On Twitter, I saw an enraged lefty yell that Trump was trying to steal the election and it was time for the blue states to secede. I don't blame him at all. No matter how this ends, thanks to the breathtaking stupidity of mass, mail-in ballots, half the country will be perfectly right in concluding that the election was stolen.
We can go to Walmart, Target, Costco, the grocery store, BLM marches and four, huge funerals for George Floyd, but we can't go vote in person? And what is the issue with not having to show an ID at the polls? There's no excuse for any of this. The only reason you'd set it up this way was so you could cheat.
Anywho, I sympathize with the lefties. If Trump wins, it was stolen because it's impossible to prove otherwise. If Biden wins, it was stolen because it's impossible to prove otherwise. Way to go, idiots.
Getting back to secession, it's a mistake to think the split is going to happen at the state level. Once that genie is allowed to escape, you won't be able to contain individual counties who aren't in sync with the majority of citizens in any particular state. Red Alabama can say goodbye to Montgomery and Blue Oregon can say goodbye to ... well, pretty much the whole state outside of the cities. Dig this precinct-level map from the 2016 election.
What in the world would we do with that? It's in every state, too.
Yep, it's a good thing we didn't vote in person with IDs. That was great. Just great.
And that's why secession isn't viable for either side. If the cities are cut off from the countryside, then they have no food, fuel, raw materials, or any way to get anywhere other than the cities. Meanwhile, without the cities, the countryside has no significant amount of manufactured goods (either made in the cities, or imported through them), no money to maintain their roads, no communications beyond local phone calls, and no money because there is nobody to sell their food, fuel, or raw materials to.
ReplyDeleteJumping straight to a civil war is somewhat more plausible, except that while I'm seeing a fair number of people who are annoyed with the "city folk", none seem to be angry enough to be willing to take a chance on getting shot at. There just doesn't seem to be a high enough proportion of unemployed, angry young men to put together a proper rebellion. Most of the people shouting seem to be angry middle-aged men. Who look to me like they mostly talk a lot, but when push comes to shove aren't really ready to throw over their current life to go sleeping in the mud while being shot at for a couple of years.
What I think we need, is for the cities and the countryside to actually concede that, just maybe, they have very different needs and concerns, and that they should leave each other alone as much as possible.
State of Jefferson.
ReplyDeletetim eisele,
ReplyDeleteWhat I think we need, is for the cities and the countryside to actually concede that, just maybe, they have very different needs and concerns, and that they should leave each other alone as much as possible.
Except, as you pointed out, each side needs the other to be thriving, so that doesn't work either.
Tim - yes, yes and yes. Less government, more societal stability. Government means politics and politics means arguing.
ReplyDelete