A Modest Proposal

Robbo

MY MODEST PROPOSAL: THE U.S.A.R.
By C. B. Shapiro

I feel bad for the Red States.

Yes, they won the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and most of the state houses. But they still can't have the country they really want because the last few Blue States won't roll over. So I am making a simple proposal:

Secession. Divorce. Splitsville.

Personally, I think we made a huge mistake not letting them go when we had the chance back in 1862. Well, no time like the present to correct an old mistake.

Then, they would finally be free to have the kind of society they've always wanted; church and state can be fused so they build the kind of theocracy they've dreamt of, with Jesus at the helm. Then the new USAR (United States of America Red) can ban books, repeal civil rights, persecute gays and have all the wars they like. They want prayer in schools? More power to them. They can ban abortion and post the Ten Commandments in every federal building in their country. Bring back slavery, if they want. We'll be free to live with our like-minded countrymen who believe in science, modernism, tolerance, religion as a personal choice, and truly want limited government intrusion in our personal lives. Why should each side be driven mad by the other any more, decade after decade?

Call the Culture War a tie and everyone go home.

Of course, we in the U.S.A.B. get the Gross Domestic Product, businesses and universities of California, New York, Massachussetts -- basically the whole Northeast and Northwest (plus Illinois and Michigan if they want to come along). They get Wal-Mart and Duke and most of the Nascar tracks. But they can feel free to import movies, TV shows, financial services, and defense technology. We'll import country music, bibles and Confederate flags.

The two countries will by necessity have open immigration policy: anyone who feels they are living in the wrong country can just move across the border, no questions asked.

Ultimately, why should I have to convince my fellow countrymen that Darwin may have had a point and that the word “liberal” is not equivalent to “godless communist?” And why should they be forced to live in a country with morally corrupt non-believers? I'll stay in the messy, free-thinking U.S.A.B. And to the U.S.A.R. I say…

God bless you all, and see you at the U.N

Via Boing Boing (at least I credit it).

steviec

This is something I don't understand about America. Why do you have to be a gun-toting redneck to believe in a free market with minimal government intrusion? Why do you have to demand prayer be banned from schools if you believe in a high tax, high spend government? Why do you have to be a church-going christian to believe in aggressive foreign policy?

I've never understood why all people in America seem to be considered one 'ideology' or the other, can't they look at individual issues and consider them logically, and actually base their voting on candidate's policies instead of their ideologies.

BattleBoar

steviec wrote:

This is something I don't understand about America. Why do you have to be a gun-toting redneck to believe in a free market with minimal government intrusion? Why do you have to demand prayer be banned from schools if you believe in a high tax, high spend government? Why do you have to be a church-going christian to believe in aggressive foreign policy?

I've never understood why all people in America seem to be considered one 'ideology' or the other, can't they look at individual issues and consider them logically, and actually base their voting on candidate's policies instead of their ideologies.

I agree completely. Bush is NOT an conservative at all in th economic sense. His overspending is absolutely ridiculous. He is the farthest thing from a fiscal conservative we've had in the white house for some time. Believe it or not, on economic policy, the closest guy to a fiscal conservative would have been Dean, who kept a balanced budget in VT during his governorship.

George W. Bush is increasingly being compared to Ronald Reagan. It's true that like Bush, Reagan came to Washington with an ambitious plan to cut taxes across-the-board and increase defense spending while containing federal spending. And Reagan, indeed, lightened the tax burden on the American people and oversaw a massive increase in defense spending. Thus, given Bush's recent push for more pro-growth tax cuts combined with increased defense spending for the war on terrorism, the analogy is tempting.

But at this stage in his presidency, Bush's dismal record on spending when measured against Reagan's nullifies that temptation. Better yet, in light of Bush's spending it looks like it would be more accurate to compare him to Jimmy Carter than to Ronald Reagan.....

Whereas Reagan was able to reduce non-defense discretionary outlays by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent -- a whopping 32 percent difference between the two men...

No, Bush is no Reagan. And despite the self-proclaimed party of limited government controlling the White House and the Congress, it continues to move further and further away from the limited government envisioned by our founding fathers.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-01-03.html

Robbo

Darlings, I didn't intend this to be a thread for serious debate, merely some self referencing satire. May I suggest you rotate your knickers anti-clockwise?

Redleslie2

claidheamh

The two countries will by necessity have open immigration policy: anyone who feels they are living in the wrong country can just move across the border, no questions asked.

-Sounds great, except I have a nagging feeling the Fundie-Christian-Republicans would prefer borders made from flaming rivers of petrol...You know, for the "traitors" attempting to leave. :eek:

Beautiful!

sceptre

Personally, I think we made a huge mistake not letting them go when we had the chance back in 1862.

Am I right in thinking that Bush would have lost if we discounted the 1860s secessionist states?

(odd, considering Honest Abe was a Republican, but good if grudges last about 100 years down there (Reagan carried them all as well))

BattleBoar

sceptre wrote:

Am I right in thinking that Bush would have lost if we discounted the 1860s secessionist states?

(odd, considering Honest Abe was a Republican, but good if grudges last about 100 years down there (Reagan carried them all as well))

True but Reagan carried almost everything (I think he only lost DC and Minnesota)

Victor

steviec wrote:

This is something I don't understand about America. Why do you have to be a gun-toting redneck to believe in a free market with minimal government intrusion? Why do you have to demand prayer be banned from schools if you believe in a high tax, high spend government? Why do you have to be a church-going christian to believe in aggressive foreign policy?

It's a pattern, but at the same time full of it's own contradictions.

Of course

democrat = "high tax, high spend"
republican = "low tax, high spend"