apart that they can’t live in the same country?
Our main problem with governing right now is the current two part system which is controlled by party leaders that require absolute party line voting on major issues. Speaker Boehner recently displayed this power by taking away committee positions to two Republicans who strayed from the part line on an issue that he deemed important. This type of control is common in both political parties.
I think it more likely that the Republican Party would split, but it is still not likely.
All political parties have been a compilation of values but I don’t think this is more in evidence than with the current Republican Party which has become a party of single issue voters. You have the gun lobby, the social conservatives who are anti-abortion and anti-gay, you have the high income group which is only interested in lower tax rates for the rich, and you have the ‘the least amount of government spending possible is the best government’ group. As a general rule these voters only care about their particular issue and are willing to support any candidate that supports their issue regardless of their stance on other issues. When we have a situation where about 50 House Representatives can shut down the government, stop a majority supported Immigration reform bill and obsess about our Health Care system then we have a broken two party system.
It would be best for the country if both parties split into at least two groups which would allow more agreement on tough issues with groups who are not beholden to only two party bosses. The problem they would have in splitting is that they know they will lose a lot of power for their issues that comes with sticking together with other groups.
The only other option is for the people to elect truly INDEPENDENT representatives but that is VERY unlikely as the money that is beholden to the two part system makes it virtually impossible to overcome.
Since I do not see the secession movement or party splitting REALLY occurring where does that leave us? Various Republican representatives are already on record as saying that the debt limit is not a true crisis and that there is nothing wrong with the government shutdown. Business leaders who have recently tried to influence the Republican leadership over these issues have been rebuffed. If the current Republican leaders are not willing to stand up to the extremists in their party we really may have an economic meltdown in our near future. Maybe that is what it will take to marginalize the extremes and then we can get back to majority rule.
Yikes! The only hope for getting a functional government back is a massive financial meltdown. With interest rates near zero already, the fed cant do much more to soften it – probably would be pretty nasty. Without a middle class, I would think our next worry would be civil unrest. I don’t disagree with you – as I don’t see any other options on how we get a functional government back.
The trouble is with the voters. If they recognize a name, that is what they vote. They have no idea of how that name voted. We need to return to how it was when the country was formed. Only Land Owners can vote! No foreign ownership of the Land. No corporate ownership of the Land. The Land is only voted by the people with a minimum of one acre. Combine the Senate from 100 members to 27 and the House from 435 to 139. Too many people can never make a decision.
Interesting – any thoughts on a scenario on how that would happen? I don’t see the entrenched power letting that happen. Maybe letting corporations be the only one that votes – that doesn’t seem too far fetched in the future…
It seems the biggest obstacle to getting anything done in Congress right now is that the Speaker is afraid of losing power if he does not follow the wishes of the most conservative members of his party. A tea-party Speaker would be even worse since nothing of consequence would ever get passed if they controlled the Speaker’s position. What if Boehner and the Democrats reached a deal where enough Democrats would vote for Boehner to remain Speaker and in return the Democrats are assured that some set of bills are allowed to be brought to a vote? This would include the Immigration reform bill as well as budget bills. This way Boehner would not have to cave-in to the extremists to remain in power and bills that could gather a consensus of Democrats and moderate Republicans could still be brought to a vote and get passed.