Geographic Divide

The good news is that it seems that this national divide is largely geographic in nature. We have large pockets of urban liberals in conservative regions throughout the country, but clearly we can identify conservative states from those under lunatic leftist control. We can see fairly clearly which parts of the country want a Marxist state and which follow the founding fathers of this country. Why not try to make more of us happy rather than continually changing our national policy from liberal to conservative every few voting cycles, making half of us crazy all the time? One side implements as much permanent change as they possibly can when they can because they know the pendulum is only a few years away from another ideological swing. When the other side takes control, they try to undo what they can, and implement their own agenda.

Much like a typical divorce, there are always some on the other spouse’s family who “side with the enemy”. Some living in liberal states are conservative, most notably in the bigest and most corrupt cities, and may not like this idea, but if they truly want happiness they will move to a more palatable political environment for themselves and their families – just as divorced husbands and wives would. Some in conservative land would feel the same – they too would be welcome to move to where like-thinking people are living.

In the absence of implementing the Plan A suggested later, in order to survive we should be divided into two separate, sovereign nations. The left can follow the path of the European Union nations. They can institute as much global warming / climate change regulation through legislation as they wish; they can have as much welfare and entitlement programs as they want, and offer free health care for all. They can impose Cap and Trade legislation to ensure their air is clean (or at least that they collect more tax for redistribution for the pollution of producers), and card check to ensure unions prosper at the expense of the consumer. They can ignore illegal immigration all they want. They can employ any taxation at any level they deem appropriate for the kind of government they want. They can enact Muslim Sharia law if that is what they want to do.

The other sovereign nation can have less government, lower taxes, and less regulation. They can require their citizens be responsible for themselves and not be allowed access to government assistance except in only the most dire of circumstance – if at all. They can ignore the United Nations and defend their own, on their own. They can deal with illegal immigration how they deem reasonable. – And they can tax how they believe appropriate, and produce intelligently without paying the government a fee at every turn.

Conservatives will never be happy with a nation that punishes success. That is the way we look at taxation, it penalizes those who are profitable, and rewards those who are not. We believe the more an activity is punished, the less of it we will have. The more it is rewarded, the more we will have. We will reward production, not indolence. We know there has to be some tax, but we know there can be a much better system.

Liberals may never be happy allowing successful individuals to be left on their own to determine what to do with their earnings. They believe they know better how wealth should be distributed. The only reason anyone earned as much as they did was because of their intelligent centrally planned economic policies, and so therefore should dictate how and where the collective economic rewards are to be rationed.

It isn’t enough that we try to agree on only some issues. There may not be enough common ground anymore, and so it may be time for drastic measures. We can’t tolerate every time there is a leadership change that half must submit to a government of which we do not approve and to follow where we do not want to go. We have irreconcilable differences and we both may be happier if we permanently secede from each other.

If we can’t regain our past sanity, progressives should divorce conservatives. First there has to be a division of property. Korea did it, North and South Korea. Vietnam did it; Germany had its East and West, the Soviet Union separated into 15 independent states as recently as 1991. We will do this differently, peacefully. I suggest that the United States be separated into two distinct and sovereign nations. We won’t fight with each other anymore, unless we go to war. It will be much better for the children when the adults don’t quibble over how to run the household.


The Socialist States of America (SSA)

Had considered naming this portion "American Socialist State - Home of Liberal Elite Statists" - but that acronym was not what I am going for here. So we call if SSA.

What is now the continental United States will be divided into two separate and distinct land masses. I had thought of The American Socialist States but decided that particular acronym, was beneath my creative intellect. SSA will be in the shape of an irregular upside-down “U” covering the entire Canadian boarder on the north; in the east it will contain all the states south to Washington DC, and on the west coast the three liberal states of Washington, Oregon, and California. Some states in the middle not bordering Canada may be negotiated. Progressives get Hawaii.


The United Independent States of America (UISA)

The breadbasket and south will be conservative land, called the United Independent States of America.

Kind of an oxymoron, united yet independent? This is the way we want it. We united in agreement for a small federal government with power concentrated at the state and local levels and with the people. We are independent for most other laws and regulations. This will consist of the remainder of the states. The south from Virginia to Florida, over through Texas and Arizona and up through the breadbasket and also Alaska.  

The UISA will likely dust off the old U.S. Constitution if we can find it and put it back into full practice, with a modification here or there about taxation and national term limits, but by and large the U.S. Constitution will be our law.

The SSA will probably use the Manifesto of the Communist Party or something similar as their guide. The redistribution mantra “From each with ability to those in need” can be printed on their national boarder signs if they like. They can pull for one another and reallocate wealth however they deem beneficial to the state. But they can no longer take it from us.

Each nation will be sovereign unto itself. Have its own laws, own courts, its own tax structure, military, business and environmental regulations, even its own currency. Initially, we split the money equally.

Splitting the Debt

Like the separation in a failed marriage, this latest disaster of massively incurred debt, will have to be split somehow. Unfortunately, this includes failed spendibus packages, national debt, and federal unfunded pension liabilities. I hear you conservatives, “We never wanted big government, stimulus packages, or million dollar pensions for ordinary government workers - we didn’t sign on to that!” – But we were married to those who did and so it is also our responsibility. Like the spending spouse who is discovered to have $100K in credit card debt at divorce disclosure, the other spouse must share in responsibility and liability for that debt. It is irrelevant if it was opposed every step of the way, or even is it was unknown to the other spouse.

Look at the bright side. Conservatives can institute their own regulations; improve their economy, welcome business without liberal policy interference. They could implement the Fair Tax and have all this debt paid off in no time at all because their government would be much smaller, leaner and more efficient.

Liberals could hug trees, drink cappuccino, sing kumbaya and dictate policy to their minions without conservatives telling them they should work for a living. They could refuse all efforts to drill oil within their boarders without upsetting capitalists, but they could not interfere with us anymore.

They could legislate windfall profits taxes and punish production and encourage dependency in any way they wish. They can regulate emission controls, force those squiggly mercury polluted light bulbs, and even control home thermostats within their boundaries from a central location.

They could raise taxes as much as they wanted on the rich (until they decided to move to our free nation) and buy as many votes as they wanted with entitlement programs without as much as a “hey, wait a minute” from the conservative opposition because we wouldn’t care.

Some would be saddened by the splitting of a great nation that covers from sea to shining sea. I would be one of them, but in a divorce, we have to cut loose some of the assets we had counted on before to regain the life we intended. This may be the only way to save us. Sometimes the malignant growth must be removed to save the patient. They can each look at other as that incurable tumor, and move on in peace.

With the producers likely moving to the freedom of the UISA, the SSA won’t have as much money to distribute, and the citizens will rise up or smarten up. The government will have to inflate their economy, charge foreign tariffs, and borrow money from us to meet their government mandated payroll and expenses. Soon after we lend money to the SSA and they can’t pay, we foreclose and take our nation back. Since the newly acquired states and the people within them are not citizens of UISA, they can’t vote in our elections.

If we can no longer live together in harmony there is a solution. If we remain married to the left, we could lose it all. Half a loaf is better than none. Since we can’t agree to live together peacefully, why not a separate agreement? It has been done before.

King Solomon would likely make divorce his Plan A, but let’s have more faith. First we should try mediation, maybe with the proper arguments we can politically regress to where we were when we were prosperous happy and free. Maybe we can somehow come to reasonable conclusions again.

If the following primary proposals can’t work, there is always the Plan B outlined above – can’t have a Plan A with out one.

Suggestions First

We’ve seen what our progressive government can be expected to do about the problems so deep rooted in our national economy which very likely could be bankrupted soon. We have been going down the same road for many decades now, and it is time to reverse course. The liberal mind would cringe at the word “Regressivism” as a national policy, which is probably why so many conservatives seem to like the term. The reality is that we were better off before, the past was better. Everyone knows it; let’s admit it and just get back to it. There are 5 major changes that must be employed to bring us back to prosperity. Each is detailed and if you follow along, you will find that nothing is new, which is why this is called “Regressivism”. “Enlightened Regressivism” means that there are some of us truly progressive enough in thought to realize that many of the past ideas which took human nature into account were far superior. The attribute of enlightened self-interest is better for the individual and also for society as a whole.

I am not the first to coin the term “Regressivism”, but since it is not copy written, let others write their own book.

We all want to go forward, so “regressive” is a hard idea to embrace – unless we qualify it with “Enlightened”. Some might consider it insulting to be known as a “Regressive”, but an “Enlightened Regressive”, - OK, then - that’s different. An intelligent conservative who realizes many of the ideas of the past were better because they were based on good old fashioned common sense which is sadly lacking today.

We have to admit that we can no longer afford the luxury of appearances. We are not speaking of technology or innovation here, we are discussing values, common sense and human nature which do not change over time. Principles were more honorable in the past and we were more financially successful using common sense and understanding human nature rather than dreaming about a fictitious utopia and pulling at romantic heart strings.

A favorite teaching expression many instructors of judo use when describing a particular technique is: “It is so old it is new” – meaning, that it has worked in the past, players got away from it for whatever reason, and now it is new and surprising again – and it works – again – like it always did.

Before we get into the five main regressive principles we will need to avoid a national divorce, let’s go over some ideas we really should consider implementing immediately. These simple suggestions can help to bring us back to sanity. I call these mini-mandates; not because they are unimportant, but because they are not as inflexible as the changes proposed later. These recommendations are based on ordinary common sense, the kind that is not so common in congress anymore.

Most of the following recommendation can be accomplished with a little help from your friends locally. This is where the battle starts. If you like what you are about to read, bring some of them up at your local town meetings. Lets take our freedom back.

Next: Initial Proclamations