When did we become so divided, and why?

[dragonfly]

This is a question I have been pondering for quite some time now, as I age and I observe what looks like a serious division in attitudes of the populace and what it symbolizes.
It seems to me that the primary division lies along the lines of money, who needs it, who deserves it, who makes it, and what should be done with it. I think war, or absence thereof is more of an issue used for convenience as something to blame dissatisfaction on, but is not usually the primary issue that voters base their votes on.
I see an ever-increasing segment of the population who thinks government is the answer to their quality of life, and a shrinking segment who thinks if government would just stay out, they can handle their own lives quite sufficiently. The over-reactive part of me wants to say "Ok, let's just divvy it up, you guys stay on your side, and we'll stay on ours, and we'll see who succeeds". The more rational side of me says "wait a minute. That won't work because no population remains static, with new lives beginning and the old ones dying off, there's no reason to expect things to stay the same". So the question remains, how do you reconcile the differences without letting things eventually come to a disastrous end at which time the survivors will try again to form a working solution?
The real issue, the way I see it, is human tendency to defer responsibility outside ourselves and a tendency in some to take advantage of that human weakness by making others dependent on "systems" in order to achieve or retain power.
What do the minds here think?

[Bodo]

I'm putting on my tinfoil hat...

It's govt and the politicians that are to blame. It's all about power and dependance. They introduce these welfare programs and people get used to it. Then they depend on govt. Who in their right mind would threaten their comfort by voting to limit the programs (and politicians) they depend on? At least that's what they hope for.

So maybe we're to blame?

As far as being divided goes...again it plays to those in power to keep us fighting among ourselves over petty/percieved problems. That way they don't really have to DO anything, just keep us busy.

[Eaglerock]

.
.
I see an ever-increasing segment of the population who thinks government is the answer to their quality of life, and a shrinking segment who thinks if government would just stay out, they can handle their own lives quite sufficiently. The problem with government is the more rules they make, the more rules they have to make, to enforce the rules that they make. Nevertheless, I am not sure what should be done with this bailout. Should we let them go down, and within that, let those who worked for them and did nothing but do their jobs, go down with them and lose their jobs and those with money invested go down as well. OR Should we bail them out and save them, costing us over a trillion dollars. I guess my thoughts are, if we bail them out then we too should ask for those few or many, heads on a platter. i.e.- some should do jail time, pay fines, etc. I also think both government officals involved should pay as well. There are both Dem. and Rep. involved and should be dealt with and should lose their jobs.

The over-reactive part of me wants to say "Ok, let's just divvy it up, you guys stay on your side, and we'll stay on ours, and we'll see who succeeds". The more rational side of me says "wait a minute. That won't work because no population remains static, with new lives beginning and the old ones dying off, there's no reason to expect things to stay the same".
Starting a civil war? !!!?? :eek:

So the question remains, how do you reconcile the differences without letting things eventually come to a disastrous end at which time the survivors will try again to form a working solution?
The real issue, the way I see it, is human tendency to defer responsibility outside ourselves and a tendency in some to take advantage of that human weakness by making others dependent on "systems" in order to achieve or retain power.
What do the minds here think?

Maybe we the people should just take over the country and throw them over board...ummm Mutiny.

Really though I see you have been thinking and pondering hard on this... what to do... who's to say.

[dragonfly]

I'm putting on my tinfoil hat...

.

:D
I had my tin hat permanetly attached. It's easier to keep up with that way.;)

It's govt and the politicians that are to blame. It's all about power and dependance.

.

That definitely feeds the problem.


So maybe we're to blame?



That's the other part of the problem.


As far as being divided goes...again it plays to those in power to keep us fighting among ourselves over petty/percieved problems. That way they don't really have to DO anything, just keep us busy.

Yeah it does appear that way. The problem gets to be when individuals start to question the doctrine and don't buy it anymore.;)

[dragonfly]

.
"Nevertheless, I am not sure what should be done with this bailout. Should we let them go down, and within that, let those who worked for them and did nothing but do their jobs, go down with them and lose their jobs and those with money invested go down as well. OR Should we bail them out and save them, costing us over a trillion dollars. I guess my thoughts are, if we bail them out then we too should ask for those few or many, heads on a platter. i.e.- some should do jail time, pay fines, etc. I also think both government officals involved should pay as well. There are both Dem. and Rep. involved and should be dealt with and should lose their jobs."

Being afraid to let the entire mess go down and resolve itself is assuming a fear-based stance, and assuming that people don't have the creativity or the will to survive it by changing their strategy.

The problem with government is the more rules they make, the more rules they have to make, to enforce the rules that they make. Nevertheless, I am not sure what should be done with this bailout. Should we let them go down, and within that, let those who worked for them and did nothing but do their jobs, go down with them and lose their jobs and those with money invested go down as well. OR Should we bail them out and save them, costing us over a trillion dollars. I guess my thoughts are, if we bail them out then we too should ask for those few or many, heads on a platter. i.e.- some should do jail time, pay fines, etc. I also think both government officals involved should pay as well. There are both Dem. and Rep. involved and should be dealt with and should lose their jobs.


Starting a civil war? !!!?? :eek:

No, not at all. I'm being hypothetical here. I'm using a simple example as in "What if we all got together and decided to divvy up and see what works by observing both sides. With a civil war, it's still one entity after the fighting is over.

Maybe we the people should just take over the country and throw them over board...ummm Mutiny.




That assumes that those in power are the problem, and takes away the responsibility of we who are buying into it. If you throw politicans overboard, there will be lots of ready and willing individuals ready to step in and assume those positions. I'm just thinking out loud here and wanted to get input from you guys.

[Barry Digman]

What do the minds here think?


Take a look at when Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority became a factor in Republican politics and that will help folks understand when the real hate became institutionalized. Once your preacher or your god gives you permission to hate someone else because of their beliefs, you're on your way. Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition that followed the Moral Majority continued the tradition. Vote Republican or burn in hell. How can that not be divisive?

[dragonfly]

. Once your preacher or your god gives you permission to hate someone else because of their beliefs, you're on your way.

Can I take it that you think the lines are divided along moral issues? Do you believe that most on the Republican side vote based on their abortion views? Is that what you see as the major division?

[sqkcrk]

d'fly,
It may be as simple as people of like minds grouping together in their various communities. Be they neighborhoods, houses of worship, political parties, racial groups, clubs and associations (like beekeepers), internet forums, what have you.

I don't recall the name of the book or author, but I remember hearing about someone who has written on this very subject recently. Maybe someone else knows what I'm refering to.

[Ravenseye]

Great question Dragonfly. I think you're pretty close on all your points. I have another perspective to share and a story to go along with it.

I believe that we're too dependent on things today (I guess I squarely fall into the "leave me alone" camp). I don't want automatic transmissions (we have 6 vehicles in our household and none of them decide when YOU want to shift. We make that decision on our own), I really don't want ABS brakes and I'm undecided on the air bags. Sure, all of those things make the truck safer but I really didn't ask for them and I think they should be an option. However, that's just an example. Once you run through a generation of dependency, there's almost no going back. It's expected. But, the real problem is that it's usually expected from an entity, not a person. Over the weekend, we had a customer leave her purse in the car while she attended a soccer game. The car was unlocked and her purse was stolen. That was Saturday morning. She called this morning to report it. Her PIN was written on the sleeve of her ATM / DEBIT card. Between Saturday and this morning, there were close to $3,000 of unauthorized transactions. She won't have to pay for any of them and told us that she knew that on Saturday, which is why she didn't call us until today. So, we made her whole and she expected it. That has become baseline expectations for her and we all can't necessarily live up to that standard. We've often divisive because we expect more than can be given and lash out when we don't get what we perceive to be "deserved". The woman who had her card stolen shouldn't have to pay for transactions she didn't make but her personal actions were one of the root causes of her problems. The other was the thief.

When we were all neighbors and no one else came around to help out, we couldn't really afford to be so divided. You may not have liked your neighbor but, after all, they were your neighbors.

So, here's the story I wanted to tell. When we lived up in Maine there were two potato farms across the road from each other. One was large the other small. Both competed, as you would expect. At times, the competition was fierce. When both farmers showed up at the local restaurant for breakfast, they nodded to each other but nothing else. It's not that they disliked each other....it was just one business competing against the other. Finally, the larger farm offered to buy the smaller out. When the smaller refused, things got even more tense. Then, the owner of the smaller farm fell and badly hurt his back. Since it was mid-summer, the harvest was getting pretty close and it was clear that the smaller concern would be in trouble without an active owner working on the harvest. Without blinking, the large farm owner stepped in. Pulled the potato's the same week he pulled his own. Stored them for his neighbor and even sold them on the same day and at the same price as he sold his own. He did that because he was supposed to. Competition or not, he saw no reason for his neighbor to suffer while he reaped benefits. It's just not what you do. Period. Ever.

Once you start distancing neighborly relations and begin to legislate it, embed it into statutes, structure it, etc., you take the neighbor out of the picture. No neighbor...no loyalty....divisive attitudes.

So, for me, I'll trade my government mandated airbags for a good neighbor any day. I can afford to hate my government for treating me in a way that I don't like, but I can't afford to hate my neighbor.

That's just me though.

[dragonfly]

Once you start distancing neighborly relations and begin to legislate it, embed it into statutes, structure it, etc., you take the neighbor out of the picture. No neighbor...no loyalty....divisive attitudes.

So, for me, I'll trade my government mandated airbags for a good neighbor any day. I can afford to hate my government for treating me in a way that I don't like, but I can't afford to hate my neighbor.

That's just me though.

Excellent points.

We have a neighbor who sued us because of his own stupidity, and rather than our insurance taking the matter to court, they folded and paid up just to avoid the trouble. It dismayed me to say the least.:(

Your example of the woman who had her purse stolen was the perfect example. The way I see it, she was negligent to leave here purse in the car, while leaving the car unlocked. In our current culture, that was stupid. She expects not to pay for her stupidity. That is against the laws of nature, if you look at it from a different viewpoint.
Thanks for your input.:)

[Eaglerock]

Take a look at when Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority became a factor in Republican politics and that will help folks understand when the real hate became institutionalized. Once your preacher or your god gives you permission to hate someone else because of their beliefs, you're on your way. Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition that followed the Moral Majority continued the tradition. Vote Republican or burn in hell. How can that not be divisive?

This is SOoo true. As is when we start thinking God is on our side and wants us, and gives us, a two thumbs up to kill. If you are a true believer in Christ, then do you believe Jesus would say go get 'em boys. I think his teachings were far from throwing stones.

The factor you talk about does makes it a Race/Culture permission to hate the beliefs, customs, practices, and social behavior of a particular nation or people.

It is sad that those Religious Leaders believe as they do, yet they teach/preach Christ was a peacemaker. Which makes one wonder if they are not true phonies.

[Eaglerock]

.


No, not at all. I'm being hypothetical here. I'm using a simple example as in "What if we all got together and decided to divvy up and see what works by observing both sides. With a civil war, it's still one entity after the fighting is over.
.

I was joking about the Civil War.... I think :D

[dragonfly]

I was joking about the Civil War.... I think :D

:D
It has just become a war of ideas.

[Eaglerock]

:D
It has just become a war of ideas.

Country of Texas against ? :scratch:


BTW dragons don't fly, that's a myth, something that is fictitious and nonexistent. he he he

[sqkcrk]

If you are a true believer in Christ, then do you believe Jesus would say go get 'em boys. I think his teachings were far from throwing stones.


A friend of mine says that he is a Christianist. He says that he believes Christ, not in Christ. There's more to it. But that's most of it.

[dragonfly]

Country of Texas against ? :scratch:




Hey, that has a nice ring to it.:)


BTW dragons don't fly, that's a myth, something that is fictitious and nonexistent. he he he

According to some legends, dragons swim. I do both.;)

[sqkcrk]

Country of Texas against ? :scratch:


BTW dragons don't fly, that's a myth, something that is fictitious and nonexistent. he he he

he,he,he. dragonfly flys imo. :) not to start an argument, please.

[Eaglerock]

he,he,he. dragonfly flys imo. :) not to start an argument, please.

oh so you are saying she's a bug? I am staying out of that one. But, don't dragonflies sting? ;)

Lighting Bugs are cute.

[sqkcrk]

But, don't dragonflies sting? ;)


No, they bite!! Watch out!! :)

[Eaglerock]

Hey, that has a nice ring to it.:)



According to some legends, dragons swim. I do both.;)

Well now a bank in England has been saved by it's government. DOW now down 260... Oh boy!:rolleyes:

[Eaglerock]

No, they bite!! Watch out!! :)

No barking? Just bites??

[Eaglerock]

According to some legends, dragons swim. I do both.;)

You do both... I want proof!!!!

[dragonfly]

oh so you are saying she's a bug? I am staying out of that one. But, don't dragonflies sting? ;)

Lighting Bugs are cute.

They don't sting, they eat little bugs;), and lots of them. I have a whole graveyard of cucumber beetle and mosquito skeletons here as proof.
Did you know that lightening bug larvae reportedly eat grasshopper eggs? Yes, they too are carniverous.;) But they are cute.:)

[dragonfly]

No, they bite!! Watch out!! :)

Aw Mark, you have read me all wrong. If I didn't like you guys, I would ignore you.:)

[deknow]

to get back on topic.....

i think in our earlier history, one thing americans had going for them was the ability of "the common man" to discuss/debate politics. there were almost always differences of opinion, but people were willing to talk to people they didn't agree with.

in general, i think this has left our culture.

deknow

[Ravenseye]

deknow, good point. Someone I work with is a self confessed talk radio addict. He admits that most people call in to talk....not discuss. In fact, the forum really doesn't lend itself to discussion. It's rampant. Watch a sports analysis....they don't discuss and when they do, it's scripted. They talk. It's so easy to mix up news and opinion since they're presented in much the same way. It would be like me showing up at Town Meeting, heading for the podium, stating my viewpoint and then leaving. What's the point of communal discussion if people don't listen.

[dragonfly]

to get back on topic.....



Yes, lets.:)

to get back on topic.....

there were almost always differences of opinion, but people were willing to talk to people they didn't agree with.

in general, i think this has left our culture.



What do you suppose is the likelihood that the vast majority knows little, if nothing, about politics and how things function outside their own lives? Iow, as long as they are physically comfortable, they don't give it any thought or consideration.

[charmd2]

well if you want my buck o five(inflation from 2 cents a year ago),



the real threat to domestic tranquility is the notion that we should have it. i believe our culture has slid into vices because the natural order has been supressed in favor of peace, order, and government patronism.(note this situation largely created by wealthy aristocacy attempting to horde wealth for global elitists). the alpha male has largelly turned to two outlets for his innate impulses to lead and conquer. service of corrupt oligarchy as a military pawn or drugs and crime. until we put real decisions for family well being and potential to once again reap rewards of ones own labors back in the hands of these alpha males in society, the dissent into abyss will continue.

The root of these issues is a very appropriate perception of lack of oppurtunity for betterment in our culture. when my grandfather was young, youths could expect to reap reward for hard work ethic and talent...today thse are nearly worthless and todays youth knows it. feelings of hopelessness leads to escapism or in other strongerwilled individuals an urge to rebel or circumvent the opressive system. this is why drug use is more today...a symptom not a cause. nationalistic pride has been squelched for corporate profit and our youth are being lost in the shuffle



lastly,(and please forgive my soapbox)

politicians will never correct this because it is their job to maintain status quo and a sense of 'domestic tranquility.' dems republicans...all smoke and mirrors. just my thoughts.

[John F]

This is a question I have been pondering for quite some time now,...

I haven't read the thread yet but saw the question and thought I'de throw this out.

Just as the ink was drying on The Constitution.

Back then it was the Federalists and the Republicans. The Federalists headed by Alexander Hamilton with an eye towards creation of the new countries aristocracy and empire building. He would never have bought the Lousiana territories and in fact argued with John Adams (then president) that we (the U.S.) should claim it, including lands in Mexico.

It's impossible to equate the parties then to the parties now. The Republicans then were the party supporting liberalism. The classical kind. This is how Ron Paul supports his argument that he is more Republican than the party.

[deknow]

i can't say i buy the talk radio analogy...as the vast majority of those involved in the 'discussion' are merely listening to the few that talk. wrt news in general, the news reports what we want to hear about. if it is shallow and self serving it's because the market doesn't reward in depth and thoughtful reporting.

deknow

[deknow]

john f.,

your post is actually kind of funny. we were just talking about talk radio and how people call in to talk and not listen....posting an opinion in a thread without reading it is pretty much the same thing, no?

deknow

[John F]

... it is pretty much the same thing, no?

deknow

Guilty. At least I told you up front. :)

[dragonfly]

It's impossible to equate the parties then to the parties now. The Republicans then were the party supporting liberalism. The classical kind.

Yeah, I realize that, but wanted to get some thoughts on the divisive factors we currently have, what the motivations are that support them, and why it seems more severe now than it did, say, 50 years ago.

This is how Ron Paul supports his argument that he is more Republican than the party.

I believe this is widely misunderstood, and have, myself, been guilty of misunderstanding that point within the not-too-distant past.;) Thanks for educating us.:)

[sqkcrk]

Aw Mark, you have read me all wrong. If I didn't like you guys, I would ignore you.:)

:) I was smiling, wasn't I. :)
We can get along, d'fly. Can't we?

[dragonfly]

the real threat to domestic tranquility is the notion that we should have it. i believe our culture has slid into vices because the natural order has been supressed in favor of peace, order, and government patronism


Wow, that's certainly an interesting way to look at it. In your mind, what is the alternative? How would it work, and how would it be funded? Do you see what I am asking?

when my grandfather was young, youths could expect to reap reward for hard work ethic and talent...today thse are nearly worthless and todays youth knows it.



Maybe it's just the way I view the country, but I don't see that hard work ethic and talent are now considered worthless. To which endeavors are you referring? The general workplace or specific sectors of employment?


nationalistic pride has been squelched for corporate profit and our youth are being lost in the shuffle



Are you referring to shipping much of our manufacturing overseas, or are you making a different sort of point?



lastly,(and please forgive my soapbox)



I would be absolutely lost without my soapbox, so I see yours as no problem;)

[dragonfly]

We can get along, d'fly. Can't we?

Of course we can.:)

[sqkcrk]

to get back on topic.....

i think in our earlier history, one thing americans had going for them was the ability of "the common man" to discuss/debate politics. there were almost always differences of opinion, but people were willing to talk to people they didn't agree with.

in general, i think this has left our culture.

deknow

Right, the intelligent populace has lost its' ability to discuss things w/out an over abundance of emotion.

Now a days, it seems as though, we have to score points and win at all cost. It's more important to be heard than it is to listen.

People, or should I say Talk Show Hosts and Pundints (who are people too, I guess), think that if they don't interupt someone elses' speaking, then they won't have time to be heard. Or maybe they just have to get it out before they forget what they want to say. Or maybe the first person will say so many things that the other person objects to, that they won't know where to start or they'll forget something they would have liked to respond to.

Is Debating taught in schools? We must have had a debate club when I was in High School. I don't remember. I was in Theater.

[sqkcrk]

the real threat to domestic tranquility is the notion that we should have it.


Or the notion that we have a Right to it? We have a Right to the persuit of happiness, but not a Right to Happiness.

[dragonfly]

Is Debating taught in schools? We must have had a debate club when I was in High School. I don't remember. I was in Theater.

I have no idea if it is anymore. We had a debate club when I was in HS, but I was more into physical science and music. Didn't have much time for participation in discord.;)

[Oldbee]

'When did we become so divided, and why?" -dragonfly.

About the time of,............'Little Rock', Arkansas? The Kennedy assassination? Pearl Harbor and,..................6 years later, the military industrial,..'complex'--Eisenhower? There was of course that,.. 'stinking war' that we lost--Vietnam. We all thought that war was about 'communism',.the,..'dommino effect' and wanting to 'save' the world from,..tyranny. Now, some of us eagerly read the,..'honey harvest reports' in the ABJ.,, from,.......Vietnam.


Maybe we became 'divided' after the 'bombing' of Sterling Hall on the UW. campus by 'radical anti-war activists? Maybe it was after,.............Roe vs. Wade??

We CERTAINLY have experienced many events in the last 10-20-30-50 years that would divide any country, but we are still a strong country I believe. The 'country' was certainly divided during the 'Civil War'.

Maybe it was after that 'Curt Flood',.. 'legal' affair with Baseball? And then EVERYBODY thought,.............why can't I make,..millions of dollars too?

Maybe it was when,.........women,..[shucking their bras,.. lol.] in 1971 'decided',.. we need to be more,..ASSERTIVE!!...ASSERTIVE!!!..And then,...all Heck broke loose! lol.

Even that bearded fanatic from Iran was talking nonsense and everybody was being assertive and,... trash talking,.. 'denying' responsibility for anything! Oh well,...have a nice day.

[tecumseh]

charm2 nice and insightful comments... I will look forward to your future post.

then deknow writes:
i think in our earlier history, one thing americans had going for them was the ability of "the common man" to discuss/debate politics. there were almost always differences of opinion, but people were willing to talk to people they didn't agree with.

tecumseh: this is much the theme of al gore's latest book (title something like flight from reason). not that many here will really desire to understand the root cause of the rub...

it seems quite common for many folks to confuse the monologue of some media talking head (tv or radio) with dialogue (two way conversation).

and finally to dragonfly... the real history of america suggest that in the past 200+ years we have often times been divided (revolutionary war, war of 1812, mexican war, civil war, the disputed election of 1876, a 75 year running street battle between labor and capital, etc) and many times this conflict has left a great deal of blood on the street or reduced significant population to secondary citizen status (a slave in a free society.. does that sound self contradictory???).

some writer now suggest our current divide can be laid directly at the feet of richard nixon who recognized many folks dissatisfactiwith government and used this to gain power (which was a fairly clever trick given that a significant portion of the population knew that mr nixon was and had been a crook for quite some time... well at least eisenhow seem to have know). to gain power mr nixon was also not above promoting a bit of racial conflict... this became know in the liteature as Richard Nixon Southern Strategy.

the odd thing to me is we have this well recognized strategy to divide us and then the same folks also seem to what to ask (like the prison warden in some long forgotten film) 'why can't we all just get along'?

my take like the old testament lesson is... as ye sow so shall ye reap.

you actively sow hatred and conflict... why should you expect to harvest something different?

[beegee]

Take a look at when Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority became a factor in Republican politics and that will help folks understand when the real hate became institutionalized. Once your preacher or your god gives you permission to hate someone else because of their beliefs, you're on your way. Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition that followed the Moral Majority continued the tradition. Vote Republican or burn in hell. How can that not be divisive?

I don't think that was ever an official position of Christianity. That type of categorical thinking is what is divisive. I am Christian and Republican and I don't hate anybody. I came to Christianity later in life, so I've seen both sides of the street. I prefer my current walk to my previous one. What Christians hate is sin, because God hates sin. We are to love the sinner,hate the sin. It is our responsibility to call the wicked to righteousness, not ignore evil. In that we are all sinners, we share the responsibility communally. God is a God of righteousness an justice. I'm not sure where the image of a kindly grandfather-God came from.

Of course, this presupposes the existence of God, which many people deny, for whatever reasons.
Liberal thought centers around situational ethics, based in the Humanist Manifesto. Contemporary Liberal thought has been embraced by the Democrat Party more so than by the Republican Party. In an effort to empower itself, the Democrats have learned how to "entitle" the fringe groups of society. By giving them a voice that has not been fully earned in the mainstream marketplace of ideas, fringe ideologies assume a air of legitimacy.

I think the Silent Majority exists because most decent, moral, hard-working people figure that everybody should play by the same rules. While one can argue about the Founding Fathers being Deists, etc., the fact remains that our system of government was founded on Godly principles, if for no other reason that it descended from British Common Law, which was based on Biblical principles. Most of us don't like to make waves, but prefer to be left alone and to leave others alone. But then, we see the playing field being tilted to the advantage of those who think they are "more equal" than others and we can only take so much before our sense of justice says, "Wait a minute!" Efforts to make things "fair" for everybody usually requires taking from the "haves" to give to the "have-nots." Aye, there's the rub.

As I see it, our nation is divided because those of us who work hard and try to be fair in our dealings are being forced to finance those who do not, cannot or will not do the same. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," works only when done voluntarily from a giving heart, not because the Government requires it.

[Galaxy]

This is a question I have been pondering for quite some time now, as I age and I observe what looks like a serious division in attitudes of the populace and what it symbolizes.
The divisions have always been with us throughout history. The Internet has uncovered them.

Before the Internet most of our discussions were face-to-face where the rules of decorum were naturally observed (well most of the time).

The Internet, with it's pseudo-anonymity has provided many forums for folks to reveal what they have thought all along, including those who are on the fringes.

[dragonfly]

The divisions have always been with us throughout history. The Internet has uncovered them.



I suppose it has also uncovered more of what is actually going on in DC, and that contributes greatly. Thanks for pointing that out.:)

[JPK1NH]

To the OP question of when we became so divided.

It was a long long time ago....recall that we fought a war over our opposing ideals over 100 years ago....that war is still going on in the minds of some in the South even today.

In fact I would argue that we were never really united beyond a group of United "States" that came together for mutual protection, commerce and trade.....and if you read the Constitution it supports that notion......it explicitly enumerates the FEW powers granted to the Federal Gov, puts them in a tiny box and states clearly that all other rights/powers are reserved by the States and the People.

[dragonfly]

It was a long long time ago....recall that we fought a war over our opposing ideals over 100 years ago....that war is still going on in the minds of some in the South even today.



So you really think it goes back to the Civil War? Maybe you have a point, but the contention seems to be over much different issues now, unless I haven't thought about this long enough. Give me some time.

So are you saying you are really a Southerner deep down inside?;)

[JPK1NH]

So you really think it goes back to the Civil War? Maybe you have a point, but the contention seems to be over much different issues now, unless I haven't thought about this long enough. Give me some time.

So are you saying you are really a Southerner deep down inside?;)

From a historical perspective it goes back a whole lot further than the Civil War.

Recall that Rhode Island (Rogue Island) was originally founded for reasons of Religious disagreement so....we've ALWAYS been in divided on major issues.

As to the Southerner thing.....hard to say....if you're argueing from the perspective of States Rights v Fed Rights then yes.....the leadup/followup to/from the Civil War was an unprecedented expansion of Federal Powers and a squashing of States rights and powers.

Take a look at the NH Constitution.....its one of the better ones.

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.

[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

I posted a couple of the more interesting points.....Every time I read through it and get to Article 10 I imagine someone in a tri-corner hat following up with the statement "And we MEAN it!"

[dragonfly]

Wow JPK, that's some impressive wording in that constitution. Does it reflect, in your opinion, the general attitude of NH today?

Thanks for the tidbit about Rhode Island. I was not aware of that.