Hyphothical - and please thoughtful answers only?

Question

Suppose we could seriously give the western half of the United States to the Democrats and the Eastern half to the Republicans. They could run their half like they wanted.

Who would be running US East and who would be running US West? What would crime statistics, national security, employment rates, social services, etc. be like if each party would use it's ideal values to create? Could they get along?

No flip answers please - just create your own questions for that. I want ideas from serious thinkers here. Go by your party's basic principals.

Ok, so at this point the West is adopting a socialist government with many parties, and the East is keeping the republic? If each side could truly elect an ideal leader who would it be? Note if you're in the West, your party would have to be identified.

Maybe I need to simplify:

Could a Democrat give me an example of how his/her ideal US West would exist and then the same for a Republican?

If you don't fall in to either category, don't answer, and let someone else do. It's a hypothetical question.

It's actually a question to see what each party actually wants out of the country and to see the other's side's point of view.

Answer 1

Hypothetically, if you were to have a conservative East coast and a socialist West coast, and assuming there was a free exchange of information between the two coasts. With in two years the West coast would also be conservative. That is also assuming there is not a wall to keep the socialist participants on the west coast. My reasons for saying this is the poor and disadvantaged will migrate west to take advantage of the social programs, while the wealthy socialist will migrate east to avoid losing his wealth to the system. Therefore, the socialist west would not be able to sustain the system for lack of money, and at that point even the disadvantaged will head east to find a job.Now if you assume there is a wall to keep the socialist in the west, the wealthy will either go broke supporting the system, or will corrupt themselves and the system to maintain their wealth at the expense of the disadvantaged. Either way the system will collapse. I left out the leaders, because it really doesn't matter who is leading as long as the core beliefs of the party are intact. As far as crime,unemployment, social services and security goes. The west would be great for social services for a while, empolyment wouldn't really matter in the west, because the govt. would take care of those that didn't work.Crime would be higher in the west because although everything is provided for you, you always want more(example, post Katrina, New Orleans), National security would be fine until the government couldn't support the troops. The East would be much as it is today, with the exception that there would be fewer disadvantaged because growth would be allowed and natural resourses would be used instead of exported to the west coast.(ie oil,food,electricity). I am assumeing the divideing line would be the Mississippi River.

P.S. This is not a hypothetical event. Remember, East/West Berlin?

Answer 2

I seriously don't know how (or why) one would do this!
Not all Democrats are liberal just as not all Republicans are conservative, so you wouldn't have half the country run like a semi-socialist welfare state while the other half was busy bolstering the rich and shipping out the poor.
I'm a registered Independent; I have NO idea what the Independent platform is -- other than non-affiliation with other political parties.
I do not understand why is seems to be nearly impossible to create a significant third, fourth or fifth political party in the United States. No where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that this democracy is restricted to two, and only two, political parties.
Finally, didn't the U.S. split once before along party lines? I believe that was the Civil War.

Answer 3

there's a problem with what you're asking. hypothetically... does welfare work? does education enable citizens or make them more easily led? would a theocracy please god?

i can't do such a thing because the party platforms articulate ideas, but rarely the mechanisms for their implementation. this is why we have political parties, because the ideals are ideals and may not be based on anything. they're the same philosophies we've always struggled with... freedom v. security, individual liberty v. respect for community etc...

do you really trust your ideals that much? i don't. the reason the president creeps me out is not because of his party, but because his activities don't seem to be working. if i simply went with what he promised that would be one thing... i'm interested in what actually happens. if your scenario came to pass... i'd flee the country because both parties have ridiculous parts i am not interested in.

"Could a Democrat give me an example of how his/her ideal US West would exist and then the same for a Republican?"

look, i understand what you want, but this is why i'm not religious. i don't trust either party as far as i can throw them, but i AM a democrat because philosophically that appeals. here is your bone doggy:

in the democratic east or west or whichever, we will stop stifling scientific progress in favor of opening the doors that technology helps us reach. poverty will be a non issue because we will tailor super agricultural practices that balance our ecological realities against the practical constraints of feeding our nation. a golden age is born where people live according to their abilities, rather than simply trading time for money... and this will be reflected in the death of violent crime and ignorance. a perfectly free society, where each person is valued and taught self reliance in a system where failure is simply no longer an option.

there, now you have a load of meaningless promises like you wanted. are you going to have us fight to the death? and incidentally, most liberals are not socialists. the answers using east and west germany as examples are ludicrous... the constitution would have to be abolished for that to take place.

please do us the courtesy of imagining we like america as much as we say we do. this president is the one messing with it, that is why i'm displeased. it isn't because he isn't making a socialist utopia...

Answer 4

The west (Democratic) would look like Europe or Canada. High unemployment (avg 11%), low productivity, socialist, weak military, and surrendering to terrorists.

The east (Republican) woul be similar to what we have today. The government would be smaller (not much, but some), low taxes, more freedom for businesses, and a strong military.

They would get along like we get along with Europe now.

Answer 5

bad question. New york city which runs the east coast is Democratic. And California which runs the west coast is Democratic. But to split up the country and force people to move because of their political beliefs in unconsitutional and treason. America is a beautiful place because if you don't like it you can change it.

Answer 6

We tried this before. The Civil War ended it. (seriously)

The problem is that most of the general public is either/or. Most people may register Dem/Repub but vote either way depending on election. Some candidates aren't even 100% Dem or Repub -- they change parties partway through their political career. And where would the registered Independents go? Would they have to live in Alaska and Hawaii?

Answer 7

I think the republican site would do better. I think there would be great opportunities in the Republican side. The democrat side would bankrupt itself with social programs and dead beats and criminals. The wealthy in the dem society would have to pay up or shut up.

Answer 8

the west would be on welfare with rich leaders and the east would be full of rich people sending the poor to the west so air go the east would be the best place to be

Answer 9

hey **** for brains heres a question for you;what makes you such a righteous fool?you want to divide the country,thats great it proves a point thats all republicans know how to do -divide the country.clinton clinton clinton clinton clinton clinton

Answer 10

they would both be cluster fu cks because neither one knows what they are doing and they do not listen to the people