Description

Politics. Economics. Morality. Religion. And Everything In Between.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

"Bi-Partition"-ship?

Guess who's back... back again... Elliott's back! Tell a friend! 100 cool points to the first person who can name the song that came from. After a long hiatus brought on by the beginning of the 2011-2012 academic year, I'm back on the blogging circuit, at least until work/school drags me away from it again. For the first time in a long time, Here's The Deal:

Lately, we've been hearing a lot of politicians talking about "crossing the aisle" and working with the other party to pass "common-sense reforms" based on "bipartisan consensus." Usually, this is a load of horse crap. Politicians no longer cross the aisle because there is no bipartisan consensus. Many of the proposals Democrats and Republicans put forth in response to each other demonstrate that the two parties are pursuing diametrically opposed ends instead of coming closer and closer to something they can both agree to pass. When they do agree on an objective, they often come at it from completely different directions. The end result of this partisan gridlock is that nothing of substance gets done in Congress while the "days of reckoning" for crises such as the national debt and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons continue to inch closer.

As an unapologetic quasi-libertarian conservative, I'm one of the last people to advocate bipartisanship for its own sake. In fact, I jokingly told one of my liberal friends the other day that I'd like to see relations between the two parties become so contentious that the United States itself splits in two along partisan lines. That way, he could let the government of what I termed the "Democratic People's Republic of America" redistribute his income to its heart's content while I bitterly clung to my guns and religion in the "Federated States of 'Murrica."

This got me wondering, "Why not split the U.S. in two? Wouldn't that be better for everyone?" Think about it. We conservatives could live in a land with low taxes, a pro-business regulatory climate, and the booming economy associated with both. We could send our children to religious schools on vouchers instead of paying thousands of dollars out of pocket for private education while the teachers' unions extract thousands more in property taxes to fund their festering dens of liberal propaganda, marijuana use, and teen pregnancy. The government would protect our sacred religious beliefs instead of attacking them. Abortion and gay marriage would now and forever be verboten. Our military's redneck-operated stealth fighters would blot out the sun. (The terrorists wouldn't want to fight in the shade because we'd have kickass night-vision goggles that they couldn't afford.)

Does this sound like liberal hell? It should, but don't worry, my liberal friends, because you would be living in liberal heaven. Everyone in the PDRA would be guaranteed an annual income of $40,000 from the government, with extra allotments for those with dependent children. Healthcare would be free and universal, provided by the state. Education would be free through graduate school. Marijuana, birth control, and morning-after pills would be distributed from converted ice cream trucks (ice cream would be illegal because it contributes to obesity, which is "the new smoking"). $900 billion in annual military spending? How about $900 billion in foreign aid spending? If enemies ever threatened your shores, I'm sure the aforementioned Federated States would protect you, especially since you wouldn't be trying to take their money and teach their kids that God doesn't exist any more.

What's wrong with this picture? I have a couple of thoughts, but I'd like to hear what others have to say in the comments section first.

3 comments:

  1. Eminem - Intro (Guess Who's Back?)
    -Kevin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plus 100 cool points obtained via Google search.

      Delete
    2. Kids these days and their stupid Internet...

      Delete