Four choices. Four distinct paths. We have them. The questions become, "will we choose the path? Or, will it be chosen for us?"
Let's start with the first path; the path preferred by career politicians: "Let's do nothing; things will work themselves out. They always do." In other words, let's "react, not act." We'll return to choice "A" shortly.
Choice "B," amounts to "we should take a more literal approach to the 10th amendment. If the constitution doesn't assign a specific function to the federal government, it is presumed that the function is reserved for the individual state." It's probable that "Dixiecrats" would be overjoyed!
Choice "C," would conclude that the country was simply too divided to continue as one nation and "peacefully separate." We have seen a lot of evidence that some of the states are already considering this. California stands as a prime example.
Choice "D" would rebuff separation ideas. It would be a war for all the marbles, likely making the first American civil war look liked a church social.
Choice "D" appears unlikely(albeit 15% of the country would disagree). It stands to reason that the nation doesn't have the stomach for a 1860's vintage bloodbath! It's probable that those living then would have opted out, had they enjoyed a 21st century media!It is now believed that as many as 750,000 American casualties were inflicted, up from 600,000. This is more than in all other wars COMBINED since the revolution...
Choice "C" would amount to "giving up," by many Americans. Yet, there is support from both the left and right. For argument's sake, let's briefly assume that separation was the verdict. In a 2016 post, I covered the geographical divide that might come if Hillary Clinton had been elected in a disputed election.
In that post it predicted that the split would cross the northern border. It also predicted that Tim Draper's "six Californias" would become a reality. At this writing, smart money would suggest that the Great Lakes States would join the lower Midwest, far West, South and three of six Californias, as defined by Draper.
The Western half of Washington, Oregon and British Columbia would become the nation of "Cascadia." The cultural distinction already exists.
Ontario and Canadian provinces East of the Rocky mountains would join the "flyover American" states.
New York and New England would be joined by Canada's Atlanta provinces forming the "Peoples' Democratic Republic of America."
Quebec would achieve their long dream of independence, and join Honduras and El Salvador as "third world counties" in North America.
Three of Draper's six California's would be joined by the Big Island of Hawaii to form "Pacifica," AKA "Elysium."(The remaining islands would stay with the money) If you haven't watched the Matt Damon movie, you should; if you want to see the illustration.
Compared to choices "C" and "D," choice "B" would certainly be preferable. In short, America would rediscover the 10th amendment. Much would be the same as now. The military, border security, social security and medicare would continue to be handle from Washington. Other issues, such as abortion, marijuana and prayer in the public schools would be determined at the state level. It's possible that housing and urban development, the environment, energy and education might all return to the states. Money utilized would be divided proportionately, based on contribution.
Choice "A" is obviously preferred by lawmakers. It's the easiest! Yet, we may not have the luxury of resorting to choice "A."
When you have Socialists such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ortasio-Cortez spouting "rabble rousing rhetoric" as they are and there are contested elections as we are experiencing, the latter three options become more imminent.
Not because we chose then. But, because the choice was thrust upon us.
Post a Comment