The US: One Blue Country and Another Red
In memory of Mónica Obregón, for her courage and integrity.
The election in the United States illustrated clearly that there are two, very different societies. This is not new: The difference has existed for half a century, after World War II. The demographic change that developed over the past decades played — and I hope that it will do so more intensely in the future — a crucial role in the results of the election; a change ignored and disregarded by the Republican Party, which reacted with a mix of surprise, confusion and anger toward a failed campaign and candidate.
The criticisms of Mitt Romney and the way in which he conducted himself in the process do not stop; Romney has continued to put his foot in his mouth, even after the defeat of his argument that Barack Obama was “buying the election,” which irritated prominent Republican figures, who find the way in which he has disregarded the intelligence and abilities of the American youth and minorities unacceptable. On the other hand, some Republicans from Colorado (and from Texas, of course), angered by the results of the election, have suggested becoming independent from the country. This created — in a hurtful mockery — a response in the form of a “letter from the Democrats,” which I received from friends and that seemed great to share with my readers.
It is addressed from the “blue states to the red states.” The blue states claim to be tired of the red states’ Neanderthal-like attitude and politics, which is the reason why they want to create a new country: “ESA, the Educated States of America,” made up of all of the blue states, from Hawaii to those of the northeast.
The blue states tell the red states that the red states are left with Texas, Oklahoma and the rest of the slave states, that the blue states keep stem-cell research and the best beaches; that they keep the Statue of Liberty, Microsoft and Intel and the red get country music and Worldcom (the failed consortium of large, fraudulent corporations); that the blue states take with them Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, CalTech and the Ivy League Universities and the red states get universities like Bob Jones and Oral Roberts; that the blue states keep two-thirds of the fiscal revenue and that the red states now pay the part of the budget that belongs to them. Given that the divorce rate in the blue states is on average 22 percent lower than that in the states that participate in the Christian Coalition, the blue states will have a high number of happy families, and the red states a heap of single fathers and mothers. Additionally, in the red states, 39 percent of the people believe that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, 64 percent think that evolution is only a theory and almost two-thirds consider that life is sacred, except in cases of the death penalty and in the lack of firearm control.
The blue states will control about 80 percent of the nation’s fresh water, more than 90 percent of the forests, lettuce, fresh fruit and good cheeses and wines. They will also keep 85 percent of the venture capital and innovative businesses, in addition to 90 percent of high technology industry. Conversely, the red states can keep Alabama, 88 percent of obese Americans, more than 95 percent of the mosquitoes and tornados, the majority of hurricanes and almost all the televangelists. The arguments of the advantage of establishing the ESA continue in a similar fashion.
Exaggeration is not necessary in this “letter from the Democrats.” Besides, in many states, “blues and reds” live side-by-side to different extents. However, in the background, this fictional letter contains dark realities that constitute, as I mentioned in my previous article, Barack Obama’s most serious challenge in his second term. He will not fix the profound duality of his country in four years. What he can achieve is to show that the United States is currently — I would say for good — a socially and demographically distinct nation, and it will be even more so in the future. This will allow the society to choose new, clear-thinking government administrations that steer the country toward a future that is less threatening for their society and for the rest of the world.
The election in the United States illustrated clearly that there are two, very different societies. This is not new: The difference has existed for half a century, after World War II. The demographic change that developed over the past decades played — and I hope that it will do so more intensely in the future — a crucial role in the results of the election; a change ignored and disregarded by the Republican Party, which reacted with a mix of surprise, confusion and anger toward a failed campaign and candidate.
The criticisms of Mitt Romney and the way in which he conducted himself in the process do not stop; Romney has continued to put his foot in his mouth, even after the defeat of his argument that Barack Obama was “buying the election,” which irritated prominent Republican figures, who find the way in which he has disregarded the intelligence and abilities of the American youth and minorities unacceptable. On the other hand, some Republicans from Colorado (and from Texas, of course), angered by the results of the election, have suggested becoming independent from the country. This created — in a hurtful mockery — a response in the form of a “letter from the Democrats,” which I received from friends and that seemed great to share with my readers.
It is addressed from the “blue states to the red states.” The blue states claim to be tired of the red states’ Neanderthal-like attitude and politics, which is the reason why they want to create a new country: “ESA, the Educated States of America,” made up of all of the blue states, from Hawaii to those of the northeast.
The blue states tell the red states that the red states are left with Texas, Oklahoma and the rest of the slave states, that the blue states keep stem-cell research and the best beaches; that they keep the Statue of Liberty, Microsoft and Intel and the red get country music and Worldcom (the failed consortium of large, fraudulent corporations); that the blue states take with them Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, CalTech and the Ivy League Universities and the red states get universities like Bob Jones and Oral Roberts; that the blue states keep two-thirds of the fiscal revenue and that the red states now pay the part of the budget that belongs to them. Given that the divorce rate in the blue states is on average 22 percent lower than that in the states that participate in the Christian Coalition, the blue states will have a high number of happy families, and the red states a heap of single fathers and mothers. Additionally, in the red states, 39 percent of the people believe that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, 64 percent think that evolution is only a theory and almost two-thirds consider that life is sacred, except in cases of the death penalty and in the lack of firearm control.
The blue states will control about 80 percent of the nation’s fresh water, more than 90 percent of the forests, lettuce, fresh fruit and good cheeses and wines. They will also keep 85 percent of the venture capital and innovative businesses, in addition to 90 percent of high technology industry. Conversely, the red states can keep Alabama, 88 percent of obese Americans, more than 95 percent of the mosquitoes and tornados, the majority of hurricanes and almost all the televangelists. The arguments of the advantage of establishing the ESA continue in a similar fashion.
Exaggeration is not necessary in this “letter from the Democrats.” Besides, in many states, “blues and reds” live side-by-side to different extents. However, in the background, this fictional letter contains dark realities that constitute, as I mentioned in my previous article, Barack Obama’s most serious challenge in his second term. He will not fix the profound duality of his country in four years. What he can achieve is to show that the United States is currently — I would say for good — a socially and demographically distinct nation, and it will be even more so in the future. This will allow the society to choose new, clear-thinking government administrations that steer the country toward a future that is less threatening for their society and for the rest of the world.