ShowMeLiberty
11-02-2008, 08:55 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023764.html#more
November 02, 2008
Prepared headlines for Wednesday
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken at November 2, 2008 12:03 AM
Assuming of course that there's not some kind of repeat of the 2000 election, I've put together the headlines for this week:
Choice A: "Commie North defeats fascist South"
Choice B: "Fascist South defeats commie North"
It all comes down to a choice between the left-wing socialist and the right-wing socialist.
Southerners prefer a socialist who will redistribute the wealth from the taxpayers to government employees (military), agricultural interests, and corporations with "defense" contracts. They also prefer someone who bombs lots of foreigners in the name of "national greatness."
Northerners prefer a socialist who will redistribute wealth from the taxpayers to government employees (non-military), the urban poor, and union members. They also prefer someone who will bomb lots of foreigners (albeit with less bravado) in the name of "human rights."
By "North" I of course also mean the West Coast.
The West is a little too unpredictable even for my generalizations. Colorado is no longer reliably Republican and New Mexico has been swinging both ways for years.
But the regional nature of the vote is pretty obvious and certainly interesting.
As I've noted in previous posts, the South was bought and paid for years ago through military and agriculture subsidies dutifully brought home by GOP reps. Although the people there like to talk like libertarians, the South is a tax-receiver region, and voters there vote accordingly.
The North is at least honest about its preference for socialism. It likes socialism and it says so. Filled with over-educated suburban whites, plus-size union workers, and urban non-whites, the North thinks there's no problem that the government can't fix. The North (and especially the West Coast) is a net tax payer region, yet that doesn't seem to bother anyone there.
Come November 4th, it'll all just be a battle between two kinds of Americans. The commie kind and the fascist kind. After 8 years of the fascists, we have an annual deficit of a trillion dollars, 2 endliess and immoral wars, massive increases in government spending, and the shredding of the Bill of Rights.
It's hard to say though which group would run the country into the ground faster over the next 4 years. If the commies had actually taken a decent anti-war stand I'd have to go in their favor, but since they're too spineless to even end the most unpopular war in American history, I'll have to silently wait this one out.
It is exactly this regionalism and the near 50/50 divide of opinion (at least in terms of the two-party system vote results) that has been troubling me for many years now. How long can a nation continue to be so divided? How long can a slim majority continue to enforce its will on almost half the population that is opposed to it?
I can't help thinking that every close election (as this one will be also, I'm sure) brings us closer and closer to the end of the 50 United States. We are obviously no longer united. It isn't a far leap to say we have arrived at irreconcilable differences and would be better off apart. How long people will continue to suffer before taking that tiny leap seems to be the only question remaining.
Your thoughts?
November 02, 2008
Prepared headlines for Wednesday
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken at November 2, 2008 12:03 AM
Assuming of course that there's not some kind of repeat of the 2000 election, I've put together the headlines for this week:
Choice A: "Commie North defeats fascist South"
Choice B: "Fascist South defeats commie North"
It all comes down to a choice between the left-wing socialist and the right-wing socialist.
Southerners prefer a socialist who will redistribute the wealth from the taxpayers to government employees (military), agricultural interests, and corporations with "defense" contracts. They also prefer someone who bombs lots of foreigners in the name of "national greatness."
Northerners prefer a socialist who will redistribute wealth from the taxpayers to government employees (non-military), the urban poor, and union members. They also prefer someone who will bomb lots of foreigners (albeit with less bravado) in the name of "human rights."
By "North" I of course also mean the West Coast.
The West is a little too unpredictable even for my generalizations. Colorado is no longer reliably Republican and New Mexico has been swinging both ways for years.
But the regional nature of the vote is pretty obvious and certainly interesting.
As I've noted in previous posts, the South was bought and paid for years ago through military and agriculture subsidies dutifully brought home by GOP reps. Although the people there like to talk like libertarians, the South is a tax-receiver region, and voters there vote accordingly.
The North is at least honest about its preference for socialism. It likes socialism and it says so. Filled with over-educated suburban whites, plus-size union workers, and urban non-whites, the North thinks there's no problem that the government can't fix. The North (and especially the West Coast) is a net tax payer region, yet that doesn't seem to bother anyone there.
Come November 4th, it'll all just be a battle between two kinds of Americans. The commie kind and the fascist kind. After 8 years of the fascists, we have an annual deficit of a trillion dollars, 2 endliess and immoral wars, massive increases in government spending, and the shredding of the Bill of Rights.
It's hard to say though which group would run the country into the ground faster over the next 4 years. If the commies had actually taken a decent anti-war stand I'd have to go in their favor, but since they're too spineless to even end the most unpopular war in American history, I'll have to silently wait this one out.
It is exactly this regionalism and the near 50/50 divide of opinion (at least in terms of the two-party system vote results) that has been troubling me for many years now. How long can a nation continue to be so divided? How long can a slim majority continue to enforce its will on almost half the population that is opposed to it?
I can't help thinking that every close election (as this one will be also, I'm sure) brings us closer and closer to the end of the 50 United States. We are obviously no longer united. It isn't a far leap to say we have arrived at irreconcilable differences and would be better off apart. How long people will continue to suffer before taking that tiny leap seems to be the only question remaining.
Your thoughts?