21 February, 2006

If The Blue States Left The Union

I'm probably too far gone to post on politics, but I say that there's nothing quite like delirium to serve as a good foundation for political thought. Yesterday Glen and I went back and forth on the merits and demerits of our 16th president. Glen takes exception to being compared to Booth. I understand and apologise. However, I still take exception to the posthumous drawing and quartering of my second-favourite American leader.

In the course of that conversation, Glen announced that "if the Blue States left the Union he would throw a party."

Is this what has become of us in America? That we are so divided politically that we wouldn't mind if part of the country split off?!? Have we gone stark raving mad?

Look, I personally am not a "blue-stater". I tend to be very fiscally conservative and don't think the government needs to concern itself with any facet of private life, whether that is funding the arts or keeping Howard Stern off the air. I think the New York Times Sunday Magazine is largely a bunch of self-important nonsense and I'm more at home picking strawberries in a truck patch than acting fusty at a wine bar.

But I don't want anyone to leave America. This was supposed to be a melting pot. Later it became a stew or a salad or whatever the food metaphor for retaining one's individuality is. But it's still America. We are the land of dreams, the land of equality, the land of promise. Telling people they aren't welcome because of their politics or lifestyle is precisely the tyrannical style that the revisionists hate in Lincoln.

Aside from all this high-flown flag waving, let's look at the facts. The so-called "blue states" include much of our Northeastern Atlantic Border, the Port of New York, a good portion of our heavy industry, 80% of our continental Pacific Border, ports in California and Washington, a large part of our heavy timber industry, all of the ports along the Great Lakes and countless other assets. What kind of fools would we be to say "you drink Chai Latte, so we celebrate your defection from the U.S.!"

So no. I don't want the Blue States to leave the Union. And I'd be happy if they'd consider us poor Red-Staters with our farmland, fossil fuel mining and strategic placement an equal part of the country.

13 Comments:

At 5:38 PM, February 21, 2006, Blogger Malia said...

That blue states leaving the Union comment yesterday really bothered me too. I mean, did we not learn anything from the Civil War? And that kind of attitude (and not just from Dean because I've heard that from other people as well) creates divisiveness that doesn't serve anyone well at all.

 
At 5:43 PM, February 21, 2006, Blogger TVonthefritz said...

Katherine, you misunderstood Glen Dean entirely. When he said "I would throw a party if the Blue states left the union," he meant it only in certain circumstances. When you spend a few months reading Glen Dean, you realize that ambiguties make up all the difference in the world.

 
At 7:02 PM, February 21, 2006, Blogger Sharon Cobb said...

Tv...
No. She read it right the first time. After a year of reading him, you find out he really can be hateful and hurtful.
He would be perfectly content if us liberals just fell off the face of the earth.

 
At 7:13 PM, February 21, 2006, Blogger Kat Coble said...

I think, perhaps, (I could be wrong) that TV is being tongue in cheek.

 
At 8:01 PM, February 21, 2006, Blogger Glen Dean said...

Sharon, that is not true.I love liberals. In fact, I love all people.

I would love a revolution in this country though, perhaps a secession. Our central government has become too powerful. I certainly would not want to be part of a confederation, but I would like a return to federalism and state's rights. That is not going to be possible without a revolution or a secession. Think about it. We have a bunch of states that would like to place limits or even outlaw abortion, yet they can't do that because of the federal govt (scotus). We also have several states that want to legalize gay marriage, but if Bush had his way, the federal government would not allow them to do so.

Do you see my point now? This country is too big. The federal government is out of control. People in Massachusets don't want a government telling them what to do, no more than people in Tennessee want the federal government telling them what to do. States are no longer sovereign. This is not what the framers intended.

We need a new constitution. Actually we need the original one, with the specifics spelled out, so that a court would have less room for wiggling.

 
At 9:40 PM, February 21, 2006, Blogger Kat Coble said...

Those states that want to legalize Gay Marriage...how are they going to get by without inexpensive grain?

Those states that want to criminalise abortion...how are they going to get by with automobiles that cost twice as much?

States' Rights are a good thing, but States can't operate at the level of prosperity they now enjoy without the free commerce of the current Republic. The CSA learned the hard way the consequence of that pipe dream.

 
At 9:41 PM, February 21, 2006, Blogger Kat Coble said...

We need a new constitution. Actually we need the original one

Yeah, let's bring back that 3/5ths of a person stuff. That'd be good for the country.

 
At 11:08 PM, February 21, 2006, Blogger Glen Dean said...

Katherine, I am not proposing that we go to war with one another. Good grief. We still trade with Canada and Mexico and they share this continent, but not the government.

"'We need a new constitution. Actually we need the original one.'

Yeah, let's bring back that 3/5ths of a person stuff. That'd be good for the country."


Katherine, that is so absurd. You know I was disagreeing with the concept of a living constitution. I don't know what I did to you, but I really don't want to fight.

God bless you friend.

 
At 2:24 AM, February 22, 2006, Blogger Kat Coble said...

First off, as I've tried to explain before--disagreeing is not "fighting".

Secondly, you can argue against a "living" constitution, but I fail to see how that works when the baseline constitution failed to acknowledge the basic rights of women and blacks. Just how far do you backdate the constitution? Just when do we put the brakes on and say "this was the document we always meant it to be"?

Since we're not "fighting" I don't expect an answer. But I would also like to point out that Mexico and Canada hardly refute my point. Neither nation enjoys the prosperity and opportunity of the U.S. Neither nation has full access to the U.S. resources and neither is governed by our system.

Any new secessionary nation as proposed by you would enjoy the same crippling that has Mexicans fleeing into our country in droves and Canadians shivering resentfully up north with their cheap-ass drugs and their ham.

 
At 9:09 AM, February 22, 2006, Blogger TVonthefritz said...

I was being tongue in cheek. Good call, Coble.

 
At 9:42 AM, February 22, 2006, Blogger Glen Dean said...

No this isn't fighting. It's two posts worth of piling on Glen Dean. Maybe you could start a "Glen Dean is ...." blogroll.

First off, none of this is serious and worthy of emotion. I was just messing around and talking in the "what if" sense. There is a zero % possibility of this country dividing up. So this is all BS talk anyway.

Secondly, the rights for blacks and women were handed to them by the CONSTITUTION in the 14th and 19th amendments. The original constitution, as far as I am concerned, starts prior to Earl Warren. You know that I don't want women and blacks to not have rights. But you still engage in that snarky BS.

You say I proposed a secessionary nation.

Unbelievable Katherine, Lighten up. You are too dang uptight. And the same goes for all of you. You took a nonsensical comment and made a mountain out of it.

Seriously though. You Nashville Bloggers should start a "Glen Dean is ..." blogroll or maybe a "Glen Dean is ..." group blog. Me and the things I say are obviously a lot more interesting than any real issue or any type of intelligent discussion.

 
At 11:07 AM, February 22, 2006, Blogger Kat Coble said...

any type of intelligent discussion.

Actually, that's what I'm trying to have. An intelligent discussion. I'm not meaning to pile on to you and I'm sorry you feel that I have.

You took a nonsensical comment and made a mountain out of it.

At least we both agree that the original comment was nonsensical.

Secondly, the rights for blacks and women were handed to them by the CONSTITUTION in the 14th and 19th amendments. The original constitution, as far as I am concerned, starts prior to Earl Warren. You know that I don't want women and blacks to not have rights. But you still engage in that snarky BS.


It wasn't snarky BS. I was making a valid point. Whenever people argue against a living constitution they are arguing against an amended constitution and arguing for a static document--much like the 10 commandments.

As a libertarian the idea of a static constitution scares the crap out of me. Any form of government in which free men choose to engage should be alterable by the gentlemen agreeing to the rule of law. A static constitution doesn't grant it's people that freedom.

You're right, I probably do need to lighten up. But I'm generally not one to take talk of overthrowing the government as humourous hyperbole.

 
At 11:25 AM, February 22, 2006, Blogger Glen Dean said...

Okay fine. I still like you Katherine and I think that you and Sharon are two of the most beautiful people on the internet. I say that, even though I have never seen you. Seriously though, I really do love all Americans and I don't want any of them to fall off the face of the earth.

Getting back to the discussion though, are you really a proponent of the living constitution? I just never took you for a Ginsburg or Breyer supporter.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home