How Long Can the US remain united?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zeta

Bulbapædist
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
7,482
Reaction score
715
I've been thinking about this - for the past 8 years or so - but I honestly think the US would be better off if it split off into 2-3 countries. Geographically and ideologically, we're one of the biggest and most varied nations in the world. I think only Russia and China surpass us, and they were only held together by totalitarian regimes, and as soon as they fell apart, the countries started to fracture.

The US has gotten along by being both young and prosperous. A rising tide raises all ships, right? Why complain about a country when you're the world's greatest superpower. But we're falling behind rapidly, with Europe and China surpassing us. If a rising tide unites boats by making them prosperous, wouldn't it follow that a falling tide fractures their unity by leaving some in the water and some beached? A lot of Europeans just can't wrap their heads at how damn big we are, and we can't wrap our heads around living in such a small country. If the US continues to splinter ideologically and economically, is it really fair to force millions and millions of people to live under rules or laws they don't agree with, but just put up with out of tradition/the history of the Civil War?

I honestly think if our Economic situation keeps on falling, we're going to see a greater and greater social and economic divide growing in America. Honestly, I think the best way to solve a lot of the country's problems is to finally agree the honeymoon is over, the marriage didn't work out, and to split the whole thing into Southeast/Midwest, Norteast, and Westcoast nations . . .
 
Zeta said:
If the US continues to splinter ideologically and economically, is it really fair to force millions and millions of people to live under rules or laws they don't agree with, but just put up with out of tradition/the history of the Civil War?
Click to expand...

See...that's the problem. Everyone seems to think that what's happening now is something new. Its NOT. We've ALWAYS been divided. First it was those who wanted to stay with Britain and those who wanted to be independent (and those who wanted to be subjects of France). Then it was slavery. The gold standard. Race. War (pick one). Isolationism.

I honestly think if our Economic situation keeps on falling, we're going to see a greater and greater social and economic divide growing in America
Click to expand...

Remember the Depression? Y'know...in the 80s? In the 30s? In the 1880s?

Economic issues have ALWAYS been around. And they always WILL be around. America BUILT the middle class, and now we're tearing it down.

Honestly, I think the best way to solve a lot of the country's problems is to finally agree the honeymoon is over, the marriage didn't work out, and to split the whole thing into Southeast/Midwest, Norteast, and Westcoast nations . . .
Click to expand...

Quitter. Splitting up is the easy way out. We aren't an unhappy couple. We're a nation. When push comes to shove, we STILL unite. YES, we have arguments, but that's because we're a democracy and people are ALLOWED to have arguments. The United States is a melting pot, but we have the lid off. The steam can escape. The USSR was a melting pot with the lid ON. So all the steam got trapped inside until it eventually blew.

The fact is that America's thrived BECAUSE we don't get along. We're CONSTANTLY testing one another and tearing down our beliefs, only to rebuild them stronger. We'll NEVER be a perfect country, and we'll NEVER stop arguing, but we WILL stand as long as we can because we're TOO different to be split apart in any way that matters. Hell, even in the Civil War, there wasn't a clean split. We had slave-holding states that stayed with the Union, and we had supporters for both sides in EVERY state. The ONLY reason it led to a war is that too many leaders spent too long trying to ignore the issues, and trying SO MANY different ways to deal with it (without ACTUALLY DEALING WITH IT), that (thanks to the Nebraska/Kansas...crapola...among other things) it became a violent conflict. Today...we're actually DEALING with things. To some extent, anyway. And, hey, unlike in the 1800s, we can actually get our message across in a timely manner.
 
I'm not saying we're going to kill each other or start a second war, but I think things might be better off if we split into three allied nations - essentially we'd share trade, free passage between the countries, and a combined military - but chunks of the country would have their own political system and laws suited to the people who live there instead of dissapointing 50% of the population.
 
Honestly, I think that is the purpose of having a State system, even if we did split up for some extreme reason, how would it be much different? Each area has different laws (like states), but there are general laws that have to be shared to keep free trade and military open. Essentially I'm saying it'd probably be the same, but with 3 presidents and 3 flags.

I don't see the US splitting (or expanding) any time soon, I also think that if they did it'd cause more problems than it'd solve. Besides, we don't want to look worse than Canada.
 
India may be the world's largest democracy, but the United States is still the greatest standard bearer for Western liberalism and market freedom against Communist China, rising Islamic extremism, and a growing Russian autocracy. Our differences in ideology are nothing compared to the extremes of major parties throughout Europe, and yet they're not splitting apart between liberals and conservatives. Even some kind of weird autonomy between three regions that you're suggesting would leave the U.S. far too weak to maintain its position in the world.
 
And yet the European Union is gaining power although they're in a similar but less united situation these days, sharing a currency and other things.
 
Zeta said:
And yet the European Union is gaining power although they're in a similar but less united situation these days, sharing a currency and other things.
Click to expand...

Not all of EU is sharing a currency. The British still uses Pounds, and I think some other country still kept it's original currency.
 
I think most of Scandinavia still uses the... Uh... Kr-something
 
Zeta said:
I'm not saying we're going to kill each other or start a second war, but I think things might be better off if we split into three allied nations - essentially we'd share trade, free passage between the countries, and a combined military - but chunks of the country would have their own political system and laws suited to the people who live there instead of dissapointing 50% of the population.
Click to expand...

We have people who don't want to share trade with Canada and Mexico, much less anyone else on the planet. If you split up the country, it'll be just more of the same, except some people will have new people to despise.

If you're going to split up the country, why share anything? We do that now ... as a single country. Having shared resources makes sense. Yeah, there's the UN, but that consists of whole nations agreeing to work together ... it doesn't involve splitting up countries to do what the single country was doing in the first place.

Regions do have their own legal systems ... they're called local, county, and state governments.
 
So what you're saying is we should split so we can be a single country?
 
Um, no. What I said was that all the so-called benefits we'd have split up are already here (local governments, etc). Splitting the country up is pointless.
 
"Epic Fail" said:
So what you're saying is we should split so we can be a single country?
Click to expand...

Going by your location, the UK is far closer to splitting up than the US is, particularly with the ascendancy of the SNP. (Ok most of that is because NuLab is sh!te and the Cons are gaining in England.)

Ironically enough, the USSR had (and the Russian Federation has) this thing in their constitution such that any territory incorporated as a republic can gain independence if they gain a two-thirds vote in an independence referendum (and they need to pass certain economic conditions, ie they won't be dependent on the rest of Russia for aid).

Nothing to do with the US splitting up, but it might be a possibility.

Hold on, is the Bulbagarden, or is it somewhere as political as CIF ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree)? It's got me confused what site I'm on; this is the sort of discussion I expect there, not here!
 
I think that if the economic situation completely collaspes, there could be class war in the US, splitting it into several different countries, probably along ethnic lines.
 
No.

Splitting the nation didn't work in 1860. It won't work now, either.
 
I think that one of America's two primary ideologies will have to actually prevail; I don't see any real reconciliation between religious fundamentalism and non-fundamentalist society happening in the next few decades.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom