OT: Red States vs. Blue States (satire)

I want to preface this - its done tongue planted firmly in cheek, and if you have the energy to read the whole thing, you’re a better person than me. Like most satire, there is a grain of truth in it, blown up for polemic’s sake.

Political commentators have been noting lately that the great unknown, the moderate undecided voter, may be well on his/her way to disappearing, as both parties gear up to focus on making sure party loyalists show up to vote. This profound schism is hardening, creating a meaningful gap between large groups of people as to the future of the nation. This leads one to believe that the closeness of the 2000 election and the forecasted closeness of the 2004 election are no accident.

With this in mind, in the vein of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, I would like to offer one solution.

Seeing as how the Blue states run more or less contiguously from the Northeast, across the northern Midwest (with a couple of exceptions), and down the entire Pacific coast, perhaps the best solution to this political fracture is the formation of 2 countries, Kramerica (Blue America) and Newmerica (Red America), with different core values and views of the future. For instance:

In Blue America we believe:

· That as part of the international community and alliances, we need our friends to engage in momentous acts such as war and that these alliances and forums exist for the precise reason of avoiding another world war

· That as the model democracy for the world, we must act in both our interests and the interests of the world-at-large, in order to ensure that as a country we are admired and copied, not feared and loathed.

· That as citizens under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we have fundamental rights to privacy and habeas corpus, so the government cannot invade our privacy or take us into custody without declared just cause and due process.

· That the environment is a fragile resource and must be preserved at all reasonable costs – that the progress under the Clean Air Act cannot be allowed to be diluted by things such as new source review in order to allow loopholes for polluters to further push sulfur and other pollutants into the air, hurting many nearby inhabitants, who, not coincidentally, are not executives of said companies.

· That energy conservation and renewable energy are not imperatives for some time in the future – they must be investigated now or we may find ourselves between a rock and a hard place when we least expect it.

· That a woman has a right to choose.

· That the government should remain absolutely secular. Not only should we have freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. Only in this way can people be free to celebrate the religion of their choice, without undue influences.

· That science and evolution shall be taught in our schools, not pseudoscience mixed with parochial faiths. Knowledge is coin of the realm, not a religious agenda masquerading as such.

· That business is a key force for wealth and productivity. However, that does mean that it overrides other basic interests, such as the environment and the basic rights of workers to organize. Businesses shall be regulated to insure that they do not produce dangerous or misleading products and claims and do not exploit workers or pollute the environment at taxpayer expense.

· That in this vein, free-trade is a basic force for productivity, but that it is crucial that free-trade make sense. That is, that we are not simply importing from nations with low wages because they allow all sorts of exploitation, pollution, human rights abuses that we would never tolerate here. In this way, it can become a race to the bottom.

· That the tax burden should be fairly distributed from top to bottom, in a progressive system allowing for the diminishing marginal utility of money, but not reducing incentives for production. Tax loopholes enabling the wealthy to avoid paying taxes are fundamentally unfair.

· That democracy should be propagated throughout the world, but cannot be done so at the point of a gun. We cannot hope to invade countries and convert them to our way of our life. History has taught us nothing if not that people like to decide for themselves, ourselves included.

· That the defense of Kramerica is a primary function of the government. We will devote the necessary resources to intelligence gathering, law enforcement, and the maintenance of a standing army in order to protect our interests here and abroad. However, military force will be used carefully, in instances where we have been threatened or attacked, or an ally is in such position. In other instances, such as peacekeeping and the prevention of human rights disasters, we will work with the international community to attack such problems.

· That we strongly encourage all of our citizens to vote, regardless of political affiliation. We believe that it is integral to a vital democracy that its citizens vote.

· That capitalism is the best system we have, but not without its flaws (including but not limited to free-riders, tragedy of the commons, selective enforcement, etc). In a system of winners and losers, while we praise the winners we must also provide a soft landing for losers. In addition, we must continue to provide a level playing field for all competitors and prevent inefficiencies such as monopolies from occurring. The interests of business must also be balanced against the interests of the citizens and the environment.

· That being President of Kramerica is a difficult job, possibly the hardest in the world. It requires somebody of great intelligence, intellectual curiosity, dedication, and ability to evaluate many viewpoints fairly, with an eye towards helping the most people and hurting the fewest, as governing often involves tradeoffs. He/she cannot habitually delegate important decisions to others – the President is the chief executive, and it is with him that the buck stops. And of equal importance, he must receive varying opinions and honest brokering to decide amongst them.

Alternatively, in Red America we believe:

· That the international community is useful to us as long as they agree with what we are doing. Otherwise, they are a bunch of ineffectual nincompoops and frankly, we don’t need them.

· That while we are the model democracy, we act in the interests of our citizens and if that means others are affected negatively, well, perhaps they should have been better competitors.

· That we respect the right to privacy of our citizens, but we reserve the right to randomly monitor communications of anyone we see fit because we may come upon a threat to the government or our citizenry. And as long as we consider you an “enemy combatant” you simply have no rights whatsoever.

· That the environment and everything in it exists to serve man. While the ecosystem is fragile, we believe it has surprising ability to bounce back from what we do to it, and that we will always have the time and technology to fix any damage we render to it. As for those affected by pollution, may we suggest that they take advantage of the free-market system and purchase homes farther away from plants that may or may not be emitting dangerous chemicals.

· That petrochemicals are the cheapest and most short-term economical form of energy available and therefore should be the source of choice. In addition, we should exert our geopolitical influence in any way necessary to insure continuing access to such energy sources.

· That abortion is the murder of a child.

· That Newmerica is a fundamentally Christian nation with Christian values and mores. While we are nation of laws, we believe that the Bible provides our basic bedrock of values and have no compunction about defaulting to it. Those of other religious faiths are free to practice their religion, but not when in conflict with the Bible.

· That a possible explanation for the existence of the universe is intelligent design by a superior being, or creationism. We strongly believe this is a possibility and therefore it is taught alongside other competing theories.

· That the regulation of business is a fundamentally unnecessary and inefficient activity. The free market will regulate whether good companies survive and prosper and bad companies fail. The interests of workers and environment will be supported only to the extent they are valued by the free market.

· Trade should remain essentially unencumbered, unless of course one of our core constituents feels threatened by a foreign competitor, or there are retaliatory tariffs. We should take advantage of the fact that the rest of the world produces many goods for much cheaper than we can.

· That the tax system should allow those at top more leeway, as they provide the investment capital to employ those at the bottom. Whether or not this encourages the creation of an aristocratic class with permanent influence is not a concern.

· That as the preeminent military power in the world, we can and therefore should, with or without the support of others, attack and defeat dictators and other enemies throughout the world. Once defeated, democracy will spring up like a rose in fertile ground. Those threatened by our use of military force should be well-warned not to threaten our interests, military and economic.

· That we defend our country forcefully and without apology. We will use military force when we deem necessary, without consultation with our putative allies if necessary.

· That we encourage our citizens to vote, although we condone the tactics of various political parties to suppress opposing voters. We also encourage the labeling of those who oppose the incumbents to be supporters of our foreign enemies. We believe the free market will allow citizens to sort out the truth from the less-than-truthful.

· That capitalism is simply the best system, without reservation, and designed to function without barriers. The interests of business simply will serve everybody well.

· That the role of President can be a team project staffed by people of a single viewpoint. Allowing for multiple viewpoints and subtle, nuanced views of the world is simply a waste of time. Hence, whether or not the President makes every decision is unimportant – what is important is that he remains a symbol of resolve and strength.

Ha Ha, I love it! That plan is fine with me, of course I’m a blue stater. It would be interesting to see which nation went to shit first if this really happened.

I’m livin’ in the wrong place.

What, NJ, or the Pinelands? I’m sure NJ as a whole is one of the blue states, but you Pineys are a breed unto yourselves. I might’ve moved there myself if they allowed newcomers.

This is not so much satire as just a simple attack on conservatives in specific and southerners in general. It belongs on a political discussion page and not on slowtwitch.

It would have been a lot funnier if it had played upon the fallacies in both points of view.

The Pinelands? Isn’t that where the Jersey Devil is supposed to be? That’s what they taught me in school, anyway.

I’d like to make the subtle differentiation between conservatives and the Republican party as currently constituted.

I have no specific problem with conservatism as a political philosophy. What I do have a problem with is how the current-day Republican party practices it in its inimitable take-no-prisoners highly partisan fashion. It’s become the party of attack dogs, having left the notion of principle somewhere behind. That’s why I find Republicans such as John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, and a few others so refreshing. They seem to marry both an interest in principle with a taste for pragmatism which ends up making them rather moderate, which is where I think the truth ends up lying. They’ll call out folks on both sides of the aisle, which I think is admirable, but may end up badly for them come election time.

This heavy partisanship ends up blunting any notion of intellectual debate, which inevitably collapses into a name-calling contest. Frankly, I’m surprised nobody has called me a Communist or Saddam-lover, of which I am neither. Simply, I’m sick of people who raise reasonable points that are well-evidenced being shouted down because that has become an acceptable form of discourse. And I feel that the whole notion of intellectualism has largely disappeared, or gets very short shrift. The last couple of days I’ve watched the President’s former mouthpiece, Karen Hughes, make both vague suggestions about John Kerry’s integrity as well as linking abortion activists with Osama Bin Laden, neither of which has much validity nor forwards the dialogue. I mean really, is there any factual basis to suggest that Kerry didn’t carry himself in anything other than admirable fashion during Vietnam, other than vaporous innuendos?

I don’t consider myself a partisan, although I am a Democrat. While I think Bill Clinton was a largely successful President, there were certainly issues which I disagreed with him on, including some elements of his welfare reform, his lack of action on Rwanda, and his twitchy member. That said, I don’t think he was an ideologue, which I think made him such a successful president. Bush II however seems to be just that, and I think that depending on your persuasion you may perceive him as a man of resolve or as a man who is simply unable to change course and make changes in order to achieve a goal. It all depends.

As for the Republican Party, I think that my general contention is that their policies end up favoring the very few over the very many. From tax policy to environmental policy, it seems very much to favor a relatively small number of people over the general population. On some level it also appears to be cost-shifting private sector liability (for things like pollution control) to public sector taxpayers.

As for southerners, I have nothing strictly against them. They do however manage to be Red States, and under the terms of this parody, if Bush/Republicans are what they want, then they should get them.

I agree that satire is dead, and it’s because the incredible idiocy rampant today has rendered satire superfluous. I mean, really, how would one go about writing a satirical commentary on a society that arrests eight year old boys for playing cops and robbers?

That’s why the only part of Saturday Night Live that’s still funny is the part where they recap the news of the week- the real headlines are way more ridiculous than anything a comedy writer could make up.

You’re right (although I’m not too certain my characterization of the right has many fallacies). I’m not so good at bashing the left, so anybody feel free to take a crack.

Tree-huggers unite!

“The Pinelands? Isn’t that where the Jersey Devil is supposed to be?”

No, that’s where the Jersey Devil *is. *No “supposed to be” about it.

That might explain why I’ve never gone down there.

“I mean, really, how would one go about writing a satirical commentary on a society that arrests eight year old boys for playing cops and robbers?”

Good point. Reminds me of an article I saw recently about various commentators and news organizations that have recently mistaken items in The Onion for factual articles. In our age, truth is often stranger than satire.

My favorite news story, which is certainly beyond almost any comedy writer is the story from last month:

Jessica Simpson is in the White House for some function and gets introduced to Gale Norton, Secretary of the Department of Interior. Upon being notified of this, Simpson says, “Oh I just love how you’ve decorated the White House.”

True story.

What, NJ, or the Pinelands? I’m sure NJ as a whole is one of the blue states, but THOSE Pineys are a “breed” unto THEMselves.

Actually. I believe you CAN substitute the word “species” here.

“What I do have a problem with is how the current-day Republican party practices it in its inimitable take-no-prisoners highly partisan fashion. It’s become the party of attack dogs, having left the notion of principle somewhere behind.”

I am always amused when Democrats start using this line. After all, they are the ones who renamed decreased growth in social spending as “cuts,” they are the ones who trashed the reputations of Supreme Court nominees Bork and Thomas and SECDEF nominee Tower, investigated Secretary of Labor Donovan for years until he was ultimately found not to have done a thing wrong, called most senior citizens in Florida the night before the election and told them Jeb Bush (yes Jeb, not George) was going to take their Social Security away, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I am not trying to start a “he punched me first” argument here–just trying to tell you you need to get real. It happens on both sides of the aisle and has been happening for well over two hundred years in this country. Read your history books about Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton and Burr, if that stuff is still in the history books these days. So grow up and take it like a man. Politics is rough and tumble–it is not for the timid of heart.

Hey, now. Those are some real people out there. My guess is that Texas Tibbs would get along just fine in the NJ Pine Barrens, if he could shut up about Texas for awhile.

Before we were married, my wife and I went on a canoe trip near Chatsworth. We decide, at around 10 am, to stop at a bar out there to get some ice. As we’re waiting for the ice, I see her looking around the joint and taking in the scene: maybe eight or ten folks, all well past their first beer, a couple of deer mounted on the wall, lots of flannel, not as many teeth as you might expect. All eyes on us. My future bride measures her words for a moment, then, loudly, announces, “WHAT A BUNCH OF HICKS!” Just in anyone didn’t hear her, she continued to express her amazement at the “hicks” the entire time I dragged her to the car and sped off as fast as my Dodge Colt would go. For awhile there, I was worried that we would go missing and noone would ever find the bodies.

I do miss the Pinelands sometimes.

I don’t know when the last time you were in the Pinelands but not much has changed. I’m currently just outside of Atlantic City but sometimes it feels like i’m a lot further south. Took a drive out to Millville the other night. You have to love walking into a bar and 30 people turn to look at the “new” guys. Maybe it’s because is till have all my teeth…

That’s what’s so great about the Pinelands- it’s *never *going to change. We get back to NJ every summer for a week or two, since our families still live there. Haven’t been canoeing for awhile, though. . .

And I’m always amused when Republicans try to defend Bork and Thomas, the same Bork who devoted quite a bit of his time to the Arkansas Project (the project funded by Richard Mellon Scaife devoted solely to either digging up or inventing dirt on the Clintons), and the same Thomas, whose description Anita Hill gave was later shown to be true and corroborated.

Now I’m not such a babe in the woods to suggest that politics is anything but a bare-knuckle sport. Hell, just passing legislation is enough of that, much less electoral politics. And Republicans certainly don’t have the market cornered in dirty tricks. Joe Kennedy comes to mind as a ruthless power broker for the left in his time.

That said, at some point a moral line has to be drawn between right and wrong. It has been said of Democrats in the last few years that we simply don’t have the heart to play as dirty as the Republicans. That may very well be true, but I’m only somewhat interested in pyrrhic victories. We’re not the party that used Willie Horton, or John McCain’s imaginary illegitimate black daughter, or outed a CIA spy for political payback, or compared Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Or for that matter whispered that maybe Hillary killed Vince Foster, or now says that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for Osama. At what point do we draw the line? Tucker Carlson said a little while back about Karen Hughes, “…she knew I knew she was lying, but she did it anyway. I’m not sure there’s an English word to describe this, but I think it approaches mental illness.” I thought this was the party that was going to bring dignity back to the White House.

I’m hardly naive. Most people will do what they can get away with. I don’t consider myself one of those people, and it disheartens me that so many of them are in politics. I suppose the final responsibility for mediating this comes down to the citizenry, and I frankly don’t have a lot of faith in them to make the thoughtful decision, especially with a press that has evolved into from truth-seekers to headline hounds. Just because it can be gotten away with doesn’t somehow make it intellectually or morally correct. And call me partisan, but to loosely assign blame to both sides is a bit careless.

So I’m grown up and I understand the game.

I agree with you tri-jeepy, Republicans never seem willing to admit it but George Bush and his cabinet has lied just as much as Clinton did in office, and his lies involved much more then where the president likes to bust a nut. But you haven’t see the Democratic Party launch a massive impeachment campaign to captalize on a presidential lack of morals as the Republican party did. This isn’t to say the democrats don’t sling mud, actually I guess you could say they try and are relatively ineffective at it when compared to the excellent job Republicans do. Although I think the Dems are realizing they need to match Republican ruthlessness if they want to win an election, which is why this is going to be the ugliest most dirty election in history, I can’t wait for it to get good!