Tag Archives: secession

2 Cents Worth On Life Its Ownself

Alrighty, let’s take a tour around the world and see what’s going on in all those corners of the globe….

We can start close to home in South Texas where we are being inundated with thousands of illegal aliens walking across the border with impunity and no apparent opposition.  The underground and smoke signal network of communication has been in existence since time immemorial.  Those kids, and more to the point, their parents, are aware of the vaguely disguised “invitation” of our guy in the White House that any and all Hispanics are welcome as future Democratic voters if they just cross the border.  Doesn’t it strike anyone else as a bit suspicious that all these so-called refugees claim that they are subject to intimidation and threats from gangs and drug cartels.  We’re expecting 90,000 this year alone.  How many gang members do they have in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras?   I personally don’t see refugees in those media photos but moochers.

Rule number one for any nation since the beginning of time is to have a border.  Each nation has the right and duty to  its citizens to defend its border.  Every nation must have the right to control and regulate the flow of foreigners and commerce across it borders.   That is the foundational definition of  being a nation.

Africa.  Well, the French after almost two years still have troops chasing radical Moslems around Mali.   Nigeria couldn’t be more of a mess Boko Haram roaming around killing and kidnapping more or less at will.  The Congo is beset with turmoil from radicals attacking and killing when the notion strikes them.   Libya and Egypt are both teetering on the brink or sinking into totalitarian status due to the conflict with radical Moslems.   Even a “stable” and democratic Kenya is subject to routine slaughter and attack from Moslems and radicals.   Somalia?  enough said.

Our friends in Europe are clearly rethinking their liberal policies regarding immigration and the influx of Moslems from North Africa and the northern and western marches of the Mid East.  France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and even Sweden are seeing growing and more vocal opposition to open borders and increasing immigration of Moslems.

Sentiment against central governments is growing much stronger across the European landscape whether the central government be domestic or the European  Parliament in Brussels.  Catalonia is voting on separation from Spain.  The Belgians are taking a fresh look at their centuries old joinder of the French, Flemish and Germanic portions of their nation with many calling for independence.  Surely you are aware the Scotland will vote in a few months on independence from the United Kingdom and predictions are for a very close vote.  Northern Italy is stirring even harder and more volubly for cutting loose the southern portions of Italy and letting them make their own way.  The Balkans remain on edge after nearly two decades of alleged peace between their Christian areas and the Moslem portions of that area.  The Ukraine?  Well it is getting plenty of press these days.

Who knows how Iraq will evolve over the next few weeks and months.   The radicals look to have at a minimum a permanent nation-state to consolidate power and use as a base to slowly but surely spread their barbarism in that immediate area of the world and even worse to then plan long term strikes against the West at times and places of their choosing with impunity.  It is very apparent that the US and all Western nations will not intervene in a way that would force them out of the areas they now occupy.  The Shia Iraqis don’t have the will to make a  war against them in those northern reaches and drive them out.  Even if Iran sent troops and everything they had available it wouldn’t work.  Look at the map and consider the demographics as you look.  The geography and Islamic peoples of those regions don’t favor driving out those fiends.  Iran can’t afford the  cost in treasure and military resources and personnel it would take to remove those Islamists even with the help of what exist of the Iraqi army.  That huge swath of earth looks likely to descend into a new dark age for some time to come.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are more or less the same problem sitting across two borders.  The Taliban will take over in reality or behind the scenes in running Afghanistan as soon as we are gone.  Who is going to stop them?  Serious question.  Pakistan can probably and likely will bumble along more or less as it has for decades.  Always on the edge of self-destruction but strong enough to thwart an outright collapse.

In the Far East China is on the march and Japan is slowly but inevitably renewing its martial aspirations.  Sitting between them is the powder keg the two Koreas.   China is readying its aircraft carrier and will use it to intimidate its neighbors and even strike the weaker ones when they feel they can without repercussions.  It is in our long-term strategic interest to back Japan in this growing and volatile mix.   It would be a disaster for China to be allowed free rein in such portions of the Asian area as they wish.  The Philippines just reached yet another in the endless series of truces with the Moslems on its island chain.  It won’t last either.  Lordy how many of those have there been since the SpanishAmerican War?

Saudi Arabia is allegedly an ally and how many of the 9/11 attackers came from there?  We should only trust when we can verify.  Be vigilant and hope some day those peoples will move beyond the 9th century in their outlook on the world and be able to tolerate other views. They are entitled to their own religion and culture and we have no problem with that but they should not be permitted to impose a Caliphate across any section of the modern world with the repression and of differing views.

Be brave,,,,fear never wins the battle and always leads to retreat.   olcranky.wordpress.com

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Affairs, government, history, immigration, military history, terrorism, War

Pathway To A Better State–V–Immigration

It is with a heavy heart that both Left and Right don’t truly have a deep-seated pride in their nation anymore.  Both believe that the US is heading in the wrong direction for completely different reasons.  It is right and natural that a citizen should be extremely proud of their country and want to feel they are part of a team working together for a generally agreed upon goal.  We desperately want to have a swelling pride within our breast when we listen to the refrains from America The
Beautiful but so many feel the country they want to love is becoming something they distrust and even revile.  It will be better when both elements can have their own sovereignty and they each can have that desired and admirable pride in their new and separate US.   One of the many contentious issues that divide the Left and Right is the question of immigration and very different views on the path forward to admission of new immigrants.

The Left going back to the 1960’s have had a deliberate and steady policy of loose immigration policy heavily favoring certain segments of the world at the expense of European immigration.  Until then our policy and simple historical, economic and cultural matters propelled the overwhelming majority of the immigrants to the US to be of European origin.  The Left had a harder time recruiting them to their cause when they came here.  They knew as any rational man would that if they allowed more immigrants of perceived minorities and from Socialist or Socialist leaning nations that those new immigrants would much more likely become new members of the Left or Democratic Party.  They overhauled the immigration laws to drastically reduce European peoples and favored heavily immigrants from South American, the Philippines, certain other Oriental countries, Africa and the Caribbean and the Near and Middle East.   They were right.  Those new immigrants did move to the Left as they became citizens and they continue to do so to this day.  The left wanted and got a very lax enforcement policy regarding border security because they would allow even more immigrants to migrate to the US and eventually receive citizenship.  After the Constitutional Convention and the reorganization of the US into two equal and sovereign entities each will be able to pursue their own vision of new immigration policy.

In the new Coastal America it would be the knee-jerk reaction that the immigration policy would be quite liberal and allow generously new immigrants and citizens.  Many would suspect that they would continue the current policy of favoring Third World countries or emerging markets.  Now many of them advocate granting citizenship wholesale even to those who violated US law in coming to the US.  It could well be true that the Left would adopt such a policy but on reflection it might be a bit different from that.  The unions form a strong and influential portion of the Left and advance the Liberal agenda.  It is an important cog in that political movement and would certainly continue to be after the grand division.  The unions are very leery to allow too many new immigrants entry because it would have a negative effect on wages of their members and their job security both of which are dominant issues in their movement.  Of course there is also the fact that after the division the Left will have “won”.  They can take their Socialist or psuedo-socialist agenda as far as they want without interference from the Right.  They can design their society through social engineering and tax policy as they wish.  They won’t be needing new voters to swell their ranks anymore.   They will have their majority for generations.

The Left likes to look to the European model for a goodly portion of its agenda and direction because it is progressive and Socialist to a greater or less degree.   A dispassionate view of Europe today would reveal that they have restrictive immigration policies; they do not have  open borders and immigrants face steep hurdles to becoming full citizens with the right to vote.   Coastal America will have no need for new progressive voters.   The significant majority of Coastal America will already be of one political vision and direction.  There are many on the Left that believe that population growth is a problem or outright evil because it leads to environmental damage and human suffering.   They will have their choices to make.

Middle America will revise its immigration policy most likely in a more restrictive manner.  It is most likely that the driving thrust of that policy will be to admit new immigrants based on merit or economic need of Middle America.  The policy will not be driven by ethnicity or perceived Third World status.   The result will be that more Europeans will likely be admitted along with substantial Oriental influx.   There would be an efficient and flexible guest worker program as they have today in Germany and other European nations.  These special visas would be granted liberally to those who bring “value” to Middle America.  The guest workers would be mostly from South America and Mexico.  That is simply a recognition of social and geographic reality.  Those immigrating with citizenship in mind will be mostly from Europe.  Not because of race but because of education and special abilities and capital to invest in American enterprises.

It is likely in a generation or so Coastal America would grow in population much more rapidly than Middle America but that trend might not last as Coastal America comes to grips with its identity and internal disputes with the entrenched interests of the unions and their power base.  They will have met all their diversity goals and economics will prevail at some point.  Middle America will grow but in a more even manner and become more homogeneous, not ethnically, but in cultural outlook and appreciation.

The great advantage of the separate nations is that each can pursue it own dream for its society through immigration policy.  They can amend  and emend as they wish without the discord of dealing with the other side.  The current disputes and disharmony we face over immigration policy would be gone.  Both Americas would be happy with its p0licy.  The best policy is what makes most of the citizens of each America content as opposed to the distrust and conflict we face as one polarized nation today on the issue.    Let each follow their own drummer.

Leave a comment

Filed under business, Culture, Economics, immigration, Politics

The Pathway To A Better State–IV–Laws

The deep divides within the US today have caused a stagnation in our body politic and the separate camps of Left and Right have less ground for compromise than before.  This is because those disparate parties have fundamentally different views of the role of central government and the power to be accorded to it.  This divide and discord has been evident for a couple of generations and the division has only deepened over that period of time.   There is no logical, legal or moral impediment to dividing the US into two parts so that each is sovereign within its own borders yet retain essential relations for mutual defense and trade.   Such a division would dramatically reduce tensions both political and emotional between those two halves and allow each to follow its own perceived path to a better world and future.   It is possible that each could be “right” in its own way and achieve its goals within constant disagreement with the other side.  A view of the laws to govern each prospective entity is in order.

The basic legal structure of each sovereign would be set forth at a Constitutional Convention called by the States under Article V of the Constitution.   No doubt each would adopt almost without any changes the US Constitution as written and including its Amendments.   Coastal America would probably not make any changes whatsoever but that would be their choice.  Middle America would make modest but significant changes in all likelihood.  This would not be revolutionary or radical.  It is likely that the commerce clause would be tightened so that only laws that in fact directly and materially affect interstate commerce would be authorized under that provision.  This would prevent the Congress of Middle America from passing virtually any law they wish with the claim that the subject of the legislation  affects interstate commerce even though there is no common sense justification for such claim.  The use and abuse of that section has been rampant since the days of FDR.  Coastal America in contrast can leave as much authority to their central government as they wish.   Middle America would likely consider some form of the various  balanced budget amendments that have been proposed.  Lastly there may well be discussion of eliminating the 13th and 14 Amendments since no one is proposing slavery these days and that was their only purpose.   Maybe there would only be slight changes to refine the definition of citizenship in the 14th Amendment so that simply slipping illegally across our border would not qualify such a birth for citizenship.

The fundamental distinction between  the Federal and Constitutional laws of each new nation would be the concept of Federalism.  In Coastal America the central authority would be imbued with substantial powers because that is the desire of the majority of the Left.  They can have what they wish for without interference from the Right.  Likewise Middle America would strengthen the role of the States and diminish somewhat the power of its Federal government to dominate all affairs.   The traditional roles of the States would be preserved in Middle America.  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for example has issued regulations dictating the terms of mortgages and deeds of trust which affect the real estate laws of the various States.  Real estate law should be the exclusive domain of the States as it has been from our inception.  The same would apply to contract and tort law and educational laws and all the other that have been historically viewed as within  the police powers of the States.  Coastal America would be free to degrade the authority of their individual States as much as they wish and not be concerned with the actions of Middle America.   Tax laws will be discussed in another chapter at a later date.

The untold tens of thousands of Federal laws existing on the books at the time of separation would be kept intact initially.  Without doubt Middle America would begin paring back thousands of these laws and their companion regulations and the various departments of government and Cabinet positions.  Some departments that would be reviewed for elimination or diminution of authority would be Commerce, HUD, Education,Labor,EPA and Energy.  Likewise Middle America would probably make significant changes to HHS and reform all the welfare programs.   Coastal America would be free to expand these departments and give them even more power if that is their desire.   The Right believes that the Federal laws have multiplied to Kafkasque proportions to the point where individuals and businesses can’t function without violation of some Federal provision which leads to selective and discriminatory prosecution.  The Left could retain all the laws they wish and maintain their faith in the fairness and compassion of the central government.   The changes made by Middle America would not be radical within the concept of Federalism and the proper use of the commerce clause.   Most personal and business affairs would continue on as they have before only with a significant reduction in regulatory burdens imposed by someone thousands of miles away.

Each new sovereign nation would be free to make a nation more prosperous, civil and blessed with individual rights as they see fit.   The Left could increase union power or expand government control over business.  It would be free to even nationalize such business as it thinks best.   The Left could adjust Labor, minimum wage laws and affirmative action laws to their liking within having to do political battle with the Right.   The Left has a vision; let them seek it.  That is not the vision of the Right so allow each the freedom to pursue its chosen path.   This division of the nation will increase freedom for both new nations and unburden them from the drag of the opposing camp.  We are Americans and for every problem there can be a solution.  The difficulties with a division will be present but all are solvable by the respective side when they can do as they wish without having to accommodate the other side.   Those problems you are reminded are certainly no worse than the absolute assurance of consequential and perhaps tragic problems we face if we continue our current course of dispute, inaction, decline and likely civil disorder.

“Even peace may be purchased at too high a price.”  Ben Franklin.   http://www.olcranky.wordpress.com

Leave a comment

Filed under business, Culture, government, Politics

Pathway To A Better State–Part III–Geography

A thorough examination of how two new United States could emerge from a Constitutional Convention to divide the nation into two new portions must include a look at the geography of those new nations.   The case for pursuing this course of action is clear because of the great and unbridgeable chasm between the Left and Right on some many critical issues.  The first and foremost disagreement concerns Federalism or the size, scope and power of the Federal government.  The sides have vastly different outlooks on that vital issue.  Personal freedom from Federal control and regulation is very important to the Right but the Left views that central authority as benign or even a force for good. Economic and tax policies couldn’t be more disparate between the sides.  Then there is the list of social issues that are viewed differently be the sides.   The sides don’t respect the views of each other and indeed on many important matters see the perspective of the other side as anathema to their core beliefs.   To some extent it can be viewed as large urban areas versus the outer suburbs or rural
America.   The divide between those two areas could not be more profound.   Geography matters greatly in all societies and cultures and the division of the US should be sensitive to those effects.

Fortunately the geographic separation is mostly manifest to any rational mind.  One only needs to look at the last few decades of Presidential elections and the elections down ballot at both the Federal and State level.   It is very apparent that the Left is concentrated in the Coastal regions of the country and that definition of coastal would include several states around the coasts of the Great Lakes.  Thus a likely moniker of “Coastal America” because that would be a reasonably accurate description.  But one of many advantages of this separation is that the new Left region can call themselves whatever they want.  The remainder of the country is “Middle America” or whatever that region will ultimately wish to call themselves.   Coastal America would encompass the area north of Virginia to Maine and then pick up a couple of three states on the Great Lakes shores and then move west to the Pacific and all three states from California to Washington.

The Left should be more than satisfied with the area.  It would include many of the great cities.  They would have New York, Boston, Philly, Baltimore and it is posited here that they could have Washington D. C.  Then they would pick up Chicago and likely Detroit.  Out west they get those great urban areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco.    They would have a huge industrial base and abundant natural resources if they wish to develop them.   They would have plenty of great port cities and access to both oceans.   They would get the economic center in New York for as long as they can keep it.   They would have great advantages they could exploit.  Indeed some might point out many difficulties like the NYSE and the commodity exchanges being in Coastal America but that wouldn’t prevent cross border commerce and Middle America would be free to compete for all that business and the better run economy would emerge the strongest which is as it should be.  As far as this commentator is concerned Coastal America could keep D. C.   Middle America would choose its own capital city.   Many of those Lefties in northern Virginia would decide to leave because the size and scope of the Federal authority in D. C. would diminish and Virginia would return to a more robust and long term rational balance economically and politically.   Remember there would be a free flow of people and trade between both nations.  But you would be a citizen of only one or the other with the attendant right and privileges granted by your chosen nation.  You would be subject to the local criminal laws of the nation where you reside or visit and have to pay locally imposed taxes but all other legal matters would be determined by you own nation or State as the case may be.    There would be a sufficient time period allowed for people to migrate from one area to the other before the division takes official status.

Middle America would have the Mississippi and Missouri and the Gulf of Mexico and access to the Atlantic from the southern states.   It would not have direct access to the Pacific but the Panama Canal would be accessible and trade and goods would be allowed to flow freely to the Pacific coast from Middle America so there would be no impediment to its economic viability.   There would also be very abundant natural resources available and it would continue to be the breadbasket for all America and much of the world.   There would be beautiful and beckoning sea shores and New Orleans for the entertainment minded.

Yes, there would be many concerns to be addressed but they could be dealt with.  Even the professional sports of the US could continue without interruption.   It might even add a little more spice to some of the rivalries.   Take the time to look at a map and you can see the logic of this division.  Each state after the Constitutional convention would make its own determination as to which nation it would elect.  That selection process by each state would be determined by each state, closer to the real voters.  For each problem with this proposed solution think about each new opportunity it brings to the two sides.  The Left can have tax policy as they wish.  They can attack the “rich” to their heart’s content and use affirmative action as a hammer to fashion the society they want and do these things without any interference from the Right.    They can let their judges legislate directly from the bench if that is their desire.   They would be free to nationalize any industry or enterprise they wish for the greater good to spread the wealth around in any manner they deem more equitable.   All problems can be solved and both sides will be so much more content without having to deal with the other.  The hard cold facts are we don’t like each other and there no longer exist even mutual respect for the views of the other.  All societies are better off dealing with reality rather than a fantasy society built on the bludgeon of legal force against a sizable minority.   I am confident about the future of Middle America; it will be a nation to take pride it and support and Coastal America can forge its own destiny for good or ill.  Give these ideas reflection.   We created the US from nothing and it turn out pretty good;  each of the new nations would have tremendous advantages in their fresh starts.  More of the problems and concerns you envision will be addressed in future posts.

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”   James Madison.   US President.  http://www.olcranky.wordpress.com

2 Comments

Filed under business, Economics, geography, government, Politics

Pathway To A Better State–Part 2, Structure

The basic case was made in the first installment of this series that it has become time to call a Constitutional Convention by the States and restructure the US in a fundamental way so that there will be two new nations with sovereignty over their own affairs.  This is viewed as a logical and more peaceful means to a long-term resolution of the polarization of the US that is so painfully evident today.  It is proffered that those divides cannot and will not be joined by mutually acceptable values and goals.   The separate visions of the country torment us and increase hostility by the opposing sides.  We do want to take pride in our nation.  No doubt of that.  Buy many abhor the nation that promotes Obamacare, wants an aggressive and growing EPA and a Labor Dept. bent on crushing management at ever turn.  The Right has no trust in  such a government.  There is in fact a lack of loyalty to that kind of government; it is viewed as the enemy more than fellow citizens.  The vehemence of the Left is just as strong.  Look only to the recent “Occupy” movement.   They worship government as long as they can control it and the wealth and assets of the nation.  Let them have their sway as long as it is in their own backyard and not ours.  The Left definitely believes they would be better off without the Right.  They view the Right as a burden they have to overcome and an impediment to all their goals.  We don’t have to be at constant war with each other.  There is a better way.

Yes, we share some nostalgic moments of mutual beliefs like the anthem at the football games and the flyover.  But as soon as we discuss the size, scope and role of the Federal government we part and have been parting for decades.  As that famous philosopher Yogi Berra observed our similarities are different.   Yes, making this peaceful division will be difficult but does anyone believe it will prove more difficult than reconciling our Left and Right under current circumstances and political structure?   The Left disdains and belittles the Right as yokels and obstacles to their goal for “progressive” government control of an ever-expanding role for Federal government in all aspect of one’s life literally from cradle to grave as has been their announced intention since FDR.  The Right rebels at the notion of greater Federal government intervention into local government decisions and personal decisions from health care to environmental concerns.
Each would be much happier without the other.

The new nations would divide along geographic lines that are mostly self-evident.  Each would preserve the basic Constitution as written with only minor adjustments.  For example, and example only, the Right portion of the new America would probably adopt a balance budget amendment of some sort.   The Left would not want that.  Good, each would finally achieve their desires.  The three branches of government would remain in tact for each nation and so would the Bill of Rights.  So would virtually all the other amendments in all likelihood.  At least in the new Right America, the 14th amendment might be modified a bit to more clearly define citizenship or maybe not.  That is what is nice about this new structure a chance for each side to set its own future course and agenda.   Each side would have its own divisions within.  Every supporter of the Left does not agree with all the Left agenda.  Bernie Sanders might be a bit too far left for some in New York.  They can work out their differences as they see fit without concern for the views of those of the Right in “fly over” country.   Likewise there will be disagreements on the Right about various issues.  Rand Paul wouldn’t concur with the views of a Mitch McConnell on all matters.  That is ok.  Each side would be working with those who are much more closely aligned with their over view of the US than having to deal with those from the other side.  The current path leads to tragic civil disorder and certain economic collapse.  That is not hyperbole.  What else can result when the two sides don’t want to work with each other and don’t even share common goals.

The world will not come to an end when this is done.  Each side is confident in its vision of the future and they will be free to pursue it.  Each will have a Federal government and states unless the Left decides to just eliminate them which many would love to do now anyway.  Each would have its own economic agenda and tax policy.  The judiciaries would reflect the will of both Left and Right in their respective new nations.  That alone will be an enormous relief to both sides.  Each would have its own military force but strong mutual defense treaties in all likelihood.  Trade and commerce could flow freely between the new borders which would benefit both.   But make no mistake you would be a citizen of one or the other so than the votes and political wishes of each new nation would reflect the will of its people and no other.   Yes, there are many questions that come to mind on these matters just stated and more.  The above and others will be addressed in later postings in detail.  Those issues and “problems” can be resolved.  After all we started from scratch in the late 18th century with none of the vast advantages we currently enjoy.  That worked out pretty well for over two centuries.  Each of the new nations can have a bright future due to the more harmonious political environment.  Not a perfect one but more closely matching the wishes of its populace.  The bonds of union are tattered because there two distinct and conflicting views for future growth and political action and the proper role of Federal government.  This is not a call to rebellion but a call for a legal method to recognize the wishes of the people of both Left and Right and allow each to live in peace without the interference or obstruction of the other.

Buchanan to Lincoln “…if you are as happy on entering the White House as I on leaving, you are a very happy man indeed.”   http://www.olcranky.wordpress.com

1 Comment

Filed under business, Economics, government, Politics

Pathway To A Better State

The recent 2012 campaign season has highlighted once again the stark and irreparable divisions within the US.   Those divisions have been manifest for decades now and river of discord runs deep and  wide.  They transcend simple explanations over one or two contentious issues.  The divide separates along core values for each constituent group.  We still compose a single nation-state but clearly are two separate societies within that framework.   Like identical twins originating from a single miraculous event but then pulling apart to become distinct individuals even though from a common bond.  We now must deal with that reality and the current organization of the US political system ill serves each of those societies denying to both their own vision of the future.

Most of us share a common pride in what the US was.  Many on the Left do not.  We are now confined to a nation that no longer gives expression to our values.  Certainly the Democrats and Left want a radically different set of values from those in common use today.  It is beliefs, values and social abstractions that bind a people not political divisions on a map.  It is the coalescing of those common values that gives life and energy to the political divisions that result in different states.  It cannot be gainsaid that we have two sets of value oriented views of the world.   They don’t mesh and never shall the twain meet.   The tensions and conflicts between these approaches to self-governance of a free people will escalate as the tides of advantage to one side or the other ebb and wane.    Many of us believe this is not the US the Greatest Generation fought so hard to preserve.   We abhor the direction we are taking and those of the Left wish to accelerate that direction.

This fact of divide and polarization has been brought to light in the recent movement for secession that has cropped up since our most recent election.   A peaceful and orderly re-organization of the US over the next generation is a much better path for the future of all regardless of Right or Left.  Our current path is one that will ultimately lead to true civil unrest, societal pain and divisions brought about by violence or near war-like discord.   These pages have previously mentioned the best path for this alternative approach.  We need to begin the process of calling a Constitutional Convention to give voice and reality to the two separate visions of the US.  Article V permits this approach.  The last time it was seriously considered was during the ’70’s and early ’80’s by those advocating the passage of the ERA amendment to the Constitution.  When their effort was falling short some of the Left mulled over the idea in public of trying the Convention as an alternative method to assure its passage.  That Amendment and the effort failed.   Are our current divisions so fundamental and endemic as to require such a step?   A realistic assessment says that the divide cannot be breached in our current political structure.

We have two very opposing views of the role of our Federal government and it is at that level where almost all the contentions collide.   The Democrats and Left believe in a large and almost omnipotent federal authority.  They view the Federal government as the helping hand encased in the velvet glove lifting up those in “need”.   They define need broadly and want everyone else to accept their definition.  To even disagree with their definition makes you an enemy.   Others believe the Federal government is the boot on the neck of the people.   That it intrudes into areas best left to the States and into the personal and economic lives of everyone.  There is a dramatic and irreconcilable chasm regarding the concept of Federalism.  The Democrats view it as a quaint and outdated concept from another era.  The rest view it as the bulwark of our freedoms.  The Democrats really would prefer that States be merely provinces of the nation with all control emanating from Washington.  TV talk show hosts and others love to make their cute little jokes about “fly over country” but sadly there is great truth to that comment and it reveals the true attitude of the Democrats.  They would prefer States be  administrative districts like they have in Metropolitan France or had in ancient Rome following the directives and edicts of
Washington.  They want power, power concentrated in Washington and obeisance from the populace.  Please review carefully your Solzhenitsyn, read lots of history of the Communists regimes around the world.  Stalin thought of himself as a champion of the little guy.  As an elite though he also believed he knew better than they want was good for them and certainly knew what the societal mores should be.   Opposition was not brooked.   But whether we of the Right  like it or not there are millions in the US that desire that kind of government.   Why not let them have their Eden commune on earth as long as we all don’t have to bow down to their Baal.

This has been building for decades.  It had its core with FDR and then was accelerated with LBJ and is reaching a zenith with the election of the current occupant of the White House.  But when they are gone there will others in their mold to step forward and continue the  road left.   If those on the Right could prevail it would not bring peace because the Left would ratchet up their venom and fight to tear down opposition to their forward march to a larger more powerful and ultimately more socialist government.  If we are going to become a Socialist European style government then what are the advantages to being in the US for those who believe that is so wrong on a moral level and destructive to individual freedom.   Why not live in Switzerland, Sweden, Scotland or Germany?

We’ve had a wonderful history even with our bumps along the way.  Mostly we have been a force for good in the world, at least the Right believes that we have, the Left not so much.   But things do change eventually as they have from the beginning of recorded time.  Rome didn’t last forever, neither did the British hegemony, nor the Kublai Khan.  It is not necessary to destroy the ideal of the US as envisaged by each political segment.  Left and Right can each have their domain without the opposition of the other.  But that destruction is assured if we don’t address our differences and divisions intelligently and forthrightly.  Many have said in times past that there is more than unites us than divides.  Only the hopeless optimist or foolhardy could possibly believe that today.  The fact is that there is far more that divides us than unites us today.  Pride of nation is deeply split along values.  Many take no pride whatsoever in the current actions of the Federal government, others cheer all its actions and want even more.   We can both be happy  if we each have a Federal government more in tune with our beliefs, values and aspirations.  In coming posts we shall explore specifics of some of the major differences and how each element in on nation can pursue its own course without so much interference  and outright obstruction by the other.   Yes, there would be problems but none any greater to solve that living in a nation divided and heading to civil disharmony and dysfunction.  There is a better way and a better place for all of us.  The Democrats should love this change.  Yes, they will lose some minions and slavish robots to the Federal government but truly they will rejoice in getting rid of most of those gun-toting, Bible- thumping rednecks and yahoos.   We of the Right do not respect or trust them and they disdain us.  Do you really think that will change?

Come again for details and the guide map that Pathway to Coastal America and Middle America where each pursues its own vision of governance and each allows the freedoms demanded from only its own citizens.  (Central power, Taxes, Supreme Court, environment, role of military, Rule of Law, social issues, size of government, economic system, capitalism.)

“A House divided shall not stand”…..stated in several places in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.   http://www.olcranky.wordpress.com

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture, government, history, Politics, Socialized Medicine

Divided Nation or Divide the Nation?

During my lifetime there have been repeated comments on occasion about how the US was divided into two groupings based on political outlook.  It always was about more than just Democrat or Republican.  It broke along conservative versus liberal perspectives in the most general way.  This talk was first more rampant during the ’60’s as there were those who had an international and socialist outlook on the world and  US society counterbalanced by those who adhered to a much more traditional look at our nation and its position in the world.  Those suggestions that we should divide the country and let the left and rights go their separate ways have been around from our very birth as a nation. 

The first serious discussions of secession did not come from the South but rather from the New England states in the early 19th century.  That was the time period when the English and French were both harassing our shipping and the Embargo Act was being enforced half heartedly to restrict foreign trade.  Many in Massachussetts and Connecticut were very upset because their livelihood was dependent on foreign trade and they felt the US government was not doing enough to protect American shipping and they were really mad about the Embargo Act which attempted to shut down all trade with Britain and France.  There were serious rumblings about secession by those states but the international situation improved and the pressure of the issue faded before the momentum built.  Free trade was restored and the matter dropped.  The next serious talk of secession was in the 1850’s shortly before the War.  There were many scholarly works on the topic.  Sound legal arguments could and were made that the individuals states were sovereign prior to the Constitution and still retained their complete sovereignty after the Constitution was adopted.   Just like a country is free to leave NATO if it chooses; the argument was made that the Constituion was a freely made compact among equals and that each retained the right to withdraw.  Obviously there were differences of opinon. 

During the ’30’s the gap between right and left was even more  intense than it is now.  The worst atrocities of the Soviets and Stalin were not known or were intentionally not reported by sympathetic observers.  Of course the observers of those days went there with preconceived notions about the Soviets or they would not have been allowed to go in the first place and what they observed was strictly limited to what the Soviets wanted them to see and hear.  Those on the right in the ’30’s felt very much left out because they were then outnumbered in Congress and the White House.  The radical labor movements were  more active and vocal than they are today.  Again there was discussion about whether the nation could survive as one unit because the vision of each camp was so different. 

Now there has been renewed discussion over the issue of the separation of the nation into two parts.  There were the recent comments of the Texas Governor about secession.  I heard so many commentators saying both jokingly and seriously that the issue had been decided by the War Between the States.  Legally that is not true at all.  The Yankess won the war.  The South surrendered.  That was all that was established as a result of that war.  Please look up and read some of the arguments made about secession before the war.  Many Yankees were in favor of letting the South go and supported the legal and Constitutional arguments that they had a legitimate right to do so.   As always the real facts are more complicated than  the historic sound bites crawling across the bottom of CNN’s screen.

Now the arguments for division are resonating again.  The Texas Governors has even gotten press for his off hand comments about secession.  Maybe we would all be happier if we did divide the nation into two camps.  Why have the turmoil and disruption of contrary and very different views of our future.  Those views do not appear reconcilable at the moment.  There is a sensible way to do it without the necessity of another war.  California, and perhaps Oregon and Washington along with the New England states and one or two from the Midwest like Michigan would make a natural fit.  They are ideologically aligned.  That could be the Coastal US.  The South, most of the Midwest and the West could be Continental US.  We wouldn’t have to abide  any longer those views each camp finds so repugnant about the other.   The disagreements between these two region are profound as we all know and should be intelligent enough to recognize.  I can’t fathom a state that would put Charles Schumer in the Senate and I am sure some on the Upper West Side would assess me as worse than a yokel.  Each of these new nations would have ample natural resources and access to the oceans of the world.  Those contentious issues would be resolved in a more sensible and less threatening way.  Everyone could be happy. We wouldn’t have to constantly be blaming “them” for everything that was wrong.  Each new nation would reap the rewards of its vision of the world and each would bear the consequences of bad policy.

The Coastal US could open it borders and allow illegals complete entry to their nation and grant immediate citizenship if they liked.  They would be free without a filibuster to raise taxes on individuals and companies as high as they liked.  They could punish the rich to their hearts content and even redistribute the wealth on any basis they thought prudent and their government could take over and run any industry for the good of the people.   They could run up debts as they liked and have deficits as long as they wanted and provide free government run health care for everyone from cradle to grave.   Those trouble makers with access to firearms would be a thing of the past and they could outlaw any gun ownership–only the government would be allowed to have any weapons.  They could bypass the paperwork hassle of the proposed Card Check uni0n sign up system and mandate that everyone had to join a union at age 18.  They could have judges on their courts who couldn’t win elections as legislators and who love re-writing the law as they believe it should be to conform to their world view and cultural instincts–activist from head to toe.  Coastal could be as “progressive” as it liked without anyone trying to step on the brake.  The New York Times could even be subsidized by them.  Everyone could be made to drive a green car and install solar or face jail time.  They could do all this because the left in Coastal would have such an overwhelming majority that there would be no opposition and they wouldn’t have to give a moment’s thought to the opinions of the yokels in the hinterland.  They could terminate their war on terror for real because they would be such a feel good and groovy place that no one in the world would dislike them.  They could offer a blanket apology for everything and anything to the entire world.  It would be their political nirvana.  If all those ideas are good ones then they would prosper and be quite happy and good riddance to those troglodytes in Continental. 

The Continental US could shut down its borders, deny any benefits to illegals such as schooling and free health care and deny citizenship to illegals born here as the original 14th amendment intended.  They could lower taxes on individuals and companies.  They could reform health insurance by requiring a vigorous competition in a free market.  The governmental powers would be restricted and required to be those essential to the public good and safety and regulators and bureaucrats would be reined.   The taxes of the Continental US would be very low so as to allow the maximum amount of tax revenues to be collected at the state and local level to be used and utilized as each state and locality saw  fit.  Contintental could burn coal to its heart’s content and drill baby drill.  Judges would be required to interpret the law and never allowed to mandate new law from the bench.  Debt and deficits would be limited against projected revenues and the books of Continental would have to be kept just like the books of any public company.  No “off  book” accounting would be allowed.  Again the majority would be large and there would not be the inconvenience of stalmating debate with the opposition.

What not let everyone have the nation and the future they wish.  All things and Empires come to an end.  I can’t imagine anything I have in common with Bernie Sanders or Carl Levin and I am sure they feel the same way about me.  So why put up with each other?  It is not written in the stars we have to co-exist in the same nation. 

The ten year T-bill rate is now up to 3.35.  You give some thought to why that is happening.  Your analysis will not comfort you about the future of our economy.

Read more at www.olcranky.wordpress.com and the commentary on Texas secession written months ago.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture, Economics, Environment, geography, government, history, immigration, law