doc mcb | 01 Oct 2021 6:58 p.m. PST |
link Interesting poll showing how deep the divide is, but state-by-state is really the wrong level of analysis. Counties are a better reference. Texas is very red but Austin is deep blue. The reverse is true in NY or Illinois; the BIG CITY is blue but the rest of the state is pretty red. We seem too intertwined to separate, but of course the northern economy was highly dependent on cotton -- though not quite so much as the King Cotton Confederates expected. The system contains a solution, federalism that decentralizes a lot of acrimonious issues -- if politicians can figure out how to harness it. |
doc mcb | 01 Oct 2021 7:01 p.m. PST |
|
Korvessa | 01 Oct 2021 7:44 p.m. PST |
But look at last several elections – it all comes down to urban v. rural |
doc mcb | 01 Oct 2021 8:02 p.m. PST |
Yes, it is mostly urban v rural, though not entirely: the culture is more complex than that. Religious v secular is probably as significant. And those who pay taxes v those who spend and receive them (i.e the role of government). and some other issues or modes of thought. |
Thresher01 | 01 Oct 2021 10:17 p.m. PST |
"Federalism" IS prohibited in most cases ("…those powers not specifically enumerated by the Constitution ARE left to the states…."), by the US Constitution, though many are ignoring, or ARE trying to change that. |
doc mcb | 02 Oct 2021 4:50 a.m. PST |
You seem to be using "Federalism" to mean centralized government; it actually means the opposite. Hamilton is the source of that confusion, and he did it on purpose! |
rustymusket | 02 Oct 2021 7:20 a.m. PST |
Keep going. It is an interesting thread so far. |
Wackmole9 | 02 Oct 2021 7:53 a.m. PST |
IF you look at county by county, it would be worse. It would stink to be a citydweller without the country providing food. 3/4 of my state (Colorado) would be happy to split from the front range megapolis. Many other states would be happy to have their large cities declared city-States. |
doc mcb | 02 Oct 2021 7:59 a.m. PST |
As long as we are a 50/50 nation, or probably more a 30/40/30 nation with a big "moderate" middle between two highly motivated wings who see each other as dangerous, any NATIONAL election or Supreme Court pick etc will be seen as Armageddon. There is very little room for compromise between the hardcore bases of the two sides. They just see different realities. IF we allow states to dominate in many policy areas, far more people will live under governments that reflect their values, and those who don't can "vote with their feet" and move. It beats a civil war. |
doc mcb | 02 Oct 2021 8:02 a.m. PST |
Wackamole, yes, but right now the farmers in, eg, NY or Ca or I'll feel disenfranchised. And to an extent are. Of course there is always tension between producer and consumer, of course what we are describing is as old as civilization. |
Stryderg | 02 Oct 2021 8:03 a.m. PST |
Paraphrased from the article:
'There's no real difference between Republicans and Fascists' … 'There's no real difference between Democrats and Socialists.' I wonder what definitions they were using for Fascists and Socialists. I also find it interesting that one question revolved around a party being a danger to democracy. Don't they know the US isn't a democracy? |
doc mcb | 02 Oct 2021 8:04 a.m. PST |
No, most people are "educated" in government schools and think it IS a democracy. |
doc mcb | 02 Oct 2021 8:07 a.m. PST |
And culturally we ARE a democracy. But if it not true that we are not a Christian nation politically ( we are secular in government) it is equally true that our government is a federal republic and not a democracy. |
Stryderg | 02 Oct 2021 8:07 a.m. PST |
"vote with their feet" I think that was the original intent for having different states and having them essentially share power with a small centralized government. The move towards a more powerful centralized government precludes the option of fifty experiments. ie. Let some states implement policy A and others policy B. Let's see where the folks go and leave them alone. Instead we get policy C which sucks for everyone except the voter block that supports me. |
HMS Exeter | 02 Oct 2021 8:29 a.m. PST |
The things that unite us… link |
doc mcb | 02 Oct 2021 8:41 a.m. PST |
Yes, there are still many unifying forces. AND -- a question for all but especially younger readers (if there are any in our dying hobby): MY generation (I am 75, on the leading edge of the Baby Boomers) is divided within many families, if my own experience is any guide. I have two siblings and three first cousins and we split 4 to 2 right versus left. But we love each other. Our kids are also split; my son and daughter (while both are Christians) are culturally quite divided, and the same is true of THEIR cousins, my nephews. If our family is at all typical, any tendency to see the other side as evil or dangerous or extreme is mitigated by the fact that we know and love each other. (Just can't figure out why people we know to be otherwise sensible are so nutty about politics!) My question is, though, whether that familial balance continues into more recent generations? Are folks in their 20s and 30s connected at a familial level with people from the other side? enough to make civil war unthinkable? |
HMS Exeter | 02 Oct 2021 9:28 a.m. PST |
As soon as the wifi goes down the shooting will stop. |
Legion 4 | 02 Oct 2021 9:33 a.m. PST |
I thought the USA was a Republic … ? 'nuff said … |
SBminisguy | 02 Oct 2021 9:54 a.m. PST |
3/4 of my state (Colorado) would be happy to split from the front range megapolis. Many other states would be happy to have their large cities declared city-States. +1 from California! |
Cerdic | 02 Oct 2021 10:08 a.m. PST |
Doc… It's perfectly possible to be both a Federal Republic AND a Democracy. Just ask the Germans… |
doc mcb | 02 Oct 2021 10:29 a.m. PST |
Cerdic, not as Madison defined the terms in Federalist 10 From this view of the subject, it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized, and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. |
Tortorella | 02 Oct 2021 11:11 a.m. PST |
My small college students are very focused on problem solving, tech, complex new degrees related to energy, medicine, economics, agriculture, the environment, acquiring new skill sets. They never seem to watch conservative or moderate cable news outlets where the demographic is grandparents. They can detect BS and keep their distance, use their time differently. They get news online. They are progressive, not regressive, moderate liberal when they have time for politics, which is not very often I think. They have read Marx, more as a cautionary tale. They believe in themselves. They are doers and thinkers a coming wave of innovators, I hope. |
Cerdic | 02 Oct 2021 11:17 a.m. PST |
In today's world the term Democracy is generally applied to a country where the population can vote their leaders in and out. You guys get to vote. Your President, Senators, Congressmen, and various other politicians change as a result of that vote. Sounds like a Democracy to me. Different countries do their democracy differently, but there is always the voting in and out bit… |
Cerdic | 02 Oct 2021 11:19 a.m. PST |
Tort, what do your big students focus on…? |
doc mcb | 02 Oct 2021 11:44 a.m. PST |
Tort, your students sound like my daughter, who is HIGHLY engaged in the culture but non-political. |
doc mcb | 02 Oct 2021 11:46 a.m. PST |
Cerdic, yes, by that definition you are correct. But you might google "uniparty" in the American political context. Only the right uses the term, but I expect some tens of millions of us think it has some validity. The good news and the bad news is we have been here before, in several different senses. Party strife was as intense in the 1790s. Sectional cultural differences produced a sharply divided country (and our bloodiest war) in the 1850s. And the politicians were as clueless during the massive economic and cultural changes of the post-civil war era (mechanization of agriculture, the industrial revolution, urbanization, etc.) The danger that I see, as a professional US historian, is that the three problems listed above (intense partisanship, a deep cultural divide, and an ineffective political system) are ALL in play at the same time. That was true in the 1850s as well, but not so much in the 1790s (when the political leaders were brilliant) or the 1880s (when the parties were relatively restrained and central power less developed). |
Thresher01 | 02 Oct 2021 12:02 p.m. PST |
Yes, you are correct, I'm using Federalism as the term for centralized, national government control, since many others do too. I'm a big supporter of individual and states' rights, not central, Federal control. Interesting treatises on left and right, but then you get the some that break the mold, e.g. radical leftist fascists of Antifa and BLM, using Nazi-like, brownshirt tactics, so the labels get a bit confusing, and eventually become irrelevant, as we've seen over the last 2 years or so. |
doc mcb | 02 Oct 2021 1:01 p.m. PST |
I'm a great admirer of Hamilton in general but not of what he did in making federal seem to mean the opposite of what it is. I do an hour's lecture on that we I teach American Gov. |
doc mcb | 02 Oct 2021 1:04 p.m. PST |
In 1787 the "federalists" were really nationalists, while their opponents, whom they labeled "antfederalists", actually believed more strongly in federalism than Hamilton's bunch did. |
arealdeadone | 02 Oct 2021 4:36 p.m. PST |
US is a dysfunctional poopshow. I note even the Democrats can't agree on anything eg infrastructure bill. |
Legion 4 | 02 Oct 2021 4:42 p.m. PST |
Yes, most of us here know ardo. We are living it. 'nuff said … |
Virtualscratchbuilder | 02 Oct 2021 5:52 p.m. PST |
My understanding is "democracy" and "A democracy" are two different things. The first is a process, the second is a type of government. In a government type called a democracy, when there is an issue and by democratic process the majority of voters win, the majority rules until another vote overturns the issue. So…. if the majority wants and votes for theft to be legal, theft is legal. In a republic, when there is an issue and by democratic process the majority of voters win, the issue can be challenged and then the issue is compared, via the court system, against the constitution. If it is upheld by the courts it becomes law. If not, it does not become law. So… if the majority wants and votes for theft to be legal, and the courts say it is not legal, it does not become law. That is my understanding anyway. |
Old Glory | 02 Oct 2021 7:59 p.m. PST |
Virtualscratchbuilder, Your understanding is exactly how I always viewed this issue. Total democracy is nothing less then mob rule. The "LAW" and "CONSTITUTION" rules the mob. An example would be civil rights laws. Even if the Majority rule that black students cannot enter public schools --the constitutions and courts can rule this "unconstitutional." Of course this is why it is so very, very important we have trust in a "BLIND" non politicized judicial system, judges, supreme court, etc. I am afraid that this is just not so today? Russ Dunaway |
doc mcb | 02 Oct 2021 8:08 p.m. PST |
Yes, we have been increasingly democratic since the Constitution was ratified, just in terms of who is allowed to vote. |
deephorse | 03 Oct 2021 3:41 a.m. PST |
You guys get to vote. Your President, Senators, Congressmen, and various other politicians change as a result of that vote.Sounds like a Democracy to me. You might want to examine your personal definition of democracy as it applies to the United States. I too thought it was a democracy, until, during the course of the last election, it was pointed out to me that the citizens of the US do not get to vote directly for their President. There's a little anachronism called the Electoral College sat in between the voters and the outcome. It's the EC that gets to vote for the President, and there's precious little 'democracy' on show in its functioning. The 'winner takes all' approach of some States would be OK if that State only had one EC vote to allocate. But they don't, some have many times one vote to apportion. Yet, if candidate A won by 51% to 49%, candidate A can take all the EC votes for that state. Fair? Democratic? If that system operated in my country I'd be working to change it. |
Cerdic | 03 Oct 2021 5:51 a.m. PST |
Yes, I know about the Electoral College system. But the point still stands. Every four years the people vote for a President. The President changes, or not, as a result of that vote. Compare with a non-democratic country. Even if the people get to vote, which they often don't, the guy in charge stays in charge whatever the result. Many, if not most, democratic sytems have their flaws, but they are still generally recognised as democracies. |
doc mcb | 03 Oct 2021 6:31 a.m. PST |
And the EC is on the whole a very GOOD thing -- just not "democratic". Ditto, e.g. the Supreme Court. And the US Senate. |
Legion 4 | 03 Oct 2021 10:01 a.m. PST |
If that system operated in my country I'd be working to change it. Yes, the EC has been talked about by some that it needs to go. However, it kind of gives the smaller States by population a more even playing field vs. the larger populated States. E.g. you'd just have to win say – TX, FL, CA, etc. I.e. States With the bigger populations. So what about the States with smaller populations ? Many States out West or some smaller ones in the East. E.g. : RI, DE, etc. E.g. Montana has less people than Delaware. The physical size of the State does not mean much when it comes to population density in most cases. The Electoral College – link
|
doc mcb | 03 Oct 2021 10:04 a.m. PST |
The EC converts a narrow win (in % of popular votes) into a larger margin. The "winner-take-all" provision locks us in to a two major party system, which is the least bad system. Multiple party systems are less stable, and even harder to locate responsibility within. (The two party system is VERY BAD; the alternatives are much worse.) |
Legion 4 | 03 Oct 2021 10:11 a.m. PST |
|
Old Glory | 03 Oct 2021 12:42 p.m. PST |
There is no political system that is perfect -- primarily due to the fact that by their nature goverment systems are ripe for corruption and the simple fact that by their very nature people do not like to be "GOVERNED" by anything --- and MOST probably do not need governed -- thus goverment is primarily for the few folk that cannot govern themselves. THUS -- all goverments eventually evolve into primarily viewing their function as benefiting one group of people at the expense of another group of people to keep their "choosen" group of people happy always promising a "better, more happy and prosperous future for all ????" Russ Dunaway |
doc mcb | 03 Oct 2021 1:11 p.m. PST |
Russ, yes indeed: Madison in FEDERALIST 51: Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. |
Legion 4 | 03 Oct 2021 4:30 p.m. PST |
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Winston Churchill
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been Winston Churchill |
doc mcb | 03 Oct 2021 5:52 p.m. PST |
link I was not aware of this trend and it is disturbing, because the less intertwined we are the easier it is to separate. |
arealdeadone | 03 Oct 2021 6:15 p.m. PST |
From a total outsiders view, it really does seem there's two Americas – one being the two coasts whose values are more in line with modern Australia or Canada and the other central one which is more routed in traditional American values. I've been thinking the US won't last last the century for some time now. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 03 Oct 2021 6:45 p.m. PST |
Since this is the Ultramodern Warfare board, I presume this discussion is leading to… a military discussion? Coasts vs Interior? Cities vs Country? |
Tortorella | 03 Oct 2021 8:17 p.m. PST |
I hope not. We can just skip this in that case. One ACW was enough. |
Zephyr1 | 03 Oct 2021 9:04 p.m. PST |
"Cities vs Country?" Control the countryside and you control the cities. Cut off the food & water to them, and any political entities in the cities are going to face very angry inhabitants… |
Barin1 | 04 Oct 2021 2:11 a.m. PST |
Aсtually this looks like Russian Civil war. In order to feed its population cities were sending prodotryad teams (i.e. "food squads") to force the villagers to part with their food. You have more guns per person than Russia in 1918, so it might get to bloody skirmishes. It would be interesting to see how military garrisons will aligh, if they're somewhere in between the cities and the rural country. |
Legion 4 | 04 Oct 2021 9:25 a.m. PST |
One ACW was enough. So very true. A war definitely worth studying. Before history is rewritten to serve a false narrative and in turn skewed agenda, etc. At this point we are in a "virtual" ACW 2.0 … 🔫⚔💣 IMO … Aсtually this looks like Russian Civil war. See ! I knew it ! Them Russkies is everywhere !!!! |