The founding of any nation-state involves compromises to create the nation. Look at any of the modern large nation states--France, Germany, UK, China, Russia, etc.--and there is inevitably a grouping of factious entities. At some point, the original raison d'être erodes, the binds that tie loosen, and things fall apart.
The founding of any nation-state involves compromises to create the nation. Look at any of the modern large nation states--France, Germany, UK, China, Russia, etc.--and there is inevitably a grouping of factious entities. At some point, the original raison d'être erodes, the binds that tie loosen, and things fall apart.
The U.S. was born of a time-convenient compromise of slave owners, who wanted to avoid slavery being banned by Parliament in London, and Northern commercial interests, who wanted to avoid the Parliament's restrictions on westward expansion on the North American continent. Westward expansion is now reaching diminishing returns, and the replacement of slavery with Jim Crow subjugation and wage slavery is difficult to continue. The ties that bound the U.S. experiment are further frayed by the need to deal with the maintenance of infrastructure in the large, sparsely populated expanse of the West.
Rather than making the topic of a different configuration of the U.S. taboo, we should be talking about how to develop a workable future. Permitting regions to self-govern with accountability for funding their needs could be a start. Fortunately, we have some mechanisms in our current governance structure that permit this and would avoid the destructive outcomes of a simmering civil war that some megalomanic politicians desire. One such mechanism involves the aggressive use of interstate compacts.
FDR’s administration was moving in the direction of regionalization with many of the interstate compacts for infrastructure in the 1930s and 1940s. The move was interrupted by WWII. One such compact was the building of the interstate highway system. (Interstate highways were also delayed by WWII, and the idea is often wrongly attributed as an idea to the Eisenhower administration). We can take a lesson from the brilliance of many in the Roosevelt administration and repurpose interstate compacts towards creating regional autonomy in key areas such as healthcare, infrastructure, accountable government finance, and natural resources. Compacts are a much better approach than the alternative of a stochastic, simmering civil war.
I like your thoughts on this; do you think there is any way that our politicians will support your ideas? I don't see it. Could you explain more about interstate compacts?
Interstate compacts are permitted by he Compact Clause (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) of the United States Constitution. Essentially, these are treaties between and among the States. There are around 200 already in existence. Some are quite monumental and cover things such as building and maintaining the interstate high way system, regional hydro power (TVA and WAPA), and rationing of water resources. Explanation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstate_compacts
Effective politics is about "the art of the possible." Congress could and should find ways to permit and encourage further use of these compacts to take over critical areas such as healthcare and infrastructure. How about allowing regional compacts to create single-payor healthcare? Would WA, OR, and CA sign up?
Would the "Twitter-aholoics" do this? No! But folks like Bernie might see this as a way forward.
As an example, one should not forget that systems such as the Canadian healthcare system are not totally national. Each province does its own thing within the Federal system.
This approach assumes political leadership in congress who will pursue these good ideas. The Republicans would have to give up their raw power lust in order to do what's best for the nation. I don't see that happening. It isn' their brand, of which there are three components. In order of priority, these are grievance, white privilege and increasing the wealth of the morbidly rich. They want the blue state-generated federal money that sustains them in their foolish ideologies, while at the same time, the legislative ability to run roughshod over the blues with theocratic legislation that will destroy the very engines of prosperity that sustain them. In other words; they want their cake and to eat it too. So far, they've been getting away with it. Since the Democrats either can't or won't play hardball with them, I don't see any improvements on the horizon. The absolute corruption of the SCOTUS with unqualified political hacks has made any forward movement impossible. Anything the blue states can try to do, legally or legislatively, to check the theocrats will be overturned by the gang of five "black-robed rulers." This is the real, most important issue, facing us and one that will persist for the next half-century unless there are reforms. I don't see the Biden administration doing any of the things they could do to correct the court's imbalance. Biden won't increase the size of the court as he is afraid the Republicans will retaliate when the have the power. What he doesn't seem to understand is they will do what they want regardless. Let them. Besides, it would likely be a good thing for this country if we had a much larger SCOTUS instead of a high court with no credibility and a majority of five people out of our 300M plus who are intent upon religious rule.
My point has been that breaking up the country would be a tragic mistake. But, if we are headed down that road having many pieces in place for separate governance would be absolutely essential.
One must remember Pasteur's saying that "Chance favors the prepared mind."
The founding of any nation-state involves compromises to create the nation. Look at any of the modern large nation states--France, Germany, UK, China, Russia, etc.--and there is inevitably a grouping of factious entities. At some point, the original raison d'être erodes, the binds that tie loosen, and things fall apart.
The U.S. was born of a time-convenient compromise of slave owners, who wanted to avoid slavery being banned by Parliament in London, and Northern commercial interests, who wanted to avoid the Parliament's restrictions on westward expansion on the North American continent. Westward expansion is now reaching diminishing returns, and the replacement of slavery with Jim Crow subjugation and wage slavery is difficult to continue. The ties that bound the U.S. experiment are further frayed by the need to deal with the maintenance of infrastructure in the large, sparsely populated expanse of the West.
Rather than making the topic of a different configuration of the U.S. taboo, we should be talking about how to develop a workable future. Permitting regions to self-govern with accountability for funding their needs could be a start. Fortunately, we have some mechanisms in our current governance structure that permit this and would avoid the destructive outcomes of a simmering civil war that some megalomanic politicians desire. One such mechanism involves the aggressive use of interstate compacts.
FDR’s administration was moving in the direction of regionalization with many of the interstate compacts for infrastructure in the 1930s and 1940s. The move was interrupted by WWII. One such compact was the building of the interstate highway system. (Interstate highways were also delayed by WWII, and the idea is often wrongly attributed as an idea to the Eisenhower administration). We can take a lesson from the brilliance of many in the Roosevelt administration and repurpose interstate compacts towards creating regional autonomy in key areas such as healthcare, infrastructure, accountable government finance, and natural resources. Compacts are a much better approach than the alternative of a stochastic, simmering civil war.
I like your thoughts on this; do you think there is any way that our politicians will support your ideas? I don't see it. Could you explain more about interstate compacts?
Interstate compacts are permitted by he Compact Clause (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) of the United States Constitution. Essentially, these are treaties between and among the States. There are around 200 already in existence. Some are quite monumental and cover things such as building and maintaining the interstate high way system, regional hydro power (TVA and WAPA), and rationing of water resources. Explanation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstate_compacts
Effective politics is about "the art of the possible." Congress could and should find ways to permit and encourage further use of these compacts to take over critical areas such as healthcare and infrastructure. How about allowing regional compacts to create single-payor healthcare? Would WA, OR, and CA sign up?
Would the "Twitter-aholoics" do this? No! But folks like Bernie might see this as a way forward.
As an example, one should not forget that systems such as the Canadian healthcare system are not totally national. Each province does its own thing within the Federal system.
This approach assumes political leadership in congress who will pursue these good ideas. The Republicans would have to give up their raw power lust in order to do what's best for the nation. I don't see that happening. It isn' their brand, of which there are three components. In order of priority, these are grievance, white privilege and increasing the wealth of the morbidly rich. They want the blue state-generated federal money that sustains them in their foolish ideologies, while at the same time, the legislative ability to run roughshod over the blues with theocratic legislation that will destroy the very engines of prosperity that sustain them. In other words; they want their cake and to eat it too. So far, they've been getting away with it. Since the Democrats either can't or won't play hardball with them, I don't see any improvements on the horizon. The absolute corruption of the SCOTUS with unqualified political hacks has made any forward movement impossible. Anything the blue states can try to do, legally or legislatively, to check the theocrats will be overturned by the gang of five "black-robed rulers." This is the real, most important issue, facing us and one that will persist for the next half-century unless there are reforms. I don't see the Biden administration doing any of the things they could do to correct the court's imbalance. Biden won't increase the size of the court as he is afraid the Republicans will retaliate when the have the power. What he doesn't seem to understand is they will do what they want regardless. Let them. Besides, it would likely be a good thing for this country if we had a much larger SCOTUS instead of a high court with no credibility and a majority of five people out of our 300M plus who are intent upon religious rule.
My point has been that breaking up the country would be a tragic mistake. But, if we are headed down that road having many pieces in place for separate governance would be absolutely essential.
One must remember Pasteur's saying that "Chance favors the prepared mind."
Good points, Dr. Doug.