Question for Cain...and other more IR savvy folk.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I don't see it being likely.  A former FSB analyst predicted something similar not that long ago and got laughed at.  A lot.

The trend in the USA for the past 60 odd years at least has been centralization of power.  Balkanization would likely only happen in the case of severe economic collapse or cataclysmic destruction, either natural or man-made based on current trends.

Secessionist movements within US territory are typically weak, both politically and militarily.  All major parties are invested in the territorial sovereignty of the United States as it now stands.  No foreign powers with any cultural pull or major military expertise are agitating for secession or providing support to secessionists.

This more or less sums up my thoughts on the topic.

[Suu]

I didn't think it was highly likely, but somewhere in the back of my brain I really want to see societal collapse and restructure, even though it takes decades if not centuries.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I didn't think it was highly likely, but somewhere in the back of my brain I really want to see societal collapse and restructure, even though it takes decades if not centuries.

I think we all do, but I see a gradual slide into Empire more likely. Could be in 200 years we still have a President and call it a Republic, but it's a hereditary President for life with supreme executive power.

[Cain]

Well the seeds of decay have definitely been sown on an international level.  The US is still a hegemon...but multipolarity is looking increasingly likely.  The BRICs have been asserting themselves a lot of late, and regional players like Iran, Turkey, Germany/France and South Africa are showing increasing initiative.

The two-term limit will likely be abolished, and probably should be, from an American perspective.  The increasing compexity of foreign affairs and decreasing resources/reluctant allies will make managing foreign affairs more time-consuming and more complex.  A change of guard every 4-8 years will compound US strategic errors and make a coherent foreign policy more difficult, especially if the electorate continue to whiplash from one party to the other like they have in the past four years.

Abolition of the two-term limit will open the possibility of a President for life, however it will probably be more like the Soviet experience than a dynasty (a bunch of old white guys, increasingly frail and mentally constrained by ideology and illness from acting within their nation's best interests) - this would be especially easy if the US suffered a major strategic setback, such as visible and obvious defeat in war, or a swift and unexpected change in the balance of power, which can easily be provided by a revolution or election somewhere that goes the wrong way.

The US is nowhere near as bad as, even, say, the Weimar Republic yet, but there are some disturbing signs that, like Weimar-era Socialists, American small-l liberals are insufficiently devoted to the Republic they profess to admire, and so will let Continental-style revolutionary reactionaries destroy it.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Maybe it would be good to have a separate head of state without term limits to manage foreign affairs while having the President's power more limited to domestic affairs? Maybe two (one from each major party, to ensure balance, with the President causing a lean in general policy)? We could call them the Prime Ambassadors.

[Suu]

I didn't think it was highly likely, but somewhere in the back of my brain I really want to see societal collapse and restructure, even though it takes decades if not centuries.

I think we all do, but I see a gradual slide into Empire more likely. Could be in 200 years we still have a President and call it a Republic, but it's a hereditary President for life with supreme executive power.

Mmm...How Roman.

[Cain]

Some European countries do work on this principal...Poland comes to mind, and, to a degree, France and Russia.  The President handles foreign affairs and the military, while the Prime Minister is more responsible for domestic policy.   Actually, something similar to this already exists in the US, when you consider the Vice-President is the tie-breaker of votes in Congress...you could modify that so the Vice-President is in "charge" of Congress and leave the foreign policy and military command to the President.

There are, of course, fairly permament national security types on the NSC and in the Pentagon anyway, and there are serious questions about how checked that power should be, both under the current system and the theoretical one presented above.  However, I can definitely see my scenario in the previous post as a possible outcome, if not one I'd especially enjoy.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Maybe it would be good to have a separate head of state without term limits to manage foreign affairs while having the President's power more limited to domestic affairs? Maybe two (one from each major party, to ensure balance, with the President causing a lean in general policy)? We could call them the Prime Ambassadors.

Adding to thought-

Conversely, we could have some sort of North American Confederacy which handles general foreign policy, much in the way that the EU is starting to do. Though the biggest obstacle to that would be American pride, and that goes for turning off Americans, Canadians, Mexicans and Central America.

[Cain]

Also, EU foreign policy making is naff.  I would not follow their steps.

Hell, look at the nobodies selected for the posts of President and Foreign Envoy.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Some European countries do work on this principal...Poland comes to mind, and, to a degree, France and Russia.  The President handles foreign affairs and the military, while the Prime Minister is more responsible for domestic policy.   Actually, something similar to this already exists in the US, when you consider the Vice-President is the tie-breaker of votes in Congress...you could modify that so the Vice-President is in "charge" of Congress and leave the foreign policy and military command to the President.

There are, of course, fairly permament national security types on the NSC and in the Pentagon anyway, and there are serious questions about how checked that power should be, both under the current system and the theoretical one presented above.  However, I can definitely see my scenario in the previous post as a possible outcome, if not one I'd especially enjoy.

Your scenario is sadly likely as any other.
Old frail teabaggers as Prez for life. You're right though, there is a lot of political apathy making it hard to sufficiently check them.

Also, EU foreign policy making is naff.  I would not follow their steps.

Hell, look at the nobodies selected for the posts of President and Foreign Envoy.

Touche

[Suu]

Maybe it would be good to have a separate head of state without term limits to manage foreign affairs while having the President's power more limited to domestic affairs? Maybe two (one from each major party, to ensure balance, with the President causing a lean in general policy)? We could call them the Prime Ambassadors.

Adding to thought-

Conversely, we could have some sort of North American Confederacy which handles general foreign policy, much in the way that the EU is starting to do. Though the biggest obstacle to that would be American pride, and that goes for turning off Americans, Canadians, Mexicans and Central America.

We do enough work with Canada and Mexico as it is, but the rest of "North America", not so much. The Caribbean and Central America will be harder to agree with.

[East Coast Hustle]

I know Hawaii is gone within the next 10. If we gain PR in the time...I dunno, but outlook not-so-good, they're a bunch of deadbeats who don't want to pay taxes.

I was married to a Puerto Rican, his father was off-the-island Boricua. He told me that himself. Islanders complain that we don't give them enough support, but when the question comes up on statehood, they freak out on the idea of paying federal taxes (they do pay territorial.)

First of all, there hasn't been a statehood referendum in PR in a long time. Second of all, the territorial taxes aren't much different than paying federal income tax. The real issue for PR in regards to it being disadvantageous for them to be a state is that they would lose a FUCKTON of money in federal subsidies. There are HUGE tax breaks for companies wiling to set up shop in PR and those make it possible for alot of Puerto Ricans to earn a living wage when they otherwise wouldn't. Compare the median (NOT the mean) per-capita income in PR to those in the USVI and the CNMI. There's also the issue that most Puerto Ricans don't feel many cultural ties with America, but that's secondary to the fear of losing that federal money.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I see it as an inevitability, and it won't be Hawaii that goes first... it will be New Hampshire.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I see it as an inevitability, and it won't be Hawaii that goes first... it will be New Hampshire.

They are pretty uncharacteristic of other New Englanders. They also tend to siphon off our libertarians.

[Suu]

Let them go. None of us like them anyway. They're just rich retirees from the Midwest with too many guns who don't want to pay taxes. Maybe if we're extra lucky, Quebec will absorb them, and we can REALLY hate the motherfuckers.


-Suu
Old Man in the Mountain was a warning shot.