Lowell
and Eric,
Thank
you so much for the effort you took in responding. Excellent reasoning. No need
to challenge anything you say.
Comparing the U.S. and German situations, it appears the seemingly good
functioning of the States within the U.S., versus the absolute nullity of the
German Laender has something to do with a clear constitutional distinction
between State vs federal affairs (in the U.S.) - as opposed to an increasing
pell-mell in Germany between Laender and the Bundesregierung as regards their
mutual responsibilities. The more this is going on, the more, I am afraid, will
I give credit to those who favor a constututional reform in
Germany.
(Historically we missed the chance to do this in 1990 when the East
joined. Instead of putting all cards on the table and mix them anew, the West
German government, for good reasons, decided to impose the West German
system on the East - with consequences that we have to suffer from today. I just
had expected you would feel a similar lack of efficiency also in the U.S. If you
don't, the question for me remains: Can we learn anything from the U.S.
system? "The more paralyzed a government, the
freer its people!" A notion that is breathtaking for
Euros!)
Within
Europe, I would feel, the French system would suit my personal taste
best: Strong central government, plus a multitude of Départements that
handle only minor administrative matters. But apart from being only my personal
opinion, there may be opposition from our French friends who may perceive their
own country in a different light...
Another personal remark: I tend to write in a provocative manner, only to
trigger clear and concise responses. You did your "job" excellently.
Thank
you,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
Yes, this kind of talk from a
foreigner (particularly a European) has the
potential to rub patriotic
Americans the wrong way, but I accept your question
in the honest academic
way that you have asked it. I will attempt to respond
similarly.
Remember that the USA is a union of sovereign states,
the founding ones of which
pre-existed the union. The subsequently
admitted states have formed their own
sovereign governments on equal
constitutional footing with the original states.
Therefore, it is not for
the federal government to decide whether to amalgamate
states into a
smaller number. Any such proposal would have to originate with
pairs
or small groups of states themselves. (Our federal Constitution does
allow two or more states to merge with the consent of the
Congress.)
That is extremely unlikely. The main reason is that
Americans traditionally
mistrust big government. The division of
governmental authority among various
levels helps keep it under
control. Some states do things one way, while others
do them other
ways. Some states have high taxes, and some have low taxes. Some
states tax certain things, while other states tax other things. Laws
on many
matters vary widely from state to state. This is why we have
different
states--so that each can do the will of its own people.
This allows for greater
democracy. Americans resent meddling by
other states almost as much as they do
foreign meddling. (The
current flap between New Jersey and Delaware is a case
in
point.)
Yes, many states lack intrastate homogeneity. A great
many of our states are
culturally, economically, and politically
bi-polar. (All Southern states are
bi-polar; none more so than
mine. Its northern and southern regions have so
little in common
that, until just a few years ago, it was not even possible to
drive
between them on a four-lane road without passing through either Jackson,
Mississippi, or Houston, Texas.) The lack of intrastate homogeneity
is often
useful. It keeps government under control. The more
paralyzed a government,
the freer its people!
Just because a
boundary is straight does not mean that it is more arbitrary than
one that
wanders. Many of our western state boundaries are indeed artificially
straight, but they were drawn during territorial times antecedent to
significant
settlement. The states grew to political maturity within
them. None of them
arbitrarily split urban areas when drawn.
On the contrary, cities grew up along
boundaries because of the unique
commercial opportunities at such places. The
boundary through what
is now Texarkana originated as an international boundary
between the USA
and Spain, then, Mexico, then the Republic of Texas.
In another
message, you wrote:
> Still you live in ONE country, how ever large
it is, you (still) speak one
> language, and your country is "only" 230
years old and progress-oriented. By
> nature your country is a cultural
mix, much different from Germany where we
> believe we have stronger
ethnic / dialect diversities.
It is only your distant point of view
that leads you to see Americans as less
internally diverse than
Germans. I sometimes hear Americans on television whose
regional
accents/dialects I can barely understand. They might have the same
problem with some from my region. It is not just accents,
though. This country
is tremendously diverse in its regional
attitudes, beliefs, and ways of
thinking. Some of these differences
are influenced by physical geography
(landscapes, climates, resources),
but many result from deeply rooted religious,
social, cultural, and
philosophical differences. It is my theory that such
differences are
growing, rather than shrinking, with the passage of time. Thank
God
that we have different states! We could not function as a united America
otherwise.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana,
USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wolfgang Schaub"
<Wolfgang.Schaub@...>
To:
<BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005
7:01 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] The greater
picture
>
> After looking too much towards the past I felt
I should look a bit into the
> future now.
>
> Following
your discussions on intra-U.S. boundaries I begin to wonder if
> there
is, in the U.S., anybody who ever has estimated the waste of $ caused
>
by maintaining some 50 states. Three reasons:
>
> 1) The relative
size of some states is drastically divergent (Rhode Island
> vs. Texas
and California)
>
> 2) There is often little intra-state
homogeneity (New Jersey, for example,
> split between an industrial,
NY-City-oriented half and woodland towards DE
> and PA; similar
situation with N.Y. State)
>
> 3) The boundaries of many states
seem drawn too straight to make sense
> (cities are sometimes split,
like Texarkana, and others).
>
> I know there is a historical
reason for all that, but is this situation not
> contrary to the
otherwise so "forward-looking" America? A reform could help
> saving
billions of dollars that could be used for a better purpose than
>
nurturing small-size or disparate governmental administrations. Or: Is
there
> a difference, geographically, ethnically, culturally or
otherwise that
> supports a reason for North AND South
Dakota?
>
> (I may even offer a recipe: Amalgamate the 50 into 6
new states, NE, SE,
> mid-S, mid-N, SW, and NW)
>
> I know
this sort of discussion, carried in by a foreigner, is not to the
>
liking of patriotic Americans. And precisely for that reasons I bring
this
> up. Give me a reasonable answer please,
forward-looking.
>
>
Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups
Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________
NOD32 1.961 (20041230) Information __________
Diese E-Mail wurde vom
NOD32 Antivirus System geprüft
http://www.nod32.com