600,000 v 40,000,000
It all boils down to the Senate. Trump and Republican legislators are openly planning ways to steal the election.
So now a dark question arises. What will the US’s increasingly progressive majority do if Republican state officials reinstall Trump in the White House, in defiance of the voters? What will they do if that 6-3 court overturns Roe v Wade and bans abortion across the entire country?
Think for a second how that latter situation will have arisen: it is because the Senate picks the judges, and the Senate enshrines minority rule. With two senators per state, tiny Wyoming (population: 600,000) has the same representation as gargantuan California (40 million). On current trends, 70% of Americans will soon have just 30 senators representing them, while the 30% minority will have 70. When it comes to their right to medical treatment or to rid their streets of military-grade assault weapons, the urban, diverse majority are subject to the veto of the rural, white, conservative minority.
Wyoming has fewer people than Seattle. California has more people than a lot of countries – such as Canada for instance.
How long is that sustainable? How long will a woman in, say, California accept the presence of guns and the absence of abortion rights because that’s what a minority of voters in small, over-represented states wants? Serious people are beginning to ask that question. Gary Gerstle, professor of American history at Cambridge University, says he’s found himself reading about countries that once had democracy but lost it – and that he’s doing that “to understand the future of America”.
Two words: not rosy.
Dear Red States:
We’ve decided we’re leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we’re taking the other Blue States with us.
In case you aren’t aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all of the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.
To sum up briefly:
You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Ole’ Miss.
We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition’s, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.
Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we’re going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they’re apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don’t care if you don’t show pictures of their children’s caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we’re not willing to spend our resources in Bush’s Quagmire.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country’s fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation’s fresh fruit, 95 percent of America’s quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Stanford, Cal Tech, MIT, and University of California.
With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we’re discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals than we lefties.
By the way, we’re taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.
Peace out,
California (original source unknown)
Eliot Spitzer? WorldCom? It’s pretty old.
Also, all of the original 13 states, plus a few more, were slave states at one time.
Maybe a silly question, but aren’t many of the policies mentioned in the hands of states? If most Californians want gun control or abortion access, how could Wyoming stop them from getting it?
PD,
Four ways I can think of.
(1) Supreme Court rules that the state law violates the federal Constitution.
(2) A federal law preempts state law
(3) A federal law doesn’t preempt state law, but makes illegal something a state has chosen not to punish.
(4) The feds coerce states to change their laws on a subject. E.g. states get to set their own drinking ages, but did you notice how these 50 “laboratories of democracy” all decided on 21? Because at some point in the 80s, the federal government started withholding federal highway funds from states that have drinking ages lower than 21. This was challenged but upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional.
(2) through (4) may be trickier to pull off because it generally requires Congress to pass a bill, so the GOP would need control of the House as well. But that happens frequently enough that you can hardly ignore it as a possibility.
Gun control laws? See (1) — Violations of the 2nd Amendment (according to the new Court).
Vehicle emission standards or other anti-pollution law? They get option (2) — a new “Environment AND JOBS Protection Act” which explicitly preempts any state laws.
Marijuana is already operating under (3), it’s just that the feds haven’t been aggressively enforcing the federal laws against marijuana. But it’s still on the books, this just requires a policy/enforcement priority change. (I don’t actually think the GOP would bother — they’ve seen the polling numbers on pot.)
Trump is already playing at (4), threatening to withhold federal funds from cities that don’t allow their cops to bash protestors’ heads in. He’ll likely be thwarted now because he has no authority to pick and choose which states get funds that Congress already appropriated for them. But if Congress falls in line that’s no longer a barrier. And of course SCOTUS may just rule that he has “inherent authority” under Article II not to spend funds in “anarchic jurisdictions” or whatever other bullshit they peddle.
The claim that “overturning Roe v. Wade just means abortion becomes a state issue” is a huge lie. I mean, it’s technically literally true, but it assumes that the pro-life movement is just going to decide it doesn’t care about all the BAYBEES being MURDERED in blue states. Does that strike you as likely? Plus, the GOP is going to need to keep the pro-life groups active so that they raise funds and vote in federal elections. So first, it becomes illegal to cross state lines to have an abortion, or to have abortion pills sent through the mail or private interstate carrier. Then, when Congress gets a little more ambitious, it becomes a crime to use any “means or instrumentality of interstate commerce” to perform, fund, or facilitate an abortion. (Hint: that’s just about anything. Try going through your day without using a means or instrumentality of interstate commerce. You’re doing it right now reading this post.) Then, when the GOP needs to rile up the pro-life voters some more, they bring out the Unborn Child Protection Act, exercising Congress’s authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the equal protection clause, by protecting the lives of the unborn, by making it a federal crime and/or a civil rights violation to perform an abortion. And if anyone thinks that the GOP is too dedicated to principles of federalism to do such a thing, look up the “Partial Birth Abortion Act” (or whatever inflammatory name they gave it) and get back to me.
Steven @#1: Superb, vintage stuff. The ‘red-blue’ divide could lead to a future split into 2 nations. (India and Pakistan split on religious lines around 1947. One is now an economic powerhouse, and the other is a basket case.)
Good that the blues get all the redwoods. Reagan’s Secretary for the Interior Whatshisname wanted to strip-mine all the National Parks because Jesus was about to return. The signs were all there!
Only someone must have taken them down.
Meh, I lived in California for 45 years, it sucks ass compared to the South. You can keep it. :)
twiliter, that’s personal preference. I lived in and near the south for a long time, now in the midwest, and am dying to get back to the east coast, but would gladly go to California. I see nothing to like about the south except diverse ecosystems, and one can get those in California. Too hot, only two actual seasons, and the ones missing are my favorites, spring and fall, and too many rednecks. Meh. Give me California if I can’t have Maine.
As for splitting off the US? Very few people – like, less than one half of one percent – of people here in the midwest realize that the blue states are supporting them, that we get more back in taxes than we pay while places like California and New York get less. Because that money comes here…to the midwest, to the south. People here in Nebraska will tell you without irony that they get nothing from the government, and they are tired of all those freeloaders, and they will tell you that while they are at the bank cashing their federal subsidy for agriculture, or working their state job at a state school or other institution paid by the government. Our water treatment plant tours don’t mention even once how they are funded, because they know it would outrage people in this area to hear that they in fact do get something from the government, and it is thanks to the government that towns no longer stink with human excrement, that our water is drinkable, that our lights stay on, and that our roads are built. They think the government employees are leaning on their shovels all day, and they never bother to notice that the road gets built…nor do they notice that their job does not require standing in a hot midwestern sun on hot asphalt all day while assholes in cars zoom by dangerously close, ignoring many of the warning signs, and cuss at them for taking a short break from the labor.
So, yeah, I’m ready. Pack me up and move me to the coast…the northern coast, thank you, not the southern one.
The only places I have been in the whole USA are Steamboat Springs, Colorado (a friend and I went there to ski, all the way from Australia via San Francisco: 2 weeks in all then back home again.) I’d be quite happy living in Steamboat. Also Alaska. Also Scranton, Penn; home of Joe Biden; also NYC, where my grandfather had a theatre in Greenwich Village and helped a young then-unknown playwright by the name of Eugene O’Neill get started on his career.
But I found Canada more agreeable, as Jane Austen might say. Florida sounds OK, as long as it does not involve Mar-A-Lago.
@iknklast #7, yeah, but what has Washington done for us lately?
@Omar #5, it’s not hard for me to remember how much electricity it takes to ruin the environment: just one Watt. But, then, I was in America throughout Reagan’s reign of error.
In response to the original post, yes, it does seem to me that this Senate imbalance problem is with us for good. It’s pretty explicitly laid out in the Constitution, and would take an amendment to change. That means that changing the makeup of the lopsided Senate would require a two-thirds vote of the lopsided Senate. The odds of any Senator voting himself out of a job approach zero. The odds of Republicans losing their majority in most of those “red states” are better, let alone the odds of packing the Supreme Court next year.
Ikn, the way you describe the South is the way I describe California. Some good things came out of there in the 60’s and 70’s, but it’s not what it used to be. Once you get away from the city centers it’s a very red state, I didn’t realize how much so until I got out of there. The overarching problem there is the out of control bureaucracy. Also California is huge and there are widely diverse ecosystems, but generally there is a lack of pronounced seasons compared to here. Funny you should mention that, it’s what I like about this part of the country, in southern Appalachia and along the Piedmont anyway. :)
As for @1, I think all those things Steven mentions divvying up are better together. I currently live in a region that tried that once, and it was a disaster by all accounts. Also the proposed state of Jefferson was not successful in California (or any successive attempts), but that was mostly the red elements trying to split off from the blue ones. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state)
I lived in the rural South for several years as a kid, and I have no desire to go back. I went back on a visit once with my now wife, and it was like exposure therapy. I’ve also spent a bit of time in California. Visited a lot, lived there for two summers. Living there doesn’t appeal to me in the least. There’s something too Pompeiian about it.
Come to think of it, there are huge swaths of America where I am uninterested in living. One of the things I dislike is being car-bound. Where I live now, I only have to use my car if I’m going out of town or need to haul lumber or cases of wine. All my other needs – supermarket, pharmacy, barber, school, pool, tacos, etc. – are within a ten minute bike ride. Nothing could induce me to live the kind of life where whenever you contemplate leaving your house the first thing you do is start a car. Only a few areas in America can offer me this lifestyle, and New York smells bad and lacks trees.
When I used to travel a lot for a corporate job, I would tell the secretary (yes, that was a thing once upon a time) that I had one important criterion for a hotel: it must have a sidewalk in front, and that sidewalk must go somewhere. This was an unusual request, but Sandy came to recognize the idea that after a day at work I wanted to park the car and walk somewhere for dinner. There are many places in America where this is almost impossible. I don’t even want to visit those places, let alone live there.
Somehow or other, however, those places have to be part of the same country I live in. I think the best that can be hoped is that the pandemic results in a broadening of economic opportunity so that some less fortunate regions can slowly become more amenable to civilized life.
twiliter, that’s why I’m looking toward the east coast. Rural Maine or Vermont, preferably. Close to the ocean is ideal for me, which is why Maine would be better. Canada would also be high on my list of destinations. I’d love to go to Norway, but don’t know the language, and I understand it’s difficult to learn.
Well I have never visited rural Maine or Vermont, but the winters up there might be harsh for a California kid. ;) Upstate New York is beautiful, but I have never been there in winter.
“Upstate NY” is kind of an ill-defined concept, but if you like snow it’s the place for you. Most years Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse compete for the snowiest city in the US (though Binghamton won one year in an upset). (I’ve never lived there, but both my parents were from the area, and I’ve spent a lot of time there. The Finger Lakes region is gorgeous.)
We’ve lived in Northern Virginia for the past 20 or so years. Culturally it’s a northeastern area, but the climate is more southern. As a confirmed Masshole I’d much prefer to live in New England, preferably around Boston, though parts of Rhode Island are attractive.
Papito’s right about the Senate, but one proposal I’ve seen floating around that could have several positive effects and could be done through legislation is to increase the size of the House of Representatives. Right now it’s capped at 435 by a law that was passed in 1929. At the time the population was about 123 million, so there was one representative per every 283,000 residents. Right now we’re at 328 million, so there’s one representative for every 754,000 people.
Increasing the number of representatives to, say, 600 would give the larger states somewhat more power in the House and would probably especially benefit large cities. But more importantly, it would increase the size of the electoral college, with most of the extra votes going to large states, thereby diluting the advantage of smaller states and making it more difficult to win the presidency without winning the popular vote.
@14 I was referring to the Adirondacks generally, but yes, I bet the winters are brutal.
Maroon #14, you have a good point with the House. Changing that would take only a law passed by a majority of both houses and the signature of the President; the only Constitutional stipulation is that each state get at least one Representative. But change it how?
A lot of people have suggested that a logical way to determine the total number of Representatives is to take the state with the lowest population and declare that’s the number one Representative should represent, so the country needs around 569 seats. That’s referred to as the Wyoming Rule. Other proposals differ, such as that of Chris Wilson, who calls for 930 seats based on a lowest disparity calculation. I found that interesting:
https://time.com/5423623/house-representatives-number-seats/
In terms of Presidential elections, and the electoral college, yes, that would make a remarkable difference. But so would the Popular Vote Compact, which could take effect with only a few more states signing on.
None of these plans would do anything to the Senate, which is where our biggest problem is. 290,000 Wyomingites would continue to have the same Senatorial representation as 19,020,000 Californians.
The small-state numbers are so damn small it’s ridiculous. The difference between the winning Republican Senatorial candidate and the losing Democratic candidate in Wyoming in 2018 was around 75,000 people. My city has neighborhoods bigger than that. Not that I have a solution. I’m not moving there.
Re the Senate: I appreciate the idea of increasing the size of the House and thus improving the Electoral College, but I have to say it really bothers me that there is so much riding on the Electoral College and the presidential election. It matters too much. The election of Congress should be far more important.
Perhaps one way to “fix” the Senate would be to give some of the current Senate responsibilities (such as approval of appointments) to the House?That probably requires an amendment. Never mind.
Re “upstate” New York: When I was growing up in NYC, I think the common sentiment held that the state of New York was divided in three parts: NYC, Long Island, and upstate New York. I don’t think people from Poughkeepsie or Yonkers would agree, though.
Re California: I saw this thought-provoking article on the recent history of California and the decline of the California Dream. I thought it hit a lot of points very well, good and bad. California last year, for the first time in quite a while, had more people moving out than moving in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/wildfires-california-dream-compromise/2020/09/12/780e80da-f465-11ea-a852-eb7526c580f4_story.html
Sackbut #18, I think it might be more helpful to partition New York a bit smaller. There’s a world of difference between, say, Scarsdale and Ogdensburg. Both “Upstate New York?”
I’m not sure how many parts New York really has, but I think the question of Downstate should be considered.
“Downstate” is a pretty common term in New York, but the border between Upstate and Downstate is a matter of perspective. If you’re from NYC, like Sackbut, Upstate may begin at the end of the Bronx. If you’re from Albany, however, Downstate may begin south of Poughkeepsie. If you’re from the North Country, Downstate may include the Catskills, the Hudson Valley, and even Albany.
I think it’s fair to say that if you can commute to a job in NYC, you don’t live in Upstate New York, you live in Downstate New York. There’s a huge demographic shift once the commute zone tapers off.
“Downstate” was not a term used in my social circle in NYC, despite there being a “SUNY Downstate Medical School” (which my son attended, proud papa) within the borders of NYC. I don’t know how common it is as a region name among NYC residents.
There are tensions and differences of perspective between NYC residents and those outside the City. I think the definition of “upstate New York” is one such difference, which I attempted to say in my earlier comment. I will stick with the extremely NYC-centric definition, because it is clearer for all or most of the people I might talk to from the state, all of whom are from NYC. People from the fictitious region they call “downstate” may disagree.
Sackbut, if we didn’t have regional concepts, we wouldn’t really have regions, would we? I assure you, however, that almost everybody north of Westchester thinks that’s “Downstate,” whereas almost everybody south of Westchester thinks that’s “Upstate.” Perhaps the directional gets confused with the regional. It all looks upstate from your perspective, even Yonkers.
A similar phenomenon occurs in Massachusetts, where if one lives in Boston, anything westa Wusta (west of Worcester) is “Western Massachusetts,” but for someone who lives out in that strange and inscrutable region past 128, “Western Massachusetts” may only begin at the Connecticut River. And don’t lets talk about the Cape, where lower is upper.
Given that New York State is around five times as big as Massachusetts, it only makes sense that regional differences would be greater.
Papito, I agree with you; I was trying to be humorous, and not succeeding, sorry. Trying to play to the “New Yorker’s view of the world” magazine cover, and all that.
I spent over 30 years in the Boston area, and I recall how squishy the idea of “central MA” or “western MA” can be. Your description reminded me about a corporate event that hired a motivational speaker from MA, and I marveled at his craft; among other things, he played up his Boston accent, talking about how getting to the meeting location in the central US was “fah” because it was “westa Woosta”.
I loved growing up in NYC, but I didn’t spend time as an adult there, and I suspect my perspectives on the place would be significantly different if I had done so. It’s very different from the Boston area, but now that I live in Alabama I find that locals here merge it all together into “the North” or maybe “the Northeast”, and can’t distinguish a New York accent from a Boston one. (I, in turn, can’t distinguish a Texas accent from a Georgia one.)
I grew up in suburban Boston, just inside 128, and basically considered anything past Concord as out west. But now I have family and friends who for some inscrutable reason live or have lived in places like Sturbridge and Amherst and Pittsfield, so I’ve come to appreciate some of the distinctions.
As for my New York pedigree, I was born in Rockland County to a father from Rochester and a mother from the Syracuse area. As far as I can tell upstate starts somewhere west of Schenectady; it may or may not include the Southern Tier and the Adirondacks, but everything from Albany to NYC is out.
As far as I can tell, Massachusetts is the only place in the world where you can travel south, east, and west simultaneously.