I often see reference to graduates v. Non- graduates as a split, but I think it’s more complex than that especially in the UK. The split is often more along age lines for education. With graduates from before 2000 being much more conservative and post 2000 being more liberal. This is probably to do with the change in emphasis of college and university education courses to include climate change, and DEI aspects. Much of which is irrelevant to the course but is tied in often along imaginative lines.
With the Billionaire tax on the CA ballot, CA may be going off the cliff. The formula includes 'equity.' Equity today can become zeros tomorrow but there is no refund. What is worse is that all those inventing who want to shoot for becoming billionaires, will go somewhere else. Thus, we will have a brain drain of potentiality.
Ro Khanna, whom I would point to as a normal Democrat, has embraced hard left policies that make him unrecognizable. It is like the nerdy kid finally being allowed into the circle of the popular mean kids. Then we have Becerra, who may become governor over a man who actually can run a business. The last decent mayor of LA was a businessman who loved LA. It is a winning formula. Social workers have no business leading anything. And I say this with a father who is a retired social work professor. While I am sympathetic to the billionaires who feel they are being targeted - because they are - I am also angry that they help create this mess with their funding of shady NGOs and progressive politics. I call it a distorted outsourcing of guilt for the making tons of money. Thus the ubermensch seek to flagellate away guilt, but everyone else who wants a safe city and jobs pays the price because the flagellation is steeped in DEI.
As an unaffiliated voter/independent, I have experienced cancellation from previous close friends/family who identify as Democrats (no Republicans/conservatives have cancelled me). I've always had friends in both parties, but those who have drifted far left are shrinking in my contact list. Those on the far left seemingly cannot tolerate my independent status or views, nor can they tolerate that I enjoy the company of the "other side." The cancel culture crowd has made clear that their political identity matters more than previously close relationships.
I still have many sensible liberal friends; however, the "all or nothing" left is repelling me and many other independents. Those cancelled by the left are unlikely to vote for Democratic candidates. Those who practice cancelling people are shooting their party in the foot and unnecessarily destroying previously meaningful relationships.
> I still have many sensible liberal friends; however, the "all or nothing" left is repelling me and many other independents. Those cancelled by the left are unlikely to vote for Democratic candidates.
I mean, the fact that the D's keep pitching increasingly ludicrous and constitutionally hostile candidates doesn't help either.
I welcome a re-imposition of radical federalism (although I think it'll have to wait until the federal government, and the cancerous Blob it sustains, experiences some kind of general fiscal collapse). But we can already see the differences between red state and blue state governance. Instead of one country, two models (with a minimal central government) we should have one country and a dozen or more models. As I read American history (which I teach, along with Civics) that appears to be what was intended for us.
A geographic split (national breakup) in the US would be very difficult. Even "red" states have "blue" cities in them, usually. A look at California, Oregon, and Washington by county shows that those three states are only deep blue along the coast. And from a purely logistical perspective, there's no way that any national government would *allow* the creation of a country made up of the thin rind of the western 100 miles of the country, if only because it contains all of the West Coast ports and naval bases. The depth on the East Coast would probably be thicker, but the same issue applies.
New England and New York could conceivably split off in a way that would be less disruptive. Though that would be extremely hard on New Hampshire. So, ultimately, I agree with your conclusion that it's not very likely.
I often see reference to graduates v. Non- graduates as a split, but I think it’s more complex than that especially in the UK. The split is often more along age lines for education. With graduates from before 2000 being much more conservative and post 2000 being more liberal. This is probably to do with the change in emphasis of college and university education courses to include climate change, and DEI aspects. Much of which is irrelevant to the course but is tied in often along imaginative lines.
With the Billionaire tax on the CA ballot, CA may be going off the cliff. The formula includes 'equity.' Equity today can become zeros tomorrow but there is no refund. What is worse is that all those inventing who want to shoot for becoming billionaires, will go somewhere else. Thus, we will have a brain drain of potentiality.
Ro Khanna, whom I would point to as a normal Democrat, has embraced hard left policies that make him unrecognizable. It is like the nerdy kid finally being allowed into the circle of the popular mean kids. Then we have Becerra, who may become governor over a man who actually can run a business. The last decent mayor of LA was a businessman who loved LA. It is a winning formula. Social workers have no business leading anything. And I say this with a father who is a retired social work professor. While I am sympathetic to the billionaires who feel they are being targeted - because they are - I am also angry that they help create this mess with their funding of shady NGOs and progressive politics. I call it a distorted outsourcing of guilt for the making tons of money. Thus the ubermensch seek to flagellate away guilt, but everyone else who wants a safe city and jobs pays the price because the flagellation is steeped in DEI.
As an unaffiliated voter/independent, I have experienced cancellation from previous close friends/family who identify as Democrats (no Republicans/conservatives have cancelled me). I've always had friends in both parties, but those who have drifted far left are shrinking in my contact list. Those on the far left seemingly cannot tolerate my independent status or views, nor can they tolerate that I enjoy the company of the "other side." The cancel culture crowd has made clear that their political identity matters more than previously close relationships.
I still have many sensible liberal friends; however, the "all or nothing" left is repelling me and many other independents. Those cancelled by the left are unlikely to vote for Democratic candidates. Those who practice cancelling people are shooting their party in the foot and unnecessarily destroying previously meaningful relationships.
> I still have many sensible liberal friends; however, the "all or nothing" left is repelling me and many other independents. Those cancelled by the left are unlikely to vote for Democratic candidates.
I mean, the fact that the D's keep pitching increasingly ludicrous and constitutionally hostile candidates doesn't help either.
I welcome a re-imposition of radical federalism (although I think it'll have to wait until the federal government, and the cancerous Blob it sustains, experiences some kind of general fiscal collapse). But we can already see the differences between red state and blue state governance. Instead of one country, two models (with a minimal central government) we should have one country and a dozen or more models. As I read American history (which I teach, along with Civics) that appears to be what was intended for us.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/a-declaration-of-independence
A geographic split (national breakup) in the US would be very difficult. Even "red" states have "blue" cities in them, usually. A look at California, Oregon, and Washington by county shows that those three states are only deep blue along the coast. And from a purely logistical perspective, there's no way that any national government would *allow* the creation of a country made up of the thin rind of the western 100 miles of the country, if only because it contains all of the West Coast ports and naval bases. The depth on the East Coast would probably be thicker, but the same issue applies.
New England and New York could conceivably split off in a way that would be less disruptive. Though that would be extremely hard on New Hampshire. So, ultimately, I agree with your conclusion that it's not very likely.