Jumping off from Zathras' article regarding the dearth of civility in contemporary America, I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own regarding the direction America is moving in.
As I noted in our first entry here, we may be standing at the door of a sea change in world history. The 20th century was indisputably the American century, ushered in by Teddy Roosevelt and the Great White Fleet, punctuated by the United States' balance-tipping entry into the First World War and America's central role in the century's second war to end all wars, and cemented with the decline of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the sole superpower. But the world is a dynamic place. Where America stood at the dawn of the 21st century, while differing in scope, was not all that different from where Greece and Rome and Britain stood at earlier times in human history. And each of those nations, in their turn, saw their influence ebb or disappear completely. While that does not mean that it is certain that America will follow a similar course, such an end does not seem implausible, either.
Sole powers are rarely popular, and with good reason. No matter how benign a hyperpower may wish to be, it will fail and its failures will generate resentment. Europe dislikes the U.S., among other reasons, because it is a painful reminder that Europe's time of world dominance has passed. Much of the Islamic world despises the U.S. because its culture undermines the foundations of their belief system. The Arab world hates the U.S. for its support of Israel and its perceived role in keeping the Palestinians subjugated. South America dislikes the U.S.'s historical penchant for interfering in their affairs. In many of these cases the U.S. can defend itself. The U.S. can hardly be blamed if other nations like American culture, for example, and the U.S. did not cause Europe to lose its relative influence over the rest of the globe. And when the U.S. has interfered overseas, it claims to do so for the best of reasons: good intentions. Such intentions are cold consolation for people whose families have been uprooted or killed in wars financed by American dollars, however, and many good intentions have ended in situations akin to what we now see in Iraq, where 26 million Iraqis live lives flavored with omnipresent fears of where and when the next bomb will explode.
Nor would isolationism solve America's problems, although it might well do less harm than America's current course. When nations are not cursing the United States for its interference, they are complaining that the U.S. is failing by not getting involved in some project or other; witness the common complaint held by many that the U.S. is at once wrong to be in Iraq and not to be in Darfur. The fact the United States possesses such great power relative to the rest of the globe means that people will generally want to see that power put to use for their pet causes. Recall Madeleine Albright's famous complaint of Colin Powell: what good is a great military if you can't use it? America's possession of a good military has led it into no small number of cases where it has chosen to rely on military force because it could. As a wise man once observed, when you're good with a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail to you. So it is with American power: because it exists, people are going to want to see it used to further their own ends.
Add to this the changes that have reshaped American society over the past century. America was founded on the ideal of a place where people could come and be and do as they pleased. If you didn't like where you were, you could light out for the territories and live as you chose. The frontier closed down in the late nineteenth century, and American society had to change to deal with that. There was some degree of consensus for the first half of the century, albeit a consensus maintained primarily by the exclusion of nonwhites and females from power in almost every field. As other Americans were finally permitted to pursue that original American dream and more and more people shifted from relatively independent farms to cities where specialization and cooperation were required to survive, the consensus view of what America was or should be began to dissolve, and nothing has yet emerged to replace that.
Americans today are increasingly Americans only as an accident of geography. Even on September 11, 2001, when most Americans pulled together, if only briefly, in the wake of those attacks against them, filmmaker Michael Moore was asking why the terrorists had struck New York when New York was opposed to President Bush. In his logic, the ties that bound New Yorkers to the rest of the country were less important than their differences, and the terrorists should have realized that. Moore exists towards the extreme end of the spectrum, but his thinking is not irrational. Politically, the United States in many ways has split into two disparate nations (a tremendous oversimplification, of course, but bear with me) as we can see here. 
There remain points where we are all generally in agreement, but do they truly bind us together as Americans? In 2000 and 2004, leftists threatened to flee the country if the Republicans won, although few actually were willing to go that far. Right wingers seem less predisposed to that type of threat, but the rhetoric leading up to the 2006 elections was redolent with claims that voting Democratic was tantamount to handing the U.S. over to Osama bin Laden, a vicious claim that certainly implied that the Democrats were not fit to defend the country from its enemies, whether willfully or not. For a republic to survive in the long term, its citizens need to be confident that the system works; that whoever the electorate chooses to represent it, that person will be (on average) reasonably competent and will do a decent if not inspiring job. If enough people believe that is unlikely to happen, they will consider other methods to accomplish that goal. If enough Republicans and Democrats believe that the other party will produce leaders that will damage the country (and President Bush has done a great deal to justify that belief for Democrats), they will seek ways to ensure that those candidates cannot reach office. This is the justification for much of the electoral fraud seen around the world: the other guy would be a disaster, so it's ok to break the rules to make sure he doesn't get elected. It is a significant leap to decide that it is also ok to resort to violence to prevent such occurences, but that is merely a difference in scale once the decision it's ok to break the rules has been made.
America is not at that point yet. Despite President Bush's victory in 2004, the Democrats did not flee the country en masse. I am aware of no attempts to kill Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid to derail the Democrats from pursuing their political agenda now that they are in the majority. Nor can I say with any certainty that this is necessarily going to change.
Despite that, I wonder just how long habit will out. Different parts of the country are growing less alike as time goes by. Having lived in many parts of America, I can attest that life is very different in different regions. American culture still exists, but it is a backdrop to the dominant culture in those areas, and it does not seem implausible that the people of America will grow further apart with time as those cultures continue to develop. As the federal government continues to grow in power, will there come a day when some subordinate elements of America decide that they no longer wish to have their lives controlled by distant populations with little chance for the locals to control their own destiny.
We have seen this before, of course. The American South broke away from the union in 1861 because they feared (probably rightly) that the federal government would force emancipation on them. That schism led to the greatest conflict yet fought in the western hemisphere, and the bloodiest conflict the United States has yet suffered. A future attempt to break away from the federal government might lead to the same thing, a far deadlier concept in an era when weapons far outstrip the destructive capabilities available from 1861-1865. Any such breakup, therefore, would need to be amicable if it were not to risk horrific devastation. Unfortunately, habit and fear of change would be likely to defeat any amicable moves towards separation; it would likely only occur if one side felt that it was the only option, and would then almost certainly lead to the federal government attempting to put it down violently once again.
Yet there is something perversely tempting about the idea of breaking the United States into a number of smaller states. Unlike 1861, there is no great moral issue that would be exacerbated by separation. Geography would ensure a great degree of cooperation among the new nations, which would probably retain some European Union-style agreements that would still allow people to travel without passports or undue paperwork. Smaller nations would allow people a greater degree of say in how their government ran. And an American military divided into four to six separate forces would no longer present such a tempting stick for leaders seeking to impose their preferences on faraway places, but would still be easily integrated if necessary for a truly defensive requirement.
I have no illusions about the likelihood of this occurring. American history has been one of greater centralized authority almost since the day the Constitution was adopted. I see little reason to expect that to change without a major upheaval. Which leaves unanswered the question of what may happen when that central authority does something people decide goes too far, an occurrence that is a matter of when, not if.
Comments (25)
One problem I see with this is that the divide is as much rural/urban as it is east/west or north/south. So you can have sharp cultural differences within a state. I’ve mentioned a couple of times how the voters of Upstate NY can feel disenfranchised because their vote is just noise compared to NYC. Many people I know there would happily cede NYC to NJ.
I don’t share your overall pessimism. Even if certain folks cheer every time Cheney’s heart skips a beat I think there is still a long way to go to political assassinations (the odd nutcase aside, I mean organized conspiracy grade assassination of one’s political opponents).
There are signs of great strain for sure. One potential flashpoint I can envision is the drive by some states to eliminate the Electoral College. Imagine a situation where California, NY, Colorado and some others pass state laws saying their electoral votes will go to whoever wins the popular vote nationwide. Then imagine a tight election and those states deciding the winner when it would have been the other candidate under the old electoral system. I can see that leading to something very very bad, along the lines of your darker thoughts here.
Maybe I am as pessimistic after all…
Posted by OCSteve | March 12, 2007 11:44 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 23:44
Also worth noting, in terms of how the federal government might deal with a real separatist movement – Canada has been dealing with a strong Quebec separatist movement for decades. The latter half of the 70s saw this movement gain a lot of strength. Growing up next door (about 20 miles from the Canadian border, about an hour’s drive from Montreal) all we had was broadcast TV and we could pick up more Canadian stations than American stations. As a teenager I was convinced that Canada was on the verge of a bloody civil war.
Quebec came quite close to passing the “Sovereignty-association” referendum in 1980 (defeated by 60%). In 1995 a similar referendum was even closer, defeated by only 50.6% (I was long gone from the area and didn’t follow events that time).
Unknown of course is what will happen should it actually pass next time.
Posted by OCSteve | March 13, 2007 12:23 AM
Posted on March 13, 2007 00:23
I keep hoping that if enough of us propose dividing the country not by political allegiance but by whether or not we are willing to be civil and not demonize our opponents, we can make things better. I mean, a voting map like the one you present doesn't have to mean anything about splitting up the country. That that's even a tempting line of thought, I think, comes from the incivility.
Posted by hilzoy | March 13, 2007 7:39 AM
Posted on March 13, 2007 07:39
Actually, the temptation for me comes from the fact I don't want to live in the America the left wants to live in, so I think that it would be nicer if we just amicably separated rather than insisting that the other person has to live the way we want them to. The massive growth of the federal government is a cause of a lot of the tension: when most power was at the state level, if you lost an argument, you could at least move out of state and live the way you pleased. Now that is no longer the case, and so the stakes are a lot higher for political arguments. I don't like living that way. Heinlein once wrote there are two kinds of people: those who want to force others to live a certain way, and those who don't. I am one of the latter, a rare breed, and I'm tired of having my freedoms steadily eroded because it's deemed for my own good by a bunch of busybodies.
Posted by G'Kar | March 13, 2007 2:44 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 14:44
I am one of the latter, a rare breed, and I'm tired of having my freedoms steadily eroded because it's deemed for my own good by a bunch of busybodies.
Freedoms such as? (Not snark - I'm genuinely curious)
Posted by Ugh | March 13, 2007 3:16 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 15:16
Also curious. Are we talking about smoking restrictions and seatbelt laws, or what?
Posted by LizardBreath | March 13, 2007 7:30 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 19:30
I think seatbelt/helmet laws and smoking/trans-fat bans are the more glaring example of nanny-state antics (speaking for myself and not GKar of course). CA Proposition 65 and other goings on out there on the left coast spring to mind. These are still at the state level though. To some extent you can move if it really bothers you.
Federal nanny-state antics are much more worrisome because as GKar points out – you can’t just move to get away from the Feds. The most egregious federal example that comes to my mind is the War on Drugs. (Thank you Tricky Dick, boy you come up a lot these days). Prohibition was such a success after all.
FDA and the like have some good points, but some that are not so good. If you are dying of cancer, who are they to say you can’t try all the experimental drugs you want to? Who are they to say that my 80 year old grandma can’t have Vioxx if she has rationally made the decision that she is willing to risk the cardiac complications to be pain-free the rest of her days?
Those are a couple that come to my mind. I’m curious as to GKar’s list as well…
Posted by OCSteve | March 13, 2007 7:52 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 19:52
A few things that annoy me:
CAFE standards: these do little to help with either fuel economy or greenhouse gas emissions and may well be leading to more highway deaths to little purpose. I have no objection to the government attempting to address negative externalities through taxes (a gas tax is the obvious method, although I would not necessarily be averse to a carbon tax if it were built properly), but things like CAFE standards are nothing more than ham-handed attempts to have things both ways: address a problem without Congress taking any blame for the negative effects.
The drug war: what a person does with their own body is their business until it negatively effects someone (beyond the mental anguish of seeing a loved one addicted to drugs). Legitimate government exists to protect rights, not to take them away.
All the various bans on smoking/eating/drinking that are, for the moment, mostly at the state level but that I expect will percolate up to the federal level as time goes by.
Hidden taxes like social security, unemployment insurance, and taxes on businesses. I have other issues with SS, but I find it particularly galling that half the money I pay into SS is neatly hidden so the average American doesn't realize how they're being screwed. Taxes on businesses, in my opinion, are generally a waste of time because the business will simply pass the tax onto the consumer, so it's just a way for populists to claim they're sticking it to big business when, in fact, they're likely inflicting a highly regressive tax on the people. And this doesn't really fit with the theme of freedoms being curtailed, but it really annoys me so I threw it in anyhow.
The vast list of federal crimes that have been added to the register. I see no reason why the federal government should be involved in law enforcement save in very limited situations. And the vast raft of laws have ensured that very few of us cannot be prosecuted for something if we run across the wrong person.
Federal gifts of military equipment to local police agencies, encouraging the militarization of our police and leading to the deaths of nobody-knows how many innocents every year.
I hope that is a reasonably representative sample. The bottom line, at least for me, is that I believe the federal government should be strictly limited in its powers, and that some 50-80% of what it does now should be returned to the states or the states ought to pass some Constitutional amendments that explicitly grant new powers to the federal government rather than using the commerce clause as a virtual catch-all that allows the federal government to go beyond all its Constitutional limitations.
Posted by G'Kar | March 13, 2007 8:09 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 20:09
OCS - I would agree with you on seatbelt/helmet laws, and likely on trans-fat bans (though maybe not). Smoking bans in public places don't trouble me (in the sense that, why is your right to smoke somehow worth more than my right to be free of it?).
The War on Drugs certainly could be toned down many notches, though I'm not sure a wholesale ending of it would necessarily be wholly good.
The FDA's, while I think necessary, could certainly change focus to "safe" from "safe and effective," - it also tends to err on the side of not approving drugs, resulting in too many Type II (or is it Type I?) errors.
Posted by Ugh | March 13, 2007 8:22 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 20:22
Previous comment cross-posted with G'Kar's, am reading now...
Posted by Ugh | March 13, 2007 8:24 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 20:24
G'Kar - thanks, if I have time later on for a detailed comment I'll put one up.
Posted by Ugh | March 13, 2007 9:17 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 21:17
Smoking bans in public places...
Depends what you mean by "public places" -- presumably a libertarian wouldn't object to banning smoking on government-owned property, but telling private owners (e.g. restaurants, bars, etc.) what they can and can't allow on their premises seems to cross a line.
Posted by kenB | March 13, 2007 9:22 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 21:22
Ugh: I’m surprised to find myself to your left on the War on Drugs. Interesting. Can you flesh out what you would keep?
Posted by OCSteve | March 13, 2007 9:43 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 21:43
banning smoking on government-owned property
Well, except for the congress anyway...
Posted by OCSteve | March 13, 2007 10:14 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 22:14
Concur w/kenB. If government votes to make government buildings smoke free, that's their business. They have no right to tell a business owner what they can and cannot do on their property. (Of course, depending on the strength of the evidence linking secondhand smoke to respiratory illnesses and cancer, I would not necessarily object to taxing businesses that allow smoking on their premises if the proceeds went to government-provided healthcare, therefore addressing a negative externality.)
Posted by G'Kar | March 13, 2007 10:24 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 22:24
OCS - Ugh: I’m surprised to find myself to your left on the War on Drugs. Interesting. Can you flesh out what you would keep?
Just not sure wholesale legalization of currently illicit drugs is going to be a good thing - for some drugs it probably would be fine (e.g., marijuana), others, probably not so much (e.g., meth, LSD). I would definitely favor ratcheting down the criminal penalties on all drugs, and use the money saved on treatment programs and other alternatives for reducing demand (the supply won't go away until the demand does).
They have no right to tell a business owner what they can and cannot do on their property.
Well, certainly they do. It's called the "general police power" (if I recall law school correctly) - possessed by each state, and is pretty much only limited by the state's constitution, the federal constitution, and certain federal laws. I think your objection goes more to how they exercise that power. As for the specific example, smoking bans, I fail to see why the default position is that the smoker gets to impose his habit on me, rather than the other way around.
Taxes on businesses, in my opinion, are generally a waste of time because the business will simply pass the tax onto the consumer, so it's just a way for populists to claim they're sticking it to big business when, in fact, they're likely inflicting a highly regressive tax on the people.
I'm not quite sure that's how it works. For example, assume there's no gas tax and it's selling for $2 a gallon. Congress then imposes a 10 cents/gallon tax. It's highly unlikely that the price would then be $2.10/gallon, but would rather be somewhere in between (exactly where depends on, IIRC, the elasticity of demand for gasoline). Thus the burden of the tax falls partially on the consumer and partially on the business owner - not wholly on the former (I'm dredging this up from my econ major days long past, so it may not be wholly accurate).
The vast list of federal crimes that have been added to the register.
While I'm certainly no fan of the trend toward federalization of crime, it seems to me that these laws are mostly duplicative of state laws or are things that the should be criminalized at the federal level - and therefore really don't constitute a loss of freedom (i.e., same amount of freedom would exist in their absence). Furthermore, the accused is much more likely to get a fair trial in federal rather than state court (and much less likely to be falsely accused - so much so that a federal public defender who had spent years and years in the job said he had only a handful of clients who were innocent of the crim charged in that time).
And the vast raft of laws have ensured that very few of us cannot be prosecuted for something if we run across the wrong person.
I find this hard to believe, did you have something specific in mind?
Posted by Ugh | March 13, 2007 11:12 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 23:12
so much so that a federal public defender who had spent years and years in the job said he had only a handful of clients who were innocent of the crim charged in that time
Wouldn’t that be “he had only a handful of clients who were not convicted of the crim charged in that time”? i.e. innocents could well have been convicted…
I find this hard to believe, did you have something specific in mind?
Again not speaking for GKar…
Hypothetically of course, let’s say I live in one state and buy cigarettes in another to save on the taxes. Sometimes I buy in bulk to stock up. Occasionally I might pick some up for someone else as long as I am going anyway. I could end up being prosecuted by either the state or the Feds (ATF). Penalties could include fines, jail time, and forfeiture of my vehicle.
Now I’m a law abiding citizen and this purely hypothetical situation wouldn’t even occur to me to be breaking the law. But technically it is.
Many other people in the same town might do the same thing and it could be common knowledge and ignored. But if I pissed off the wrong peace officer or other official it could be used to nail me to the wall and even ruin my life.
Hypothetically of course.
Posted by OCSteve | March 14, 2007 3:47 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 15:47
I fail to see why the default position is that the smoker gets to impose his habit on me, rather than the other way around.
Once we're on private property, I'd say that the default position should be whatever the property owner decides. Why is it a matter of public interest whether a bar owner chooses to accommodate the smoker over the nonsmoker?
As a nonsmoker with a strong distaste for cigarette smoke, I'm not complaining too loudly on this issue, but I do see it as an over-reach.
Posted by kenB | March 14, 2007 4:29 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 16:29
Wouldn’t that be “he had only a handful of clients who were not convicted of the crim charged in that time”? i.e. innocents could well have been convicted…
No, he made it pretty clear that of all his clients that were charged with a crime (eventually convicted or not), only a handful were actually innocent of what they were charged with (that is, he knew whether they were innocent or guilty through his interaction with them, and only a handful were innocent).
I could end up being prosecuted by either the state or the Feds (ATF).
For? What law have you broken? I don't think you're breaking the law as long as you're not reselling to your friend at a profit - but I certainly could be wrong about that.
Posted by Ugh | March 14, 2007 5:52 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 17:52
Evading sales tax. More than a couple of cartons can be taken as intent to resell.
Posted by OCSteve | March 14, 2007 11:29 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 23:29
OCS - well, as I said, as long as you're not reselling to someone as a profit, but I get your point on "intent" (at least in your case you have a legal product, the drug laws on "intent to sell" are horrendous).
Is it a federal or state problem?
Posted by Ugh | March 14, 2007 11:59 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 23:59
The sales tax issues are state. But when you cross state lines the Feds can get involved.
Posted by OCSteve | March 15, 2007 2:25 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 14:25
Ugh,
I'll stipulate that the problem of hypercriminalization is more an issue of overreaching government power than it is overreaching federal power. I think it is much more significant than you realize, however. I'll wager that there are plenty of laws that you break on a regular basis, any of which could be used against you if someone in power decided to do so.
Take a look at the ongoing mess in Manassas for a good example of abusive government power.
Posted by G'Kar | March 15, 2007 2:58 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 14:58
Well, certainly there are laws I know I (may or may not) break on a regular basis (for example, I may or may not drive my car over the posted speed limit on certain limited occasions, and I may or may not use my cell phone while driving without a hands free device in jurisdictions that require it).
I would be very surprised if I was breaking any laws that would subject me to criminal (as opposed to civil) sanctions (though I would be open to suggestions as to what you might think they might be), and even on the civil side I would suspect those I might be (unknowingly) breaking would be things like not having up to code wiring in my 60 year old house - hardly something that would, IMO, result in any kind of serious trouble, even were I a U.S. Senator.
If I was running my own business I would be more worried.
Posted by Ugh | March 15, 2007 4:19 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 16:19
I should also say that I don't necessarily disagree that the panopoly of federal, state and local regulations has gotten out of control, just that (a) avoiding criminal sanctions in one's daily life isn't that hard; and (b) avoiding civil sanctions isn't that much harder (absent operating your own business).
Posted by Ugh | March 15, 2007 4:28 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 16:28