5 November 2004
Dividing Up the States
 |
 |
 |
 |
With all this talk on the web lately of the Northeast, the West Coast, or even the upper Midwest seceding from the Union, I have to point out that I suggested this months ago. I actually think it would be a good idea in the long run, not just for electoral politics and maintaining cultural distinctiveness, but in terms of representation and good government (smaller districts and legislatures). The world could certainly use one less "superpower". Here's the gist of it:
The Pacific: These states share a common lean toward the left (except for Alaska) as well as cultural and economic ties to their Pacific counterparts in Asia. California would probably have to be split into two or three states to avoid it dominating the others... which is something many Californians want to do anyways. San Francisco would make a nice capital for Pacifica. (Top-level country domain: .PC)
The Mountains and the Plains: These states share the heritage of The West, which survives to this day in its fierce distrust of a Washington that wants to take away their guns and regulate their land. This way they wouldn't have to contend with that. Texas would be an obvious center of power due to its population, but represenatives from the other more sparsely-populated states would still outnumber Texans. Probably better to put the capital of the Free States of America in, say Pueblo, Colorado. (Top-level country domain: .FS)
The Great Lakes: The shipping lanes of the Lakes and the Ohio/Missisippi Rivers historically tied these Midwestern states together, and they share a centrist approach to politics, with a few of them being chronic "battleground" states between the two major parties. No single state would dominate the others population-wise, so it could continue this tradition of compromise between them. Chicago would be an obvious capital for Heartland. (Top-level country domain: .HL)
The Northeast: A haven for "intellectual elites", they could follow their socialist and libertarian muses without the South and Mountain/Plains folks holding them back. New York was always the most logical choice for a national capital, but it didn't happen for geopolitical reasons, so let's establish Manhattan (or maybe all five boroughs) as a new capital and federal district (with voting rights). By taking NYC itself out of NY, that'd help keep the state from dominating the New America legislature. (Top-level country domain: .NW)
The South: The membership of this nation doesn't match up exactly with the original Confederacy (I omitted Texas, and added the then-disputed border states of Kentucky and Maryland, and yes even the District of Columbia) but it captures "the South". Overall very socially conservative. I think they even have a flag ready. Although the city of Washington would be part of this nation, it might be best to dissolve the District of Columbia into Maryland, and put the capital in Atlanta (rather than Montgomery or Richmond) to establish that the Dixie Confederation isn't your great-grand-pappy's confederacy. (Top-level country domain: .DX)
Note that I carefully avoided using red or blue for any of the states. {smile}
There was a bit of debate in the comments of that article about whether to include Maryland and DC in New America or the Dixie Confederation. I changed my mind, but I'm thinking now that my first instinct was correct, and they should go with the Northeast. Maybe we'd get more cohesive results by redrawing some state lines as well. And I skipped the whole question of whether certain states with a history of independence (e.g. Hawaii, Texas) should revert to that. But I think the basic concept is good. Another four years of the current "culture wars" and another electoral disaster in 2008, and maybe it could happen. I think it should.
# 2004-11-05 08:11 AM | TrackBackI completely agree. Kerry states could get away from the massive federal deficit and become part of Canada!
Posted by: evictregime at November 6, 2004 11:31 PMI actually believe that Maryland should be placed with the northeast states. I am from MD originally and I know the temperature there is much closer to NE belefs than southern beliefs.
Posted by: Dop at November 23, 2004 12:30 PMI agree. Both MD and DC should be with the Northeast States. DC has a long history of being Democratic, as does MD (even though a republican governor got in there last time, thank you very much Ms. Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend and your "I have this in the bag" ennui.)
I live in DC where we voted 90% for Kerry, yet still were made to dip into our Homeland Security Funds to pay for W's cor-... er I mean inauguration, by Congress. Not only did we not vote for him, we had to pay for his party.
Posted by: Dop at February 7, 2005 01:04 PM
