pros and cons of splitting the US into 2 countries?

[Starbuck1975]

It does sometimes seem that the US is like a feuding couple who make not only each other, but everyone around them, miserable, and just need to separate.

This is a good analogy. I see moderates of both parties as a couple planning a wedding. They each come from different families, and may not agree on everything, but share enough in common to support a relationship.

And then the extended family gets into the mix, stressing the couple out with their expectations for what the wedding should be. Both the bride and the groom feels obligated to appease their respective families, but it ultimately detracts from what would make them most happy, and everyone ends up being miserable.

The problem with America today is that the groom is beholden to his racist uncle and the bride keeps listening to her aunt with all the cats.

 

[fskimospy]

This is a good analogy. I see moderates of both parties as a couple planning a wedding. They each come from different families, and may not agree on everything, but share enough in common to support a relationship.

And then the extended family gets into the mix, stressing the couple out with their expectations for what the wedding should be. Both the bride and the groom feels obligated to appease their respective families, but it ultimately detracts from what would make them most happy, and everyone ends up being miserable.

The problem with America today is that the groom is beholden to his racist uncle and the bride keeps listening to her aunt with all the cats.

The problem is of course that political moderates don’t really exist, at least not in large numbers.

 

[Sunburn74]

It can totally be done. Have basically a southern coastal rim of land that connects the east and west coasts and link the great-lakes area. The southern coastal rim would have a few red areas but not many (mostly as it runs through LA and georgia and parts of FL). Most of the southern areas of texas and az are blue already.

It can be done but honestly it would absolutely devastate the complaining red states because 2/3rds of the US GDP comes from blue areas as it stands. Even more so don't forget that the majority of people today live in cities which are mostly in blue areas. NY city alone has 2x people than Arkansas, montana, idaho, wyoming combined.

So sure if they want to be even poorer and behind technologically and have less impact on the world then sure let's split into two.

 

[Perknose]

i've always preferred breadth to depth

So . . . you're both all over the place and shallow.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The problem is of course that political moderates don’t really exist, at least not in large numbers.

I disagree. Our level of civic engagement is pathetic, which is why the fringe coalitions dominate the conversation. What we presently lack is a unifying event to create a sense of national identity. The Greatest Generation had the Great Depression and WW2, which galvanized both the New Deal and American exceptionalism.

We’ve lost that. This is why I am a proponent of mandatory government service for all graduating high school seniors. The Army remains the most diverse organization I’ve ever been a part of, as it aligned many different people from all walks of life towards a common sense of purpose.

That, and I think all young people would benefit from boot camp or mandatory civic service either domestically or part of the Peace Corps.

 

[mect]

I don't see splitting in two. If the nation were to split, I think it would be into at least 6 nations, if not more. The north east. The rust belt. The midwest. The mountain west. The southeast. The pacific coast.

 

[Indus]

Until both collapsed

There isn't 1 country on this planet that hasn't collapsed.

And considering they took almost a 1000 years to collapse, it would actually be wise to do so.

There would have to be a population exchange though but that's not out of the ordinary considering what happened in Greece/ Turkey after the Ottoman Empire split or what happened in India/ Pakistan after British India split.

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree. Our level of civic engagement is pathetic, which is why the fringe coalitions dominate the conversation. What we presently lack is a unifying event to create a sense of national identity. The Greatest Generation had the Great Depression and WW2, which galvanized both the New Deal and American exceptionalism.

Political science finds the opposite.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oters-not-politicians/?utm_term=.77f08737d9a0

Basically voters tend to hold lots of extreme positions. The ‘moderates’ tend not to have all of their opinions fall on the left or the right but it’s not that their positions are actually moderate. Instead they hold both extreme left and extreme right positions. That’s no moderation.

We’ve lost that. This is why I am a proponent of mandatory government service for all graduating high school seniors. The Army remains the most diverse organization I’ve ever been a part of, as it aligned many different people from all walks of life towards a common sense of purpose.

That, and I think all young people would benefit from boot camp or mandatory civic service either domestically or part of the Peace Corps.

I would be fine with mandatory service and I agree, it might give people a sense of investment in our country that many seem to have lost.

 

[pmv]

There isn't 1 country on this planet that hasn't collapsed.

And considering they took almost a 1000 years to collapse, it would actually be wise to do so.

There would have to be a population exchange though but that's not out of the ordinary considering what happened in Greece/ Turkey after the Ottoman Empire split or what happened in India/ Pakistan after British India split.

Er - the latter of those isn't a example anyone should be keen to emulate! Not only did a huge number of people die violently, but Pakistan has been a massively dysfunctional country ever since.
You could cite the birth of Israel (expulsions and population exchanges all round), but that didn't turn out that well overall either, in terms of the long-term. Perhaps those involving Germans in Europe were slightly less awful in terms of aftermath, but still lots of injustices and resentments festering there as well.
Perhaps just make it a very long-term project? Everyone slowly segregate themselves over a century or more till one day you can just put up border posts and no-one will be that bothered?

 

[Indus]

Er - the latter of those isn't a example anyone should be keen to emulate! Not only did a huge number of people die violently, but Pakistan has been a massively dysfunctional country ever since.
You could cite the birth of Israel (expulsions and population exchanges all round), but that didn't turn out that well overall either, in terms of the long-term. Perhaps those involving Germans in Europe were slightly less awful in terms of aftermath, but still lots of injustices and resentments festering there as well.
Perhaps just make it a very long-term project? Everyone slowly segregate themselves over a century or more till one day you can just put up border posts and no-one will be that bothered?

And you don't think our red states are dysfunctional and full of rhetoric hating their neighbors to unite themselves?

 

[Jhhnn]

Another failed episode of The South Shall Rise Again! & conservatives circling the wagons to protect themselves in the culture war that only they are waging.

 

[brianmanahan]

So . . . you're both all over the place and shallow.

but on the plus side, i'm an excellent conversationalist

 

[feralkid]

since the republican and democrat parties are agreeing less and less on everything, i can see in the not-too-distant future a time in which US citizens may want to split into completely separate countries.

It's called The Democratic Party.

 

[bshole]

Really? There are no pros to splitting our nation in half or quarters or thirds. There is not a single pro I can think of not a single fucking one. There are only cons. Mass amounts of death, famine, mass relocations, civil war that could last years, lower standard of living for all Americans, lack of leadership on the world stage. I can go on and on why this is a terrible idea. I can't believe you guys are seriously thinking this would be worth even considering. It would just be bad for all of us and not just us but bad for the entire world.

Yes but it would solve the shit out of our illegal immigration problem wouldn't it?

 

[crashtech]

The differences that we seem so fervently to believe we have are, in essence, akin to that overused trope "first world problems." People from across the political spectrum live their lives much the same in practice, it's in theory where we go to to war. Bring some serious existential event into the picture, and most our supposed differences disappear, hopefully.

 

[Jhhnn]

And you don't think our red states are dysfunctional and full of rhetoric hating their neighbors to unite themselves?

Yes but it would solve the shit out of our illegal immigration problem wouldn't it?

Not really. After a few years of no federal money I figure people in Mississippi would be as desperate to get out as Hondurans.

 

[Younigue]

Pro
~It would be hysterical in the most pathetic way.

Cons
~It wouldn't work, there'd be another civil war.
~Put a bunch of people together who believe their ideologies are the same... Let's just say Each of the two countries would have to split in to 500 more countries and still there would be disagreements.
~ No one learns anything different, ever.
~ The Republicans would just go ahead and devolve back in to cavemen. We'd have to keep going in to rescue their women and children thus likely mixing ideologies again on the Democrat side of the country and then eventually have to go and eliminate the savages who will never be able to be mainstreamed after their time as primal/feral beasts.

 

[brianmanahan]

~Put a bunch of people together who believe their ideologies are the same... Let's just say Each of the two countries would have to split in to 500 more countries and still there would be disagreements.

that's true, it'd probably be like how there are like 97000 different christian denominations

 

[crashtech]

It's difficult to imagine that some of the views expressed in this thread are the actual beliefs of my fellow citizens. It must be a sham, else it is a shame.

Is there some hidden force at work that is so successfully ripping us apart, or is it self-destruction of our own volition? Either way, it won't matter who "wins."

 

[glenn1]

Would work in theory but not practice because more than even wanting to implement their policies, the partisans want to enjoy domination over the other side, to watch them squirm as they have unwanted views and laws forced upon them and made to comply.

 

[Indus]

Not really. After a few years of no federal money I figure people in Mississippi would be as desperate to get out as Hondurans.

You know.. if we were smart we would handle ourselves like the Saudis and Qataris do.

Every citizen gets a monthly allowance paid for by taxes and they don't have to work.

Most every one working is there on an worker visa with no hope of ever getting citizenship and the immigrants outnumber the natives by 15:1.

The major difference between us and them is that we are not smart enough to take care of our own population but they do.

 

[brianmanahan]

Is there some hidden force at work that is so successfully ripping us apart, or is it self-destruction of our own volition? Either way, it won't matter who "wins."

i'm not sure... maybe it is just the ability nowadays for everyone to express, share and re-share opinions so easily compared to the old days.

but among my friends and friends of friends, i see an ever-increasing division between right and left. more and more arguments and blanket statements about how the other side "hates america". the one side does not want to live with the other side. many of us who used to hang out together refuse to do it if someone from the "other side" is going to be there.

and the libertarian i know is a special case - he hates both sides, makes fun of them constantly, and shares 10+ assault rifle/survivalist/anarchocapitalist posts on his wall every day. he thinks that society would be best if every adult was carrying an SMG and wearing body armor everywhere they go, and he is trying his hardest to get everyone to agree with him on this. i had to block him because the spam was incessant and he insults pretty much everyone dumb enough to reply to his posts.

 

[Younigue]

Would work in theory but not practice because more than even wanting to implement their policies, the partisans want to enjoy domination over the other side, to watch them squirm as they have unwanted views and laws forced upon them and made to comply.

That's wrong.

Dems don't want to dominate, they want republicans to be decent human beings.

 

[crashtech]

i'm not sure... maybe it is just the ability nowadays for everyone to express, share and re-share opinions so easily compared to the old days.

but among my friends and friends of friends, i see an ever-increasing division between right and left. more and more arguments and blanket statements about how the other side "hates america". the one side does not want to live with the other side. many of us who used to hang out together refuse to do it if someone from the "other side" is going to be there.

and the libertarian i know is a special case - he hates both sides, makes fun of them constantly, and shares 10+ assault rifle/survivalist/anarchocapitalist posts on his wall every day. he thinks that society would be best if every adult was carrying an SMG and wearing body armor everywhere they go, and he is trying his hardest to get everyone to agree with him on this. i had to block him because the spam was incessant and he insults pretty much everyone dumb enough to reply to his posts.

I am more of a peacenik libertarian, the kind that wants everyone to stfu about "politics" and get on with their lives, and come up with practical solutions to problems on as local a level as practicable. I've been arguing about sh*t on the Internet for over 20 years, and it's never seemed as toxic as it is right now. Dividing our nation won't happen peaceably. I'm willing to bet that while some of the zealots are ready for bloodshed, most aren't, and would be unpleasantly surprised at the fruit of their rotten labor.

 

[crashtech]

That's wrong.

Dems don't want to dominate, they want republicans to be decent human beings.

Certainly you can't in your wildest nightmares imagine nearly half of your fellow beings as less than "decent?" Is this how far we've fallen? Shall we sharpen our knives and count our ammunition? If I want to choose the inclusive side, how, by your words, would I know which one that is?