Is the USA going to Break Apart?

L

lotr10

Well-known member
I think the current historical trends are looking more & more likely that the USA will break into smaller parts over the next 25 years. What a devolution of the US looks like in it's final form is TBD, but we are headed in that direction. Do you agree or disagree?

In favor of the coming dissolution I would argue that:

* Lost amid all the partisan anger has been a distinct move in favor of States Rights. In the past this has been mostly the province of hard core Libertarians and the cranky right. But now we have full on adoption by the progressive left and two of their biggest states:

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrat...r-to-defy-immigration-laws-could-it-secede-as

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gov-cuomo-state-will-sue-to-block-federal-tax-overhaul/ar-BBHNI49

Going against the feds with respect to IMMIGRATION & TAXATION are the first steps in declaring independence from central authority.

* While I'm sympathetic to private marijuana use and think Sessions has bigger things on his plate then enforcing federal weed laws on States that have legalized pot, the story here is one of states rights. Viewed that way the coming weed battle is a classic states rights battle where you could have the spectra of State Police arresting federal drug enforcement agents. This could be a precursor to a break-up.

* Whether Hillery had won or with Trump's victory one thing is true: the SCOTUS will become more partisan. I'm happy that Trump will ensure a SCOTUS swing to the right for decades but I can also see where this will cause despair among the left. At some point, facing decades of rulings that will frustrate their ambitions they may decide not to defer to the highest court in the land.

* The current slow motion coup against President Trump is an example of a country coming apart. The intensity of the "resistance" to a duly elected POTUS by members of the opposition party, the deep state, the news media and ordinary citizens is the most extreme of the modern era. To be fair, had Hillery won I'm sure the resistance on the right would have been nearly as fierce. Either way, a first step in a nation breaking apart is when one side refuses to accept the outcome of legally sanctioned elections.

So maybe I'm being alarmist here. But when BOTH sides of the political spectrum are arguing "States Rights" then we have a situation not seen in our history. Remember, leading up to the civil war the Confederacy demanded states rights but the Northern states demanded UNION.
 
 
I believe you are overreacting a bit...if anything the divide is urban vs. non-urban centers. Even in the Red States the urban centers are blue they have just been gerrymandered to have less influence.

Donald Trump is unique - he is an outlier. Other presidents reach out to the other side to attempt to reunite the country...he uses a flamethrower.

His presidency is marked by chaos most of it self created.

Slow motion coup. (LOL)
 
Happygoluckky said:
I believe you are overreacting a bit...if anything the divide is urban vs. non-urban centers. Even in the Red States the urban centers are blue they have just been gerrymandered to have less influence.

Donald Trump is unique - he is an outlier. Other presidents reach out to the other side to attempt to reunite the country...he uses a flamethrower.

His presidency is marked by chaos most of it self created.

Slow motion coup. (LOL)
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but when can you remember the left leading the charge of States Rights? This is new to my experience.

As for Trump being unique? I would say his style & temperament are unique to modern presidents but I didn't see Obama reaching across the aisle very much to work with republicans. An obvious place would have been health care where I have no doubt he would have gained significant republican support had he incorporated tort reform & allowed insurance competition across state lines. That he didn't add these common sense things to his health care plan to bring republicans on board speaks volumes.

I fear that going forward opposition to sitting Presidents will mimic the Obama & Trump experiences. We started to see this as early as Reagan and through both Bush terms and Clinton. But it intensified during Obama's term and has gone deliriously over the top during Trump's term.
 
lotr10 said:
Perhaps, but when can you remember the left leading the charge of States Rights? This is new to my experience.

As for Trump being unique? I would say his style & temperament are unique to modern presidents but I didn't see Obama reaching across the aisle very much to work with republicans. An obvious place would have been health care where I have no doubt he would have gained significant republican support had he incorporated tort reform & allowed insurance competition across state lines. That he didn't add these common sense things to his health care plan to bring republicans on board speaks volumes.

I fear that going forward opposition to sitting Presidents will mimic the Obama & Trump experiences. We started to see this as early as Reagan and through both Bush terms and Clinton. But it intensified during Obama's term and has gone deliriously over the top during Trump's term.
Click to expand...

Agree- polarization is making the 2 party system dysfunctional.
 
Before the country breaks apart, i think we will see a move to more than the two party system. I wonder how anything will get passed when no party has a majority in the House or and Senate.
 
Happygoluckky said:
I believe you are overreacting a bit...if anything the divide is urban vs. non-urban centers. Even in the Red States the urban centers are blue they have just been gerrymandered to have less influence.

Donald Trump is unique - he is an outlier. Other presidents reach out to the other side to attempt to reunite the country...he uses a flamethrower.

His presidency is marked by chaos most of it self created.

Slow motion coup. (LOL)
Click to expand...

Ummm. No they don't. Under Obama there was no attempt to reach out to the "other side" or to unite the country. Laws were pushed through in total partisan fashion or the legislature was bypassed entirely. The rhetoric was divisive at every turn in an effort to isolate all groups who consider themselves minorities in race, gender, sexual orientation against the majority and into the waiting arms of the state.

What chaos has Donald Trump's presidency caused you personally? The stock market is performing incredibly well, we've finally thrown a spine into foreign policy, a disastrous health care bill is going to be repealed, all signs have pointed to tax reform so far being a success.

You are just incapable of looking at anything outside of the liberal beer goggles.
 
19AL63 said:
Before the country breaks apart, i think we will see a move to more than the two party system. I wonder how anything will get passed when no party has a majority in the House or and Senate.
Click to expand...
Sounds better every time I hear it.
 
I think all of the ingredients are there for a likely split at some point in the future. Not in my lifetime, but maybe in my children's. Look at a map of the world from 100 years ago, lot of changes. The US is strong right now but is as divided as I've ever seen it and the divide is worsening. I could definitely see large megalopolis' becoming more city state like in the future, heck we are kind of there already. I could easily see Cali seceding in my lifetime and maybe even Texas. Whatever happens to hasten this, be it war, disease of social upheaval, this government, like all governments in history, will one day fall. It's human nature.
 
lotr10 said:
I think the current historical trends are looking more & more likely that the USA will break into smaller parts over the next 25 years. What a devolution of the US looks like in it's final form is TBD, but we are headed in that direction. Do you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...
Agree on the inevitability. Disagree on the manner and timing. It's a libertopian pipe dream. It will be a Soviet-styled crackup boom that ends the current national arrangement, but the US doesn't have a completely failed economic model pushing it to the precipice at breakneck speed. It will be strung along for at least another 100 years or longer. There's no compelling reason to change. Look at Great Britain. Big wealth expatriated in the late 19th century and most of the gold disappeared by WWII, but it's still limping along with a decent amount of national pride and emotional attachment to its monarchical trappings. The US will invent its own unique brand of socialism that will keep the national government in place.
 
19AL63 said:
Before the country breaks apart, i think we will see a move to more than the two party system. I wonder how anything will get passed when no party has a majority in the House or and Senate.
Click to expand...

They might actually have to compromise. Lol

I'm in favor of the nonpartisan blanket primary system. Put all the candidates for an elected position in one primary and everyone votes at the same time. If somebody gets more than half the vote they get elected. If nobody gets more than half go to a runoff.
 
Probably not but if it did it would probably be isolated to the West Coast. And I don't think it would matter much. All the industry would relocate after the socialists out there start getting their way.
 
sapientia et veritas said:
Agree on the inevitability. Disagree on the manner and timing. It's a libertopian pipe dream. It will be a Soviet-styled crackup boom that ends the current national arrangement, but the US doesn't have a completely failed economic model pushing it to the precipice at breakneck speed. It will be strung along for at least another 100 years or longer. There's no compelling reason to change. Look at Great Britain. Big wealth expatriated in the late 19th century and most of the gold disappeared by WWII, but it's still limping along with a decent amount of national pride and emotional attachment to its monarchical trappings. The US will invent its own unique brand of socialism that will keep the national government in place.
Click to expand...

Perhaps and you've certainly presented a viable way the US could devolve. My guess is that it might be along the lines of a peaceful, carefully orchestrated split where the central government will be reduced significantly in size and power and regions would become autonomous and control most of he wealth.

I could see the central government mainly becoming responsible for continental defense (I believe that if the USA were to break up Canada would follow it) and perhaps serving as a "neutral" party to decide disputes between regions. The relationship of the autonomous regions to each other would be along the lines of the EU.
 
zeeman said:
I think all of the ingredients are there for a likely split at some point in the future. Not in my lifetime, but maybe in my children's. Look at a map of the world from 100 years ago, lot of changes. The US is strong right now but is as divided as I've ever seen it and the divide is worsening. I could definitely see large megalopolis' becoming more city state like in the future, heck we are kind of there already. I could easily see Cali seceding in my lifetime and maybe even Texas. Whatever happens to hasten this, be it war, disease of social upheaval, this government, like all governments in history, will one day fall. It's human nature.
Click to expand...

Zeeman you are spot on here. There is nothing inevitable about the United States and history is always in motion. I saw a great lecture (I think it was one of the Ted talks) in which a historian asked folks to describe the politics of the world in 20 year increments starting in 1900:

1900: Great European empires rule the earth. Most of these empires are governed by various forms of monarchy, from constitutional to autocratic. The USA & Japan are rising powers.

1920: With the exception of the British empire the great European empires are in shambles. The Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman & German empires have been swept from the earth. A new nation, called the Soviet Union, espousing a radical political & economic philosophy has been born.

1940: Nazi Germany rules Europe. Imperial Japan rules East & Southeast Asia. A devastating economic depression has driven the USA into isolation.

1960: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy & Imperial Japan have been swept from the earth. Two great Super Powers - the Soviet Union & the United States dominate the world like none before them and they are locked in a fierce global ideological battle for supremacy. The European powers are clinging to their colonial empires as the winds of change blow. India & Indonesia are already free from European rule.

1980: By all accounts the Soviet Union is winning the Cold War. Communism is spreading across the globe as a demoralized, economically challenged USA is poised to retreat from the world. The last remnants of the European colonial empires have been swept away. Only 25 years before Europe controlled VAST swatches of Asia & Africa. Japan has emerged as the most competitive economy on earth and seems destined to overtake the USA.

2000: The Soviet Union is gone, broken into pieces. The Warsaw Pact nations are free and have adopted democratic rule with many of them joining NATO! Japan's economic miracle has stalled and has been replaced by China, which has cast off communist economic theory in favor of cut throat capitalism. Above it all stands the ONLY superpower left: the USA, colossus of the world.

2020: ?

The size & breadth of the changes every 20 years are striking. Who knows what we'll be in the next 25 years. The only thing for sure is it will be a lot different then today, for good or bad.
 
eastisbest said:
As long as I can get to warm without a passport, I'm fine. If not, war.
Click to expand...

You bring up a good point in this discussion East, I believe that IF we break apart it will be because of ideological divisions so huge there can be no reconciliation. This will lead to two general rules with travel between regions:

1) Free travel, without a passport, will be the rule of the land. So trips to Florida and the gulf coast will not be impeded in any way. They will be encouraged as tourism = money! However, because some of the regions fronting your favorite beaches may be conservative you won't find transgender bathroom options like those available in a deep blue region.

2) While movement of goods & peoples between regions will be open, settling in another region will be quite a different matter. Since some regions will do better then others the last thing they will want is "immigrants" from struggling regions flooding in to change the ideology of the successful regions. Sort of like how Californians have contaminated Oregon & Colorado. So my guess is that it will be tough to permanently move from one region to another.
 
Here's a good article that directly touches on this topic!

https://amgreatness.com/2018/01/04/sacramento-democrats-fire-fort-sumter/

Note how the title calls California's recent actions similar to the shots fired on Fort Sumter by South Carolina.

What provoked this extraordinary statement is California’s open defiance of federal immigration law, embodied in the state’s becoming a “sanctuary” for illegal aliens as of January 1. Under the new state law, nowhere in California may police ask about an individual’s immigration status, nor may local authorities cooperate with federal officials on immigration enforcement.

Let’s be as clear about this as we possibly can: not since South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter, thus precipitating Southern secession and the Civil War, has any state of the Union so brazenly thumbed its nose at the federal government. (And not just on immigration; California also just became the largest state to legalize marijuana, setting up a separate but no less serious conflict with federal drug laws.) And, once again, it’s Democrats who are doing the thumbing.


We are living in interesting times and we better pay attention or things will get out of control before we even notice!
 
Happygoluckky said:
I believe you are overreacting a bit...if anything the divide is urban vs. non-urban centers. Even in the Red States the urban centers are blue they have just been gerrymandered to have less influence.

Donald Trump is unique - he is an outlier. Other presidents reach out to the other side to attempt to reunite the country...he uses a flamethrower.

His presidency is marked by chaos most of it self created.

Slow motion coup. (LOL)
Click to expand...

when did Obama REACH OUT to the other side, hell he didn't even reach out to the democrats......
 
lotr10 said:
....................................
Let’s be as clear about this as we possibly can: not since South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter, thus precipitating Southern secession and the Civil War, has any state of the Union so brazenly thumbed its nose at the federal government. .......................................
Click to expand...

My American history is a little hazy, didn't we have to send in Federal troops to enforce Federal law during the Reconstruction period and I seem to remember Federal troops enforcing Federal law over state law in the 1950's and 60's.
 
Termite2 said:
My American history is a little hazy, didn't we have to send in Federal troops to enforce Federal law during the Reconstruction period and I seem to remember Federal troops enforcing Federal law over state law in the 1950's and 60's.
Click to expand...

That was a quote from an article not what I said. But I suspect the big difference was:

* The Reconstruction period is unique in that it was in many ways a continuation of the Civil War.

* The better example would be the efforts to enforce desegregation and other civil rights laws. I would say that again the difference was that back then States wouldn't enforce the laws but aside from George Wallace the states were often quiet and not nearly as openly defiant as California has been in saying that they are a sanctuary state.

But even if we assume that the States reactions to the civil rights laws and school desegregation back in the day was at a similar level to the current situation I would argue that we were a much more united country in the 1950's/1960's then we are today. The US is far more heterogeneous today with respect to religion, race, ethnicity and ideology.

Bottom line is we barely survived the 1960's and I attribute that to our greater cultural & ideological homogeneity. For as much as conservatives & liberals differed back then they also agreed on a number of critical issues.
 
lotr10 said:
Note how the title calls California's recent actions similar to the shots fired on Fort Sumter by South Carolina
Click to expand...

:laugh:

setting up a separate but no less serious conflict with federal drug laws.) And, once again, it’s Democrats who are doing the thumbing.
Click to expand...

Marijuana legalization is far from a partisan issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top