I am not here to analyze the results of our nomination process. Perhaps I will, because it deserves its own long post, but it would be an unwanted tangent here. I am, however, going to talk about the consequences as I see them.
I was stunned, as I believe were many others, to hear Ann Coulter state on Fox's Hannity & Colmes show that if the Republican nomination went to John McCain, she would actively campaign for, and vote for, Hillary Clinton. Nobody was perhaps more stunned than Colmes, which was a delight to see (he should win an argument once in a while, after all, poor guy) but I was pretty bowled over. Her reason? Since 2000, Hillary has actually been more conservative than McCain.
That is for someone with a better tracking service to claim. I do not know their exact voting records, I only know that almost everyone I read or listen to, the people I have spent years cultivating as not only correct, but sharing the views and opinions I do, and then backing everything up with facts and history, are against John McCain. Whether or not, prior to 2000, he was the model of a good conservative, since roughly that time, his voting record appears to mirror Joe Lieberman. Now, I like Senator Lieberman, he is right on the War on Terror, but that's where he and I stop agreeing. Same with John McCain. And if that makes him less conservative than Hillary, I will be stunned. I could not vote for her, but I'm not Ann Coulter either.
As of this moment, the race is not over. In fact, it looks like most of the remaining states are more likely to go with Romney than McCain, but there is a spoiler (my least favorite of the lot) in Mike Huckabee. I look forward and I see, now that my hopes were pinned (desperately and falsely) on California (which has disappointed me more times than I can count) that we are likely to get to the Republican convention without a clear winner. We will have three strong runners. McCain and Romney close for first place, and Huckabee a distant third. In that scenario I see my nightmare ticket emerging: McCain/Huckabee, as Huckabee is asked to become McCain's V.P. in return for all those votes.
My only hope at that point is Obama. I could not vote for him, but so long as there is an end to the Clintons, I have hope for this country. Faint, fleeting, nauseating hope based on the almost impossible dream that McCain will return to the conservative values he used to support, but better hope than if Hillary is elected.
In any of these cases, I must admit, there is another option. One that has been tried before, but with less success - and less support - than I believe there would be now. The idea came to me as I read a prominent thinker of our time - a man I believe is optimistic, conservative, realistic, and a very serious potential for President himself - asserted that he felt the United States had a less than even chance for survival. I did not read if he gave a time table, or even a proposed method to its demise, but it got me to thinking, just how would the United States be un-done?
I discard the scenario of an outside threat. There is no better way to make 92% of this country conservative than to attack us. Witness 9/11. Argue all you want, history is on my side.
I discard the concept of a coup, but only so much. We saw a recent coup in Thailand, but with the size of this country, its importance in the world, and the spotlight upon us, I do not see a coup as having the necessary darkness or swiftness required. Too many of us would turn against the military if it tried to seize power, and as the military is all volunteer, and comprised of the best of us, I find this scenario far-fetched (but not impossible).
I am left with the idea that it would be a continuation of the slow draining of our power and ability to survive through the enactment of socialist/communist policies. I do not believe this would work quite the way expected however. This is why:
The policies of socialists are paid for by conservatives. Soon enough they are going to push too hard, and take too much, and there will be a parting of the ways. This will not be a street-by-street war for control of our country (and a good thing for them, too, as we're the ones with the guns) but I believe it would be a bloodless War Between the States.
We are in a classic struggle between federal and state power. Policies which have been rejected time and again at state levels (because they have not been as clever at hiding the price tags) are being tried at the federal level. People have a dangerous perception that state money comes from their pocket, but federal money comes from someone else's pocket.
There are states that believe in growing the private sector, and states that believe in growing government. They are clustered, with only a few states out of place. Look at any county-by-county voting chart. The so-called "sea of red".
Fred Thompson, and Rudy Guiliani (I never learned to spell his name right, even though I liked him), both spoke of Federalism. This concept, despite the fact that it has the world federal right in the name, is that the states have more control over their own laws and destinies. This allows the ultimate vote for our people: voting with your feet. If you don't like the laws where you are, you can stay in your country yet move to a different state with laws you do find more to your liking.
I do not believe this would be a Mason-Dixon line split, but I could very easily see the entire southeast, most of the heartland, right up through Montana, and including Alaska forming a new (if you'll forgive the word) confederation. The individual states would never survive if we attempted to split into 50 or so countries. But a big split like that?
I believe I could see the dissolution of the United States of America, and the emergence (not unlike Pakistan and India) of two countries. Why do I believe it would be largely bloodless? I think there would be a lot of people to argue against it, and I'm not entirely sure I support the idea of a separation, but quite frankly I wouldn't cry big tears to see liberal states try to make it on their own, and I am convinced people in Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Wisconson, New York an the like would just love to see states like Oklahoma, Nebraska, Utah, Alabama, Mississippi, and especially Texas leave the union. They have been conditioned to hate us, for all the wrong reasons, largely in order to hide their dependence on places that actually produce, and encourage, commerce and capitalism.
As for us, imagine what we could accomplish if we cut away the dead weight?
Judge your responses to this idea. If you're angry at this thought, it's because you have automatically assumed you're being called dead weight - you have a (reasonable) fear that perhaps you really are. If you're afraid of what I have written, fearful that it just might happen, you are the ones who have to conquer that fear and keep it from happening. Unfortunately the road is long and hard and requires a lot of effort - you have to learn (through easily found facts and history) what policies are going to actually hurt us as a nation even if they sound like they're going to help individual people. If you're intrigued, or even excited by what I have written, God help us both. And keep your powder dry.
Post-Script: The man whose writings I read that led me down this path is, coincidentally, a man I think might be able to avoid this disaster. I have not read his book, but plan to. Newt Gingrich.
