
Flicker Creative Commons
With the economy looking worse and worse. Both here and in Europe. There has been more than a little talk of another financial disaster in the making.
Congress seems unlikely to take any actions to prevent it. In fact at least one publication has some details on this and why it is so.
Not too long ago, it occurred to Nelson Polsby, a notable scholar of Congress, to explore why the institution had become so polarized. The University of California (Berkeley) professor, now deceased, took the long walk back through American political history, and he ended on the doorstep of Willis Haviland Carrier.
In 1902, freshly graduated from Cornell University, Carrier was in a fog-cloaked station, waiting for a train. The gloom spurred him to contemplate the properties of temperature and moisture. By the time his train arrived, the young engineer had invented air conditioning. The physics of cooling had been understood since ancient Romans piped water through their villa walls, but it was Carrier’s 1906 patent for an “Apparatus for Treating Air” that led to today’s near-ubiquitous climate-control systems, earning him the sobriquet, “the Father of Cool.”
Carrier’s invention, Polsby concluded, is the footing for the nation’s current political polarization. By stoking the historic migration of Republican voters from Rust Belt cities to Sun Belt refuges such as Scottsdale, Ariz., and St. Petersburg, Fla., “air conditioning caused the population of the Southern states to change,” he wrote in his 2002 essay, How Congress Evolves. “That change in the population of the South changed the political parties of the South,” he argued, and ultimately transformed Congress “into an arena of sharp partisanship.”
Indeed. And not just the south but the north and central and western states as well. The tech boom changed to composition of California and the northwest. And he goes on to show how congress (and I would add the country as a whole) is becoming more divided.
Believe it or not, it wasn’t always so. In 1982, when National Journal published its first set of voting ratings, 58 senators—a majority of the 100-member chamber—compiled records that fell between the most conservative Democrat (Edward Zorinsky of Nebraska) and the most liberal Republican (Lowell Weicker of Connecticut). Now it’s zero, zip, nada.
The House in 1982 was chock-full of “Boll Weevils” (conservative Democrats) and “Gypsy Moths” (liberal Republicans). That year’s National Journal ratings found 344 House members whose voting records fell between the most liberal Republican and the most conservative Democrat. Today, the number is 16, up slightly from the seven in that category in 2010 but virtually the same as the 15 “betweeners” in both 2008 and 2009. As recently as 2006, when moderate Republican Jim Leach represented a House district in Iowa, the number was 42. The NJ ratings reflect an ideological sorting of Americans into communities that suit their political tastes: the average scores of members of Congress closely tracked how their districts voted in the 2008 presidential election.
Continued polarization could lead to awful consequences. “The country is in dire straits, and … we are tied down like Gulliver by the Lilliputians .… We can’t do squat,” said Keith Poole, an expert on political polarization from the University of Georgia. “The tea party whack jobs are right: We’re bankrupt.… But we’re just drifting, drifting toward the falls.”
It has been postulated by Dmitri Orlov and others that another major crisis may result in the breakup of the United States into several distinct autonomous regions. Link Link
Well at least one State now is working on passing legislation to contend with the very real possibility of having to go it alone. Wyoming is about to pass a bill just for this contingency.
State representatives on Friday advanced legislation to launch a study into what Wyoming should do in the event of a complete economic or political collapse in the United States.
House Bill 85 passed on first reading by a voice vote. It would create a state-run government continuity task force, which would study and prepare Wyoming for potential catastrophes, from disruptions in food and energy supplies to a complete meltdown of the federal government.
The task force would look at the feasibility of
Wyoming issuing its own alternative currency, if needed. And House members approved an amendment Friday by state Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie, to have the task force also examine conditions under which Wyoming would need to implement its own military draft, raise a standing army, and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.
It wasn’t that long ago when such a thing seemed impossible and insane. I myself wrote a blog on this very subject a few years ago and had it panned. Now to me it not only seems reasonable but maybe even necessary to consider. And I wonder how many other states are taking – or will take in the near future – a serious look at this as well.



15 Comments

With more and more states fighting Washington over marijuana laws, immigration, gay rights, business involvement in politics etc. – I am not surprised at this happening.
A lot of these places have always pushed the antigovernment line — encouraged by hyper-rich jerks like the Kochs, whose father Fred bankrolled the far-right-wing John Birch Society hate group.
Well it may happen but not necessarily the way they had it planned though. Like be careful what you wish for, you might actually get it.
Thank you, cmaukonen.
Recommended to the thoughtful consideration of any who ponder the “possibilities” confronting (and confounding) ALL of “us”.
As well, your cautionary “note” reflects a resonating “chord”, which is ignored at everyone’s dire peril …
DW
The second link (at “Link Link”) offers a map of the more likely outcome, IMO.
As the “There’s No Tomorrow” animation you provided in your prior diary makes clear, what is untenable about the global economy is the energy needed to support, let alone fill, our far-too-long lines of supply. The first map doesn’t solve that problem; indeed, it exacerbates it. This is acutely true (and obvious) for the areas which that map designates as belonging to China and the EU, but even the contiguous additions to Canada and Mexico represent MORE problem$ for those countries, in terms of transporting goods within their (new) boundaries, than they now face. With availability of energy continuing to decline globally, shifting energy costs to the remaining nations is a gauntlet I think few of those nations would pick up.
The map at the second link is more feasible because puts to positive use geographic and cultural realities already in place, rather than making those realities obstacles, as the first map does. The second map is more organic, and more considerate of the diminishing resources and steady-state growth models pointed to by the animation in your other diary.
In the PacNW at least, there is growing discussion about the possibility of an independent nation-state called “Cascadia.” I expect this will be repeated in other areas, based on “naturally” defined geographic boundaries and cultural familiarity/customs in a post-fossil-fuel world.
Liked, tweeted, recommended.
I have been aware of the “Republic of Cascadia” for sometime. Interesting, I must admit.
The green technologies have a place but to expect them to replace petroleum is completely is wishful thinking at best.
I remember when fuel cells were supposed to Save out souls. Now you do not hear much about them at all.
There probably is a much better source of power but it will take time to discover and even more time to perfect.
Each new discovery generally takes longer and is more energy intensive to perfect than the previous ones.
Those of us who live in places where it is hot and sunny, with fierce wind storms eachafternoon, know what total BS that the whole “We aren’t close to be able to having anything near to reliable alt energy sources.
Were you able to catch the article up on FDL just two days ago. The article related how the nation of Germany is quitting its move to subisdize solar panels on roof tops in Germany – as the program is so successful, and efforts have brought about such a reduction in the cost of solar cells, that the German government understands that people will do this on their own.
Meanwhile, we live in a nation where we continually hear how our energy “Saviors” will be nuke energy, with the 58 billions of dollars that Obama will take from tax payers to loan to the Nuclear power people, who recently brought the world Fukushima! And the other “Savior” is of course, natural gas, which only requires that we give up our pristine aquifers for irrigating farm lands and for drinking. Who cares if NYC residents need a lot of water to bathe in or drink, and natural gas pollutes it all. Natural Gas Uber Alles!
Also the 2005 Dick Cheney Oil and Gas Bill states that the Big Energy Companies never have to remediate anything, except in the most minimal ways. Nor do they have to compensate people whose health they are ruining. If you don’t think that digging for natural gas is ruining people’s health, watch the documentary “Gaslands.”
But you said it right there. “Those of us who live in places that are hot ans sunny with fierce wind storms”
What about those who live in areas that are not hot and sunny. That do not get much heavy wind. Like the north east or great lakes. Areas that are mountainous.
It works for you fine and Germany fine but not everywhere. That’s one of the problems. Another one is that the technology itself is very energy intensive to produce and requires rare earths that we here do not have. They have to be imported from places like China and Indonesia and Africa. And these rare earths themselves are very energy intensive to extract and process.
That also goes for the high efficiency magnets necessary for wind generators.
I don’t know how much air conditioning had to do with it but it’s a fact that Texas was reliably Democratic until the huge influx of people from the rust belt occurred between about 1977 to around 1983. Oh sure, there was some racism, and some conservative people but they didn’t like or trust Republicans. To a large extent that’s still true. If you meet a native Texan who votes Republican to this day, chances are they are under the age of about 35. That’s not to say there were no Texas Republicans but they were never a majority before 1980.
I’ve pointed out over and over but especially during the Bush years, how easily a nation can go collectively insane and start detaining, torturing and executing people over something like religion. I too was panned but it still seems to me like we haven’t stopped that long slide into barbarism yet.
I was going to write a diary on this:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/201222051514575294.html
but this diary seems a good place for the story. Trying to visualize a world “post fossil fuel” is hard and nothing currently that I’ve come across does so. What WILL be true is that war will probably be the last social institution to fall to the lack of fossil fuels.
My family moved to Florida in the early 1960s. At that time native Floridians – those who had been born there as well as their parents – were Democrats for the most part. Not Dixicrats but Democrats. Then beginning in the late 1960s, when all new housing had central air, we began to see an influx of northerners. Most of whom were conservatives. Then in the 1970s and on when Disney and a lot of high tech companies came in, we got a massive amount of people from up north. Nearly all of which were conservatives.
What was it the Einstein said, “I do not know with what weapons the next war will be fought. But the one after that will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Wait, Wyoming will study what it would take to acquire an aircraft carrier? Maybe a whole lotta global warming? Either that or Lake Yellowstone would be very well defended.