pros and cons of splitting the US into 2 countries?

[Jhhnn]

Maybe. I might offer an alternative interpretation, but that would involve mentioning someone who is a terrible sore spot here. My occasional voice here is like a struggling swimmer caught in a riptide. I didn't like Trump, nor you-know-who. But what I like even less is the ever deeper divisions that separate us. No matter who had won, one side would have been equally estranged, which is I guess the new normal, but it's just more toxic each cycle. I hope our kids don't have to fight a war over it. That's where the premise of this thread leads.

That's a bit disingenuous. It's not like Libs ran out & bought more guns when Trump was elected or that conservatives haven't been propagandized with the language of hatred for decades.

Imagine how nuts "law abiding gun owners" would be if Hillary had won the same way as Trump.

I mean, figure it out. Who's more accepting of their fellow humans in general?

 

[glenn1]

I like how when you are confronted with the fact that California pays out more to the feds than it gets back you don’t change your mind, you just repeat the same false claim but with additional angry ranting and name calling.

Also, if the liberal concept of governing doesn’t work then why do almost all of the most economically successful countries have highly liberal governance models? Even within the US almost all of the most economically successful areas are run by liberals. Maybe instead of ranting about them you could learn something from their success?

Perhaps then you can explain why the success of those "highly liberal governance models" are so variable? For every Norway (assisted with their oil wealth) success story you have an Iceland which got crushed or a Finland which has been a basket case for years. It's easy to trumpet your preferred governing model when you cherry pick the examples you use of its outcomes in the real world. For every San Francisco or Denmark you can point out as success stories I can likewise point out a Greece or Detroit that's a dogs breakfast.

 

[IJTSSG]

How do you figure california has "so much poverty"? It's not great, but 35th is hardly worst
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate

It's actually the worst of the blue states (except DC I suppose), but that's still better than 15 of the reddest red states. Bottom of the list (of full states+DC)?
DC
Arkansas
Kentucky
Alabama
Louisiana
New Mexico
Mississippi


And the GDP question?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP
Too lazy to do the math, but CA is is 62% larger than the next-largest state, TX. Florida I'd call purple, and next red state is only 24% the GDP of california, and it goes down from there. Maybe not larger than all red states combined, but damn close.

It's not even close. Have someone do the math for you again.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps then you can explain why the success of those "highly liberal governance models" are so variable? For every Norway (assisted with their oil wealth) success story you have an Iceland which got crushed or a Finland which has been a basket case for years. It's easy to trumpet your preferred governing model when you cherry pick the examples you use of its outcomes in the real world. For every San Francisco or Denmark you can point out as success stories I can likewise point out a Greece or Detroit that's a dogs breakfast.

It's interesting that you cherry pick examples and then accuse others of doing the same. I explicitly didn't name particular countries, instead including everyone. So... I did the exact opposite of what you accuse me of. Successful economies are overwhelmingly liberal ones and you know it. It doesn't mean that by adopting liberal policies that every place is going to be great, what it does indicate though is that it is the most successful governing model overall.

By the way I was interested by Finland's performance and it's kind of funny, apparently the death of Nokia alone is a substantial reason for their economic problems. It's only one company, but in such a tiny country that had a huge effect. Who knew!?

 

[obidamnkenobi]

I mean, figure it out. Who's more accepting of their fellow humans in general?

It's interesting, because conservative's objection/criticism of liberals is that they're too accepting, and not harsh enough right? "soft on crime/terror. Allow too many immigrants. Poors are scroungers" etc. When the divide, and rallying point, is one group is "too nice" and one is "too mean" the rhetoric is bound to reflect that. So many conservative positions are united by hate/distrust so not hard to imagine the language will become more aggressive. Some liberals fret over Trump, but I feel more in a way that he'll be a dick to people (which he is). Not that he'll hunt them down and take their stuff like so many conservatives feared Obama would do. The fears of the other side's policies are not the same, so the rhetoric won't be the same.

 

[brandonbull]

It's interesting, because conservative's objection/criticism of liberals is that they're too accepting, and not harsh enough right? "soft on crime/terror. Allow too many immigrants. Poors are scroungers" etc. When the divide, and rallying point, is one group is "too nice" and one is "too mean" the rhetoric is bound to reflect that. So many conservative positions are united by hate/distrust so not hard to imagine the language will become more aggressive. Some liberals fret over Trump, but I feel more in a way that he'll be a dick to people (which he is). Not that he'll hunt them down and take their stuff like so many conservatives feared Obama would do. The fears of the other side's policies are not the same, so the rhetoric won't be the same.

Liberals are only "too accepting" because being so is in direct support of their power attainment goals. They seem to be the last group that truly believes in the notion about a rising tide lifting all the boats.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Liberals are only "too accepting" because being so is in direct support of their power attainment goals. They seem to be the last group that truly believes in the notion about a rising tide lifting all the boats.

See this is the kind of fascinating projecting that says a lot. To a conservative, the idea that someone would actively want to help less fortunate people is so inconceivable that it must be in service of some nefarious plot to attain power!

ps: I'll give you that in the case of the Pope I think you're spot on..

 

[Jhhnn]

Secessionist bullshit from anybody is bullshit. Part of our strength is that we're big and diverse. So when there is any kind of natural or even man made economic disaster in one part of the country we can bring in aid & resources from another. Contrast that with our smaller central American neighbors who start out much poorer. When a hurricane devastates Houston we can recover a helluva a lot more easily than Honduras where the people end up really, really screwed because it devastates the whole country. It's the same with floods, earthquakes, wild fires, whatever.

We haven't played it nearly as well with the man made economic disaster of the Rust Belt & much of small town America, however. We need to recognize that it is, indeed, man made. It's what happens when we let capitalists have their way with us too much & when we afford them the privilege of doing so. We need to recognize that, one way or another, we must use the agency of govt to get more out of them than they'll willingly provide. That's nothing new. It's been that way since the Revolution. It's what democracy is all about.

 

[Starbuck1975]

California and Massachusetts have been successful for a very long time. What standard are you using to say they are fiscally conservative?

California is a boom and bust state. Jerry Brown understands this and has kept Sacramento in check. Its the primary attribute driving his popularity. Massachuestts goes through similar cycles of electing Republican governors to reign in spending, Romney and Baker being two prime examples.

That is a story about the euro, not fiscal conservatism. I would view Germany as a fiscally conservative country though so that is one example.

Not entirely. The nations I mentioned are socialist democratic utopias’s of government spending out of control. The euro simply accelerated the inevitable conclusion.

 

[crashtech]

That's a bit disingenuous. It's not like Libs ran out & bought more guns when Trump was elected or that conservatives haven't been propagandized with the language of hatred for decades.

Imagine how nuts "law abiding gun owners" would be if Hillary had won the same way as Trump.

I mean, figure it out. Who's more accepting of their fellow humans in general?

I take exception to your assertion that I'm being disingenuous. Obviously I can be wrong just like any other fallible human, but there's no basis to assume that my intent is to intentionally mislead. It's not.

Liberals have been fed on a steady diet of class conflict, race conflict, and identity politics in general as long as I can remember. That kind of politicking encourages divisions by its very nature. While in theory liberals are supposed to be accepting, in practice, I don't see it, not anymore. And that's one of the reasons why I can't get onboard.


How America's identity politics went from inclusion to division

But in recent years, whether because of growing strength or growing frustration with the lack of progress, the Left has upped the ante. A shift in tone, rhetoric, and logic has moved identity politics away from inclusion – which had always been the Left’s watchword – toward exclusion and division. As a result, many on the left have turned against universalist rhetoric (for example, All Lives Matter), viewing it as an attempt to erase the specificity of the experience and oppression of historically marginalized minorities.

 

[brandonbull]

See this is the kind of fascinating projecting that says a lot. To a conservative, the idea that someone would actively want to help less fortunate people is so inconceivable that it must be in service of some nefarious plot to attain power!

ps: I'll give you that in the case of the Pope I think you're spot on..

Since you have zero clue, you should move along. No where in my posting did I say that less fortunate people shouldn't be helped. Is that's why large religious conservative organizations don't operate charities? If Liberals truly wanted to make the world a better place, they would be marching for important thing like not having toxic chemical laden foods and water or forming healthy lifestyle habits but rather march for some SJW cause that only affect a same percentage of the population.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Since you have zero clue, you should move along. No where in my posting did I say that less fortunate people shouldn't be helped. Is that's why large religious conservative organizations don't operate charities? If Liberals truly wanted to make the world a better place, they would be marching for important thing like not having toxic chemical laden foods and water or forming healthy lifestyle habits but rather march for some SJW cause that only affect a same percentage of the population.

Why is it one or the other?

ps: and I will say, toxic food you can avoid on your own. Being shot by police or not having equal rights is a bit harder for individuals to deal with

 

[Sunburn74]

Perhaps then you can explain why the success of those "highly liberal governance models" are so variable? For every Norway (assisted with their oil wealth) success story you have an Iceland which got crushed or a Finland which has been a basket case for years. It's easy to trumpet your preferred governing model when you cherry pick the examples you use of its outcomes in the real world. For every San Francisco or Denmark you can point out as success stories I can likewise point out a Greece or Detroit that's a dogs breakfast.

You're comparing Finland to A+ economies. Even more so most of the the A+ economies that you're holding up as examples that prove that Finland is a failure of liberalism are extremely liberal themselves. In fact pretty much all the countries except the US in your example are extremely liberal. Your image there basically says hey most liberal countries (they have a line that represents all euro countries combined) are booming except for Finland.

 

[Jhhnn]

I take exception to your assertion that I'm being disingenuous. Obviously I can be wrong just like any other fallible human, but there's no basis to assume that my intent is to intentionally mislead. It's not.

Liberals have been fed on a steady diet of class conflict, race conflict, and identity politics in general as long as I can remember. That kind of politicking encourages divisions by its very nature. While in theory liberals are supposed to be accepting, in practice, I don't see it, not anymore. And that's one of the reasons why I can't get onboard.


How America's identity politics went from inclusion to division

I think you believe too much of what conservative media tells you to believe about libs. I also think that you & conservatives in general grant privilege to Capital that's counterproductive to the general welfare. We demand too little of them to thrive, particularly through the Rust Belt & much of small town America. When they broke the partnership between Capital & Labor forged in the New Deal we failed to seek just compensation the only way we can through taxes & redistribution.

Instead of that we vote for the GOP, for massive tax cuts at the top financed with money borrowed on uncle Sam's account because freedom, or something.

 

[Muse]

I'm sure it's been mentioned but the obvious thing is that the liberal portions of the country are particularly coastal and populous. The red portions are interior by and large and rural. Geographically (which is always a huge factor in what makes up a nation) it wouldn't seem to work.

 

[glenn1]

You're comparing Finland to A+ economies. Even more so most of the the A+ economies that you're holding up as examples that prove that Finland is a failure of liberalism are extremely liberal themselves. In fact pretty much all the countries except the US in your example are extremely liberal. Your image there basically says hey most liberal countries (they have a line that represents all euro countries combined) are booming except for Finland.

Because it was a couple of examples and not meant to be an exhaustive list. The basic story remains the same once larger sets are examined, the level of "highly liberal governance model" seems to have less to do with actual success than other factors and there's a wide range of outcomes with governments which would be considered to be "in" that model and governments "out" of that model. That was my entire point, for every "Sweden success story" you have a counterexample of a "Greece failure story." Likewise for governments who would in no way be considered to have "highly liberal governance models;" there are failed countries like Afganistan and successes like Turkey. Even considering a relatively small set like "the social-welfare Nordic states" you have variation from good (Norway, Denmark) to bad (Finland and Iceland). If you're going to excuse away the failure examples by handwaving them away ("well they just had Nokia go down so they don't count") then the other side can handwave away your successes (Norway doesn't count because of their oil wealth, Germany doesn't count because they are exploiting less developed EU states with their would-be inflation-adjusted currency exchange rate being undervalued by 5-15 percent).

 

[dainthomas]

Because it was a couple of examples and not meant to be an exhaustive list. The basic story remains the same once larger sets are examined, the level of "highly liberal governance model" seems to have less to do with actual success than other factors and there's a wide range of outcomes with governments which would be considered to be "in" that model and governments "out" of that model. That was my entire point, for every "Sweden success story" you have a counterexample of a "Greece failure story." Likewise for governments who would in no way be considered to have "highly liberal governance models;" there are failed countries like Afganistan and successes like Turkey. Even considering a relatively small set like "the social-welfare Nordic states" you have variation from good (Norway, Denmark) to bad (Finland and Iceland). If you're going to excuse away the failure examples by handwaving them away ("well they just had Nokia go down so they don't count") then the other side can handwave away your successes (Norway doesn't count because of their oil wealth, Germany doesn't count because they are exploiting less developed EU states with their would-be inflation-adjusted currency exchange rate being undervalued by 5-15 percent).

Nearly every country on your first graph has higher social services, higher growth, or both. What was your point again?

 

[pcgeek11]

I got no skin in this game 'cuz I'm stuck out here on this rock in the middle of the whole Pacific Ocean so you guys divvy up all you want and I'll pull up my trusty beach chair, stock up the cooler with the green bottles, dock it next to me and spectate over the carnage.

Aloooooooohaaa!

That is what you think. I'm pretty sure it would have an effect on Hawaii also.

 

[Thunder 57]

Really? How pathetic. Yet, probably for the best, because you have nothing to say to me or think about me that isn't just a script you've unwittingly learned to regurgitate on demand. This is how enemies are made, categorize, demonize, neutralize, euthanize.

Even though you know about .0001% about me. Kinda scary, really.

Perfect example of a groupthink tard right there. God forbid they hear opinions that they don't like. I never put people on ignore unless they are spamming or trolling. I might think a lot what people think is assbackwards at best but I don't think that silencing them does me any good. I like to hear all opinions and decide for myself. A novel concept these days, it seems.

 

[Sunburn74]

Because it was a couple of examples and not meant to be an exhaustive list. The basic story remains the same once larger sets are examined, the level of "highly liberal governance model" seems to have less to do with actual success than other factors and there's a wide range of outcomes with governments which would be considered to be "in" that model and governments "out" of that model. That was my entire point, for every "Sweden success story" you have a counterexample of a "Greece failure story." Likewise for governments who would in no way be considered to have "highly liberal governance models;" there are failed countries like Afganistan and successes like Turkey. Even considering a relatively small set like "the social-welfare Nordic states" you have variation from good (Norway, Denmark) to bad (Finland and Iceland). If you're going to excuse away the failure examples by handwaving them away ("well they just had Nokia go down so they don't count") then the other side can handwave away your successes (Norway doesn't count because of their oil wealth, Germany doesn't count because they are exploiting less developed EU states with their would-be inflation-adjusted currency exchange rate being undervalued by 5-15 percent).

Lots of issues with your data there. I don't want to sidetrack this discussion but lots of issues.
1. First the cutoffs of 47% vs 37%. That's pretty silly and arbitrary as a way to describe liberalism. Also its not like these governments fix their spending at certain cutoffs; spending fluctuates. Also its not like liberalism/socialism is defined by arbitrary spending amounts or proportions either. You can have say a healthcare system that gives complete and free care to everyone but doesn't spend much because no one gets access to expensive stuff. In other words, spending intent, actual spending, spending fluctuation are all major factors and each country can have regulation that seriously affects these factors.
2. Percent of government spending is affected by total society GDP and ultimately what the government chooses to tax and bring in (its a ratio). US government spending percentage will always tend to be lower than other countries in part because our total GDP tends to generally be higher than everyone else's (we are an economic powerhouse). its similar to say percent of disposable income a rich man spends on housing. You can't compare an executive of a fortune company to say an average guy in england.
3. The countries involved are a very small sliver of countries. The sample size of this analysis is basically 10 very different countries, particularly the (low spending countries)
4. GDP growth isn't the be all end all to economic measures and is a highly relative measure and difficult to compare across countries; in fact you shouldn't even try to compare across countries. No one thinks of ireland as an economic powerhouse because of 6.8% growth. I think if you look at the GDP growth of say vietnam for example between just 2008 and 2016 (a similar 12 year span) they have had >100% GDP growth in that time (in many years experiencing 8% growth). Again, no one thinks of vietnam as a powerhouse. The number is inflated because if you have nothing, even a small absolute increase results in a huge percentage increase
5. Also just ask yourself: is south korea's government more conservative than the US? Is australia's government as conservative as the US?


Ultimately I think what we're all dancing around it the philosophical/theoretical question of what is the best way to objectively judge the success of a government?

 

[pmv]

Perhaps then you can explain why the success of those "highly liberal governance models" are so variable? For every Norway (assisted with their oil wealth) success story you have an Iceland which got crushed or a Finland which has been a basket case for years. It's easy to trumpet your preferred governing model when you cherry pick the examples you use of its outcomes in the real world. For every San Francisco or Denmark you can point out as success stories I can likewise point out a Greece or Detroit that's a dogs breakfast.

I have no clue about Finland (and I'm not convinced anything works in the end, when it comes to economics, nobody knows anything), but Iceland is an odd example to cite. As I understand it Iceland has always had quite distinctive politics - namely, a freebooting, risk-taking, pro-free-market party, dominated by men, and a green, caring-sharing social-liberal party that is more supported by women. Something to do with how the men were traditionally away as sea fishing and taking risks against the elements, while the women stayed at home and ran the country. Plus the population is tiny and they are all related to each other. Everybody knows someone who knows Bjork, apparently.

Most pertinently I gather it was the free-market, economic-liberal party that crashed the country's economy by getting so enthusiastic about casino-style banking and allowing absurd risks in the financial sector. So not sure how that's a condemnation of 'liberalism', unless you mean it in the economic sense, i.e. the right. Deregulating the banks is not generally a 'leftist' policy.

 

[glenn1]

I have no clue about Finland (and I'm not convinced anything works in the end, when it comes to economics, nobody knows anything), but Iceland is an odd example to cite. As I understand it Iceland has always had quite distinctive politics - namely, a freebooting, risk-taking, pro-free-market party, dominated by men, and a green, caring-sharing social-liberal party that is more supported by women. Something to do with how the men were traditionally away as sea fishing and taking risks against the elements, while the women stayed at home and ran the country. Plus the population is tiny and they are all related to each other. Everybody knows someone who knows Bjork, apparently.

Most pertinently I gather it was the free-market, economic-liberal party that crashed the country's economy by getting so enthusiastic about casino-style banking and allowing absurd risks in the financial sector. So not sure how that's a condemnation of 'liberalism', unless you mean it in the economic sense, i.e. the right. Deregulating the banks is not generally a 'leftist' policy.

It’s not “condemning liberalism” but rather disputing it’s the primary causal factor for making “most economically successful” countries. Heck it doesn’t even appear to be a uniformly present characteristic of them. You have extremely “successful” and illiberal countries like Saudi Arabia and liberal governments that are near failed states. It’s a sophism passed off as a self-evident truth like “democracy is the best form of government” without any real explanation or thought why that would be so, then simply pointing to the U.S. and EU and saying “See that’s why democracy is the best!”

What seems more reasonable to say is that political liberalism is a typical byproduct of successful nations and not its cause. It’s a luxury good like environmentalism that to execute successfully requires numerous preconditions to exist like rule of law, civil society, low corruption, high social cohesion, etc. Otherwise “liberalism” and high levels of social welfare are just the cover story for a new brand of lootocracy like China or Venezuela.

 

[brianmanahan]

i see someone else has finally arrived to the same conclusion as me; pro-trumpers and anti-trumpers cannot coexist.

yeah that's a good synopsis, there probably hasn't been a more controversial elected politician, at least that i know of

i guess we'll see whether this is an absolute or local maximum after the next election

 

[glenn1]

yeah that's a good synopsis, there probably hasn't been a more controversial elected politician, at least that i know of

i guess we'll see whether this is an absolute or local maximum after the next election

Well we know Trump isn't going to change for the better, so that leave the Democratic candidate as the relevant value for whether our next election is an improvement over the IMHO worst ever choice in 2016.. I'm guessing the Dems won't press their luck with a super leftist candidate because they will prioritize beating Trump over policy purity. Someone like a Tim Kaine, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar would seem like the second coming of Winston Churchill next to Trump. Even Corey Booker would probably be a winnable candidate although the margins would probably be closer than the earlier set. All bets are off if the Dems nominate someone who will seem like they too want to completely upend the political order rather than establish the pre-Trump norms, someone like Elizabeth Warren or a retread like Jerry Brown. And god help them if they nominate Hillary again, I don't think any party is that stupid.

 

[trenchfoot]

That is what you think. I'm pretty sure it would have an effect on Hawaii also.

Agreed. Just thought I'd make a gesture at being the self-deprecating kind of guy I am in reference to how I feel so left out of the action from having 2k+ miles of ocean between me and the west coast.