Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Cruz' Vision in Sync With Woodward's Model

For those supporting Ted Cruz for the Presidency, I would urge you to google Colin Woodward's 2013 article in
Tufts Magazine, "Eleven Americas."

Woodward's article is a separate subject for a different post. But it is highly significant in that it sheds light on the divide currently in America. A case could be made that the nation is more ideologically divided than in 1861!

Cruz represents the ideological end of one spectrum. There is nothing "gray" about him. He is black and white. Period. For the purist, he is the long awaited redeemer who will replace the "mushy milk toast," pseudo conservative with the real deal. The conservative base is tired of Mitch McConnell's and John McCain's. Definitive and decisive are wanted and needed.

What makes Woodward's article so pertinent is how it illustrates, county by county, the actual lines. Based on the map, "Greater Appalachia, the Midlands" and "the Far West" have joined "the Deep South" and "the Tidewater" regions. It comes as no surprise that these five regions have a "reddish" hue. Still in play is "Del Norte." A Republican candidate able to harness it, will take the 2016 Presidency.

The question that many ask "is Ted Cruz that candidate?" Maybe. But, winning the general election may not be his ultimate goal.

The thought of a Hillary Clinton Presidency brings shudders to most conservative hearts. It amounts to an "America no longer fit to live in." Which brings purists to the next question: "Would two Americas be so bad?"

Before someone says, it'll never happen, let's review a couple of valid considerations.

1) Most people could care less!
2) This isn't 1861. We have television. We have the Internet. Nobody will entertain the idea of an 1860's style blood bath!

Those who might are in Cruz' corner! They have secretly lusted for the opportunity to "get a piece" of their "blue" counterparts Never forget, we are likely talking about the planet's most war like people.

California is an interesting scenario. Some of it belongs to the Far West. A chunk of it falls into the Del Norte group. And, a sliver(with a larger population) is designated as "the Left Coast." The "Left Coast" includes Western Oregon and Washington and extends into British Columbia and ends at Juneau, Alaska.

Many recall Tim Draper's "six California's." By their very voting patterns, it could be safely concluded that three would skew red, the other three, blue. When asking a friend(who happened to work for the agency) if three of the six Californias might exit, in the event that states began cutting their ties with the existing Union , he quickly predicted, "all six" would depart.


As he put it, "they would for two reasons. "Twelve Senators versus two" and "if they didn't, they'd be swamped with refugees." One-third of all current welfare recipients reside in the Golden State.

I see Ted Cruz somewhat akin to the South Carolina "fire eaters of the late 1850's. He has a message. He is a clear ideologue. His heart is in the right place. He understands that with issues such as healthcare, immigration, gay marriage, the environment and the size and scope of government, the regions of America simply have too many differences to stay together.

Is Woodward's model the roadmap? Probably! Keep in mind, there are several movements throughout the United States and Canada that have been around for a while. Google "Cascadia." Google the "North Star" movement. French speaking Quebec has been threatening to secede from Canada for the past century! Suddenly we are discussing a North American realignment!

"Yankeedom" picks up the Northeast, sans 95% of Pennsylvania. It not only expands west to include Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, but extends Northeast to pick up Canada's Atlantic provinces. Most of Ontario and Manitoba fall under the "Midlands" classification. Not surprisingly, Alberta and Saskatchewan join their "Far West" neighbors to the south.

What would be different about a new America? No 16th and 17th amendments? An amended 14th amendment, defining citizenship. A more literal view of the 10th amendment. A national right to work law. A ban on public sector unions? A English language amendment? An amendment defining marriage as a union between man and woman?

If this is the plan and Cruz is the man to lead it, I'm in. But initiating and maintaining are two different things! Therefore, once accomplished, a leader with proven Executive and Military experience, such as a Rick Perry, would be preferable.

In many ways, Cruz is like a street agitator, a rabble rouser. But his overall vision is the right one. His combination of clear logic and uncommon rhetorical skills are difficult to surpass.

Timing is everything. And a trigger, such as a close if not disputed election could make for a tipping point. Nobody knows for certain how 2016 will unfold.

Many aren't exactly welcoming that pivotal moment!

No comments:

Post a Comment