A Nation Divided
 

As time draws closer to another presidential debate where there will only be a frustrating number of two candidates representing the two parties that seem to have an everlasting hold on how the US is governed; an evolution seems to be happening. The right appears to be splitting and the left seems to be going further left. Anytime I experience people talking politics; emotions run high as people disagree about how the future of this country should look. Even though the two parties look different today than they did in the past, the current contrast is clear.
I wonder if the success of the US is because the political polarity somehow keeps it in balance. I also wonder if this will always be the case. Is it possible the frustration created from the political views both economically and socially could cause another civil war? This gave me a hypothetical thought: If the US could fairly be split into two nations; one liberal- one conservative and then fast forward the clock 75 years what would each nation look like? The split would be north to south so each side would still have a connection to Mexico and Canada.
Which side takes which area really doesn’t matter. Of course the two would be allies. I was trying to think of a name for each side but was at a loss- so feel free to name each nation. I'll just call them the Red Zone and Blue Zone for now.

Each initial thought I had brought on other considerations.

Remember what opinions are.

I saw the Red Zone as being financially prosperous. There would not be poverty. The reason is because if person living in the Red Zone was poor and didn’t agree with the direction the Red Zone was going all they would have to do is move to the Blue Zone. I did however wonder if there can be an upper class without a lower class. If the Red Zone could continue on course without intermittent change of leadership philosophy- would it survive? It would be the only country fully following the capitalistic ideals. Would the Blue Zone eventually look like the Netherlands? Everyone would have health care, no upper class, everyone regardless of their profession would be making the same salary. All wages would take the percentage appropriate where everyone is the same. Everything the Democrats currently desire is fully taken care of. Individuals that are “left” and happen to be wealthy would have to make a clear choice of having their current and future holdings appropriated for the collective good, or move to the free enterprise and overcome disagreements felt there. There wouldn’t be homeless or anyone living in poverty if the Blue Zone. Would a situation like this eliminate homelessness?

The Red Zone would be against abortions. So there would be an influx of women crossing over to the Blue Zone to get them. I have no doubt the Red Zone would have a strong military and national defense. I have mixed feelings about whether or not the Blue Zone would have a military or be dependent on the Red Zone for defense. Would the Blue zone even need military? New Zealand is staying out of business of other countries (for the most part) and they don’t seem to be having many terrorist attacks. Would the Blue Zone take this approach? I think they probably would. There are several other areas like immigration, drugs, religious tone, crime, etc that are among the areas to consider. Somehow I’m left with a thought that one side needs the other. But the frictional different views suggests otherwise.

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m214/bushwhip/re.jpg


Red Zone:

Blue Zone:

That's not the reason there would be no poverty in the Red Zone. There would be no poverty in the Red Zone because the poor would simply die. Starvation, easily curable illnesses, whatever--they'd be gone within a couple generations. They wouldn't move to the Blue Zone, because they can't afford to. Very tidy solution to Red Zone poverty: no people, no problem.

Also, there would be a constant smog over the red zone, and the inescapable sound of oil drills and chainsaws. And strip malls being built. And every TV channel and newspaper would be owned by Rupert Murdock.

I will say, I experience less of this "a nation divided" sentiment these days than I have in the last several years. Perhaps because so many people are clear the dog's breakfast our current administration has made of things.

The nation divided might not be heard from much anymore, but I don't think it's because nobody is thinking it anymore. There are three groups of political bent in this country, being left, right, and those in the middle with solid views on each side and enough people in those groups to stand fast and not budge easily. There will either be a new civil war soon, or the freedom in america will be a remembrance of the past as two groups try to maintain their own brand of 'order'.

And yet, the polls remain close... too close for my confidence in the coming election. Watching it all from Iceland, I still have a pretty strong sense of the "nation divided" thing... at least until Obama starts polling a little bit higher.

I seriously doubt there will be a new civil war. Left, right or in-between, the nation's laws and military would intervene before any group gathered enough support to fight.

That fact is, when either the left or right shows its ass, the in-between react by rejecting them at elections.

You could seperate ideologies by a third, but there will always be an element in any large population that seeks its way to the bottom. I'm reminded here of the scholarly worls of Matt Groening. On the Simpsons, Jebediah Springfiles and Shelbyville Manhattan were united in finding anew land for their belief of freedom, but then seperated when Shelbyville declared that the law should allow for sexing cousins.

Except for campaign rhetoric I see very little difference between the two major parties and in the results of how they govern.

Um, we aren't about to have a civil war. Nor are we about to split the country in two.

Remember, this country is actually purple:

http://gothamgazette.com/graphics/PurpleAmerica.jpg

The Democratic States of America and the Republican States of America. I've gotta tell you I don't like the sound of that much at all. Dropping the "United" title and ideology would strike at the heart of what makes the US strong.

Where would the Greens, Independents, and Libertarians live?

We need another color for "none of the above".

Budget under Ford-R - $74 billion net loss
Budget under Carter-D - $0 net loss/gain
Budget under Reagan-R - $81 billion net loss
Budget under Bush-R - $135 billion net loss
Budget under Clinton-D - $223 billion net GAIN
Budget under Bush2-R - so far, a TRILLION dollar net LOSS and a $10 trillion deficit.

Do you really not see a difference?

I.... wait... um....I think that... no...:sad:
Wait! I see it! :D

one thing that must also be remembered, that we may be mostly purple, two sides are going to force those 'purple' to choose a side. That is when the war will start.

I'm not interested in forcing anyone to do anything, and I won't be forced. I'm in a blue area, but I'm green (a color missing from that map).

There's more of us purple people... we can take 'em.

I don't think it is accurate to take stats like interest rates, deficit, unemployment, etc.. and blame or give credit to the President at the time. It might be more realistic to evaluate the situation when they took office and what policies they supported that passed and what effect they had over a decade or two after they leave office.

I think that no matter who is elected, corruption will continue, government will grow larger, taxes will go up and contributors will be rewarded with legislation that favors their interests.

Perhaps when one party holds the executive branch and a majority of the legislative, it provides a clearer picture who should claim success or failure. Without that situation is the gridlock resulting from partisan polarity good? The two parties have been around since close to the beginning and through the arguments, heated disagreements, and passionate ideals- in the end can we say it is successful? Is the reason the United States is where it is today because of a seesaw like policy change that has happened intermittently through the decades? How have two parties gained control over the Electoral College? Does anyone ever wonder what the US would look like with a different party at the helm?

The parties have changed over time, though. Switched liberal to conservative, changed positions on issues, even changed their core supporters.

I'm not going to argue that the two-party system has been the reason for American success, but it isn't as though things have remained static throughout our history.

Aren't the purples socialists?

Man, that'd be nice.

Maybe California, Oregon, and Washington can join Canada if McCain wins. We'll bring cookies.

Good Lord I hope not.

You don't like cookies? :confused: