Why don’t the Blue states just enact social democratic policies and let the Red ones rot in their ancap dystopias?
If we assume that the Democratic Party actually wants to do good and not just what their donors want. They still have to contend with a Senate that’s is biased towards the empty states, and even the House of Representatives is somewhat biased but not as bad.
Now if the Blue States (or even Counties) form some kind of union to transcend the USA, things might begin to happen.
The EU is a patchwork of rights for example
The EU is a confederacy. It has a much weaker central government and much stronger states. The US could go back to a confederacy model.
Yes, I agree. That’s why I wrote that Americans have forgotten how to do federalism. Like, I get that states rights used to mean fucking slavery and you needed a strong central government to keep the southern racists from lynching people, but how else are you going to manage such a vast space and remain a democracy? Let Poland have their abortion ban.
Yeah, that’s why I mentioned that the United States has basically become national authority simps. “Voting” these days for most people is synonymous with presidential elections.
That being said, for many people, issues like abortion, trans and gay segregation/discrimination, legal slavery of prisoners, mass and school shootings, and the rates of violence and murder against: Indigenous, black, etc men and women are fairly serious and important issues that are, if not equal, relatively close in terms of moral outrage to lynching and slavery. I can understand that you don’t see it that way though.
Don’t get me wrong, I am passionate about civil and economic rights in Quebec. But I accept that certain rules change at the Vermont border. The question even the most ardent internationalist must ask is at what threshold do things in another jurisdiction become so intolerable that they would need to get personally involved and intervene in another People’s business. In international law, which we can take as the base rate, that threshold is pretty high, at crimes against humanity-ish. From there it goes down. How far down? Depends on the balance different communities are willing to strike. Inter-community intervention also has its own catastrophic consequences. There is no right answer of course but I strongly suspect the contemporary American one is not it.
You must also recognize you’re not getting an unbiased source here online. What are the true differences? I suspect us Americans are more likely than most to complain about politics, to “air our dirty laundry”. I’m not really disagreeing with your points but the differences in real life might be smaller than you’d think from some of these discussions
Massachusetts has that, or as far as we can. We have “universal” coverage, building on Romneycare, but are still subject to the same framework as everyone else. We still need to honor everyone else’s insurance providers, the whole patchwork of profit takers and inefficiencies. By ourselves we can only do the same thing better, but we can’t change the paradigm
The Commerce Clause is one often cited by conservatives. I am not a lawyer but if they can abuse it you bet they will even if that’s not what it was meant for.
Honestly, I think shifting the fed to a more Confederate model would be a good idea. A large number of problems we’re running into is the attempt to control the whole nation over local interests. It might be possible to diffuse a large number of contentious points just on that alone.
If we assume that the Democratic Party actually wants to do good and not just what their donors want. They still have to contend with a Senate that’s is biased towards the empty states, and even the House of Representatives is somewhat biased but not as bad.
Now if the Blue States (or even Counties) form some kind of union to transcend the USA, things might begin to happen.
The EU is a confederacy. It has a much weaker central government and much stronger states. The US could go back to a confederacy model.
What’s stopping California or Vermont or whatever from enacting state-level Universal Health Insurance programs or free university or whatever else?
Nothing other than cost and logistics. Massachusetts had “RomneyCare” before ObamaCare existed.
Yes, I agree. That’s why I wrote that Americans have forgotten how to do federalism. Like, I get that states rights used to mean fucking slavery and you needed a strong central government to keep the southern racists from lynching people, but how else are you going to manage such a vast space and remain a democracy? Let Poland have their abortion ban.
Yeah, that’s why I mentioned that the United States has basically become national authority simps. “Voting” these days for most people is synonymous with presidential elections.
That being said, for many people, issues like abortion, trans and gay segregation/discrimination, legal slavery of prisoners, mass and school shootings, and the rates of violence and murder against: Indigenous, black, etc men and women are fairly serious and important issues that are, if not equal, relatively close in terms of moral outrage to lynching and slavery. I can understand that you don’t see it that way though.
Don’t get me wrong, I am passionate about civil and economic rights in Quebec. But I accept that certain rules change at the Vermont border. The question even the most ardent internationalist must ask is at what threshold do things in another jurisdiction become so intolerable that they would need to get personally involved and intervene in another People’s business. In international law, which we can take as the base rate, that threshold is pretty high, at crimes against humanity-ish. From there it goes down. How far down? Depends on the balance different communities are willing to strike. Inter-community intervention also has its own catastrophic consequences. There is no right answer of course but I strongly suspect the contemporary American one is not it.
Yeah, well put. I generally agree.
You must also recognize you’re not getting an unbiased source here online. What are the true differences? I suspect us Americans are more likely than most to complain about politics, to “air our dirty laundry”. I’m not really disagreeing with your points but the differences in real life might be smaller than you’d think from some of these discussions
Massachusetts has that, or as far as we can. We have “universal” coverage, building on Romneycare, but are still subject to the same framework as everyone else. We still need to honor everyone else’s insurance providers, the whole patchwork of profit takers and inefficiencies. By ourselves we can only do the same thing better, but we can’t change the paradigm
Who is going to fund it?
In many cases, republiQans have pre-empted any progressive actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council
The Commerce Clause is one often cited by conservatives. I am not a lawyer but if they can abuse it you bet they will even if that’s not what it was meant for.
The commerce clause doesn’t apply to in-state systems unless they interact with a foreign nation, native tribe, or another state.
What kind of abuse is even possible here?
I saw it brought up against state setting their own emission standards. I don’t agree with it but it is something I have seen them argue.
Fair enough - but, emissions can be argued (with evidence) to be an interstate issue, particularly with large cities being contributors.
Honestly, I think shifting the fed to a more Confederate model would be a good idea. A large number of problems we’re running into is the attempt to control the whole nation over local interests. It might be possible to diffuse a large number of contentious points just on that alone.
So, your argument is “rural people are a minority”?