NickEllis
Member
I'm up here in Canada (briefly), and had an interesting conversation with a friend. He was mentioning how beautifully the original framers set out the USA constitution, allowing for the tremendous diversity which we see (and they saw in their time) to coexist between States, without allowing the ideological gaps to schism and fracture the political ties.
It seems that many perceive an almost irreparable gap between one, the conservative half of the United States and two, the liberal half. What moral high ground do we have these days to actually revolt against our government, when rather we are revolting against the "people" themselves, that is, the other fifty percent who actually DO favor the socialist/fascist system we see arising in the modern day? Suddenly, it seems more like civil war than revolt against tyranny, with one half subjecting the other to their own preferred form of government. Whereas tyranny can and should be resisted, how does one fight a popular movement at least as powerful as one's own?
It seems to me that it is precisely at this point where the framers were so brilliant, even at times, perhaps, inspired. Tremendous diversity is allowable within the original intent, precisely because a group of united, but separate members of the body politic, are not subjected to the rule of another.
If states such as Arizona, Texas, Idaho, Montana, etc. were to facture off and become separate countries, I see no profit nor hope for their economical or political future. Such a move is incomprehensible for all involved. If, however, such states led a movement in which independent, but united, various and diverse ideologies and beliefs were able to coexist without externally coercing one's ideology on another, then you would have precisely the framers' intention: a powerful body politic with tremendous diversity, allowing for the inclusion of even the broadest ideological differences.
That being said, what would be the result of said dozen or so states pursued such a path? Would you see wide reciprocity among the remainder? Would, not only in the States, but also for example with Quebec, Alberta, British Colombia, etc decide that such a union would be much preferred to the coersive and often tyrannical ruling of a central power such as Washington/Ottawa? Those States that preferred to remain united in the current form (New England, New York, etc) could of course join together in their own ideological State, and if they so desired become part of this greater North American Confederate Union, as the alternative is irrelevance.
With such a plan, the bloodshed of civil war, every man against his brother, 50% for one side and 50% for the other can be completely avoided, while still effecting individual ideological freedom. There is more than enough room in New England and California to house the liberal strain of our society, thats for sure.
Or, does such a model taste overly of European Union stew for the American taste?
It seems that many perceive an almost irreparable gap between one, the conservative half of the United States and two, the liberal half. What moral high ground do we have these days to actually revolt against our government, when rather we are revolting against the "people" themselves, that is, the other fifty percent who actually DO favor the socialist/fascist system we see arising in the modern day? Suddenly, it seems more like civil war than revolt against tyranny, with one half subjecting the other to their own preferred form of government. Whereas tyranny can and should be resisted, how does one fight a popular movement at least as powerful as one's own?
It seems to me that it is precisely at this point where the framers were so brilliant, even at times, perhaps, inspired. Tremendous diversity is allowable within the original intent, precisely because a group of united, but separate members of the body politic, are not subjected to the rule of another.
If states such as Arizona, Texas, Idaho, Montana, etc. were to facture off and become separate countries, I see no profit nor hope for their economical or political future. Such a move is incomprehensible for all involved. If, however, such states led a movement in which independent, but united, various and diverse ideologies and beliefs were able to coexist without externally coercing one's ideology on another, then you would have precisely the framers' intention: a powerful body politic with tremendous diversity, allowing for the inclusion of even the broadest ideological differences.
That being said, what would be the result of said dozen or so states pursued such a path? Would you see wide reciprocity among the remainder? Would, not only in the States, but also for example with Quebec, Alberta, British Colombia, etc decide that such a union would be much preferred to the coersive and often tyrannical ruling of a central power such as Washington/Ottawa? Those States that preferred to remain united in the current form (New England, New York, etc) could of course join together in their own ideological State, and if they so desired become part of this greater North American Confederate Union, as the alternative is irrelevance.
With such a plan, the bloodshed of civil war, every man against his brother, 50% for one side and 50% for the other can be completely avoided, while still effecting individual ideological freedom. There is more than enough room in New England and California to house the liberal strain of our society, thats for sure.
Or, does such a model taste overly of European Union stew for the American taste?
