It’s interesting to witness the continued fallout from the election two weeks ago. Residents of most of the states in the Union have begun petitions on the White House website for secession from the United States of America. Such talk is superfluous; for the last time any states attempted to secede, over half-a-million Americans died in the ensuing Civil War. Hence, even our Pledge of Allegiance says of our United States: “indivisible.”
Interestingly, however, Thomas Jefferson seemed to think contrarily. In a letter penned in 1825, Jefferson said, that states “should separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.”
The head of the Texas Nationalist Movement, Daniel Miller, said this past week, “The fact of the matter is, that there cannot be a union between those that esteem the principles of Karl Marx over the principles of Thomas Jefferson. Here in Texas, we esteem those principles of Thomas Jefferson – that all political power’s inherent in the people.”
Michael Childs at PatriotAction.net’s forum wrote that the nation “has never been more divided during my lifetime. We are racially divided, divided by wealth, ideologically divided, divided by sexual preference, divided by religion, city dwellers against the rural population, etc.,” he said.
As a nation, we do seem insolubly divided, especially on ideological grounds. Our divisive conundrum seems all the more inscrutable in light of the last four years, which have divided us even further under the leadership of “The One” who was to unite us (but in reality has driven the wedges even deeper.)
Looking at the county map of election results two weeks ago, it seems clear that even if secession was possible at the state level, it would be illogical. Looking at Ohio, for example, easily 80% of the counties map is red. The same holds true for the entire country. If the country was to be divided by ideological majority, Obama’s America would look very much like Detroit, Chicago, or New York while Romney’s America would comprise the intermountain West, Texas, the Midwest, the South, and the rest of the “fly over” country that the urbanites hold in such low regard.
It reminded me of a letter circulated after the 2008 election, written purportedly by a law student, who drafted a “Divorce Agreement” between the ideologically divided states. He prefaced his agreement with, “We have stuck together since the late 1950s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course. Our two ideological factions cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.”
He then went on to spell out the separation agreement. Geographically, the East and left coasts would go blue, with a few states in between, and the rest would be red. What followed was an ideological division of resources and precepts, which I will restate in my own words, liberally adding content along the way.
The red states will keep their Judeo-Christian values and “In God We Trust,” de facto retaining all current currency, since the blue Convention made it clear they didn’t even want “God” referenced in their platform. They’ll also retain the Pledge of Allegiance, for the same reason. The blue states will be free to indulge in all the humanism, political correctness, and diversity inculcation they want.
The blue states can implement unfettered infanticide against the unborn, while the red states will choose to protect life, especially the most vulnerable and innocent of all.
Since the red states don’t like taxes, they’ll reduce their rates, allowing the blue states to raise theirs as high as they please. But since the blue states don’t like the one-percenters, the red states will claim all of them, except the ones who’re convinced they aren’t paying enough in taxes. Those will all move to Hollywood. The red states can then fully implement trickle-down wealth, while the blue states continue their trickle-up poverty.
The red states can continue to balance their budgets and maintain solvency; and since the blue states don’t care about the size of the national debt, they can take the $16 trillion on the books now and continue to spend like there’s no tomorrow. For there likely won’t be one.
The blue states can keep all of their nanny state programs, intrusive regulation, and liberty-destroying government meddling, and expand it to their hearts content, while the red states will opt for freedom. And closely related, the blue states can redistribute income as much as they want, while the red states can return to free market capitalism, allowing people to truly engage in the “pursuit of happiness.”
Since the blue states don’t like guns or care too much for the military, and seem to think of them as more of a test-tube environment to practice social engineering on, the red states will take the military, all of the firearms, and the NRA. That would also be a great way to ensure that the only ones in the blue states with firearms are criminals, since law abiding citizens will not have them.
The blue states can keep Obamacare, and the red states can take the doctors who don’t like it, which according to the most recent poll, was 83% of them.
Aside from illustrating a few of the points of disaffection of our divided America, this exercise, especially if carried to logical conclusions, provides an insight into what the state of the nation would degenerate to if unbridled liberalism had its way. Succinctly, their agenda is untenable without the morality and financial resources of the taxpayers, producers, employers, laborers, and middle class of the right. Eventually the blue states would be at the doorstep of the red states pleading for a bailout and a rescue plan.
Clearly, there will be no secessionist states, or division of resources like a divorce settlement. But the depth and breadth of our cultural divide is clearly bifurcated. I guess we’ll just have to cope like embattled spouses in an unhappy marriage, and try to get along as best we can. This may require some compromises along the way, but that means giving a little on both sides, not just a caving in by the red side.
AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)
- GOP Division Not Necessarily Ideological Columnist Note: Although this piece was written with regard to…
- “Peaceful Secession” Movement Won’t Give Us Two Americas, But What’s The Downside? If secession could only be achieved by force of arms…
Get Informed! Read More About this topic::
- Divide And Conquer – The Two-Party System “There is nothing which I dread so much as a...
- Divide And Conquer: The Two Party System Is Destroying Us I have a problem with those on the right who...
- Divide And Conquer- Fair And Balanced This is a term used by the establishment. Language is...
- Let The Second American Revolution Begin – Divide California The rule of law is not optional. Liberty is not...