Reality Unwound

Jason, why would you post such a facetious, mean-spirited letter and ask us to give it serious thought? Under George W. Bush, I never considered that our country should be divided, despite my many differences with him because I know (as I think most fair minded people know) that our differences are this country’s strength. I lean more democratic, but I welcome thoughtful criticism from those who lean republican because we need balance. This letter is not thoughtful criticism or even a serious solution. In this scenario, where would my father- a registered democrat who served in the military, who also believes his daughter should have the right to marry her partner and is a proud member of the NRA- be able to live?

Kristen – your dad should look into the values of the Libertarian Party. He might find a home there.

While I think this letter is kind of ignorant, I think that the idea or prospect that America might one day divide over political differences isn’t all that far fetched. I mean, look at the world map from 100 years ago – a lot has changed regarding boundaries. History repeats itself, so most likely a lot more change is still to come. I don’t WANT America to divide, but democracies do evolve and change – hey, it might happen someday.

And the reason I say the letter is kind of ignorant is because the assumptions about the nature of all political conservatives – Alaskan hockey moms, war, oversized vehicles, greedy CEOs and the problems with BigPharm and Wal-Mart – and tons of other items in this letter just perpetuate the stereotypes about conservatives. None of these things represent me.

And let’s stick to critiquing the ideologies that people cling to rather than their weight – its childish and calling the kettle black. The Bible Belt is morbidly obese, and consists of primarily Red States. That was just a dumb remark.

And to insinuate that all conservatives are Christians and that they legislate the way Jesus would is crap.

I think that most liberals and conservatives in America that are outside of the legislative process (besides voting) would say that this letter is crap and doesn’t in any way represent their values. This letter describes anarchists and communists – not the average American who leans right or leans left (like Kristen’s dad, for instance).

On another note, did you know that we ran out of ketchup in the break room at work? Seriously blasphemous.

And on a side note, I could never get into politics – my skin is not that thick. Bravo to you for talking about this stuff

First off, no where did I advocate splitting the nation. I thought it was fairly clear that it was an analogy, not a prescribed course of action. I’m a big fan of our country as it stands, and I never meant to say that it should truly split down the middle.

Kara, thanks for your remarks. My dad actually identifies a lot with the libertarian party and likes Ron Paul (except for his stance on marriage equality for gay couples which is not libertarian at all).

Jason, the letter says, “Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion.” Please explain what that means.

It means that under this hypothetical scenario, the country would be divided among liberals and conservatives where they would have the opportunity to live with the fruit of their ideology.

Don’t get all wrapped up in, “HE WANTS TO SECEDE!” Rather, respond to, “what would happen if every conservative ideology were enacted, unchecked.” That’s the point, that’s the idea, not some master plan for dividing the country.

I’m closing this thread at noon today, giving whoever the chance for the last word. I’ll make sure to refrain from hypothetical from now on.

Jeez, Jason, if you want to dictate what I respond to, then only post those portions.
You still haven’t answered what this means,”Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by LANDMASS each taking a portion,” but, okay, let’s explore your interpretation of this letter. There is a huge assumption that there is ONE conservative ideology and ONE progressive. Like, for example, many conservatives have proclaimed that the federal government can’t run anything better than the private sector. Really? Fine. Progressives get the military and conservatives get Blackwater. What’s that you say? Conservatives also believe in a strong military? Well, too bad. You can’t have it both ways. Are you grasping yet the ridiculousness of this “hypothetical”?

1. Equitably divide up LANDMASS means making sure that each side has roughly the same area. Take the total square mileage of the continental U.S. (Alaska & Hawaii included) and cut it in half. That’s the landmass part. That’s intended to make sure this fictitious geo-political dichotomy has the space to practice.

2. There is no such assumption that there is exactly ONE conservative and ONE progressive. The assumption is that there is A progressive and A conservative, that the two are different in real and practicable ways. I would expect Ron Paul libertarians and some of (but not all of) the McCain camp would find themselves on the right side of the landmass. I would also expect that some (Olympia Snow, Charlie Crist) Republicans would be more at home on the progressive side with Nancy Pelosi. The idea is that those who want Government sponsored health care are free to experiment with that without all of “those who caused the problem doing a lot of talking.”

3. The conservative (my brand of conservatism) wouldn’t say, “The government can’t run anything better than the private sector, therefore the military ought to be privatized.” I would say that for better or worse, the military is best run by the federal government, and it’s part of the constitutional mandate for the federal government. I would also speculate that the military would end up on the conservative side. Even a yellow dog liberal like George W. Bush (/sarc) knew about peace through strength. The progressive side is free to maintain whatever size and strength military they desire and are able. The soldiers, of course, will be free to choose what side they serve on.

My contention is that the free market will ultimately produce the best situation for the greatest number, while still maintaining the highest level of personal, individual freedom. Personal liberty is what I consider (and would contend the framers considered) the highest value. The value in this hypothetical is delineating the impact of policy implications. To illustrate… do you think more career military personnel would choose to serve on the progressive side, or the conservative side? Why? What does the answer to that question say (if anything) about both sides? What can we learn from that, and what do we need to change about our approach to each other and to ourselves.

Even the question about where the military would end up says so much. It isn’t about dividing up an assigning ANYTHING except the land. Once the land is divided, everyone can go where ever they want. Your grandfather is free to go whichever side he chooses. He will weigh the implications of each sides direction and intent, and choose which would be best for him based upon what he feels will yield the greatest personal good. There will still be plenty of tension and discourse (the goal was never to simply all get along and never have any hard conversations) as moderate progressives wrestle with radical progressives. The substance of the debate will simply change from “is health care a natural right” to “what is the best way to finance the natural right of health care.” That’s a big difference.

I think your last statement is well taken regarding what’s the best way to finance the natural right of health care. The problem is, many people on the right have argued that health care is not a natural right. But let’s say we agree (horray!) and accept that health care is a natural right. My understanding is that the role of the government is to protect our natural rights, otherwise, why bother setting up a government to begin with? Right now, we’re already paying for people who don’t have insurance because emergency rooms can’t turn people away for lack of ability to pay. Frankly, that pisses me off. It’s a backhanded tax. In addition, because they don’t have insurance, something like malignant melanoma might not be discovered until it’s almost too late and costs an exorbitant amount to treat. If they had insurance, it’s more likely to be caught earlier and treated more cheaply. Mole removal is, I’m sure, less expensive than chemotherapy and invasive surgey. I’m all for fiscal responsibility. I’m pretty frugal myself. But in our current system, insurance companies have no incentive to charge reasonable rates. Look, I don’t think the government should have a bottomless pit of funds to run a public option, it should be managed as a non profit and held accountable. If our federal government is capable of running the best military in the world, I’m not convinced it would fail so miserably at managing a public health care option.

And as far as the military, that’s an interesting thought about where soldiers might choose to serve. I’m guessing all the gay soldiers would fight on the progressives side in which case we’ll probably end up with more Arabic translators since it seems many are gay and getting fired. And since the progressives will have the VA (federally run health care program), I’m guessing we’ll glean many of the straight ones, too.

Cmon people, Even I, the chairman of the “reality, you’re an idiot” committee realizes the thing was toungue in cheek. satire people. Get it. Thomas Paine, “a modest proposal”. anyone?
As to the post itself. I’ll split up tomorrow. I do think we should get the east coast though because of the greater government built infrastructure and the tendancy towards larger cities and more communal living. Just tell me where to move and i’m there.
Ps. We don’t need 25 years either, we’ll prove it in 10.