|
|
| Book Reviews Thomas Dillon, Chicago, IL, November 30, 2011 "The ideas, as radical as they are, really capture what is going on in our country. While I think it unlikely that the country could ever be formally divided we sure are divided informally now. At the very least we need to recognize and at least try to reconcile our differences. I am so very tired of the partisan bickering our leaders have subjected us to these last several months-years. We are paying the price for it now. I have passed the book along to friends. In any event it was very, very well written,. Jackson is quite the Hemingway." Brenda Rochelle, Texarkana TX, said on September 29, 2011... "The book is excellent!! I say absolutely with only one reservation: it calls for divided house and Jesus said a house divided cannot stand. However, that being said the fact is our beloved country IS divided! And you very loquaciously expressed this in Red or Blue. Therefore, this solution is our hope for those of us who desire to follow our American dream. Wonderful plan! Wonderful book. Thanks". Jim Dalgleish, Columnist, The Herald-Palladium, St Joseph, MI - October 10, 2011 D-I-V-O-R-C-E Bob Jackson's two-state solution for America Newspapers aren't much for producing stories about books by self-published authors. After all, just about any wanna-be Hemingway with spare cash and a laptop can do it these days. It's no big deal. Such books usually go from my incoming mail to outgoing trash in seconds. But I couldn't resist Bob Jackson's book: "Red or Blue: This Book is 4U."
The father of Benton Harbor's now-defunct Enterprise Zone is an affable iconoclast, known to jab rhetorical sticks into Cornerstone Alliance's eyes. The 2008 Libertarian presidential hopeful is prone to big ideas. And "Red or Blue" delivers a monster: The solution to America's red-blue divide is an amicable divorce.
It takes him 38 pages to get there, but Jackson writes: "There is, in my opinion, a feasible action plan that would let the red states and the blue states pursue their committed paths peaceably and independently of each other. Simply stated, the red states and the blue states should separate from each other and form two independent and sovereign countries."
Jackson then addresses some of the practical problems of separation. The first being the need to amend the Constitution to permit the process. The last straw in the stormy marriage, Jackson writes, is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, known more commonly as "Obamacare." "Never in the last 100 years has one single piece of legislation caused such divisiveness in this country," he writes. "Never in the last 100 years has any single piece of legislation expanded the federal government as much as Obamacare. "Never in this country has the federal government, through legislation, taken control of every citizen's personal health care. This legislation truly has fundamentally changed the way the federal government like none other." Jackson's claims here are dubious. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Acts were more divisive and set the dynamic for our red-blue divide. New Deal and Medicare legislation were much larger federal expansions than Obamacare. And Jackson would be hard-pressed to prove Obamacare has taken control of anyone's personal health. He writes that Obamacare was "entirely based on blue state beliefs," belying the fact its outlines were crafted in the early 1990s by the conservative Heritage Foundation. A "blue" solution would have curbed health insurance and drug companies, not caved in to them.
In writing about blue state beliefs, Jackson routinely misses nuance and even drifts into cartoon stereotypes. For instance, he claims blue thinkers want people to have "equal access to the goods produced by the country." That might be Marxist thought, but it's not a view espoused by American liberals. I'll wash his car if he can prove otherwise. But Jackson's off-target claims make me wonder if the red-blue divide would be less intense if people took time to understand arguments and nuance rather than trade in stereotypes and assumptions and presume low motives.
As a man who trends blue (who knew?), I'm sensitive to absurd, insulting claims about my perspectives. I feel angry when someone claims progressive taxation is driven by a hatred of the rich. Again, I'll wash the car of the first reader who can cite an actual quote from an actual American liberal saying the rich should be taxed at higher rates because they're filthy and evil.
I was stunned to see Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain, a former Whirlpool Corp. board member, claim in an interview that Occupy Wall Street activists are driven by jealousy of the successful and that they hate capitalism. American liberals enjoy capitalism like everyone else. It's the untamed variety they despise.
To Jackson's credit, he's seldom judgmental and never venomous. He accuses no one of hate.
You have to love that.
Kirkus Indie, Kirkus Media LLC, 6411 Burleson Rd., Austin, TX 78744 - October 17, 2011 Businessman and former Libertarian presidential candidate Jackson argues a polarized America needs a divorce from itself. Like many Americans, Jackson believes the federal government is “broke and broken,” with little hope for improvement on the horizon. Yet, instead of griping about politics, Jackson proposes a radical solution to what he sees as irresolvable differences over how to best govern the country: a constitutional amendment to divide the United States into two sovereign nations. Far from a cry for secession, the author envisions a peaceful separation of “Red thinking” states from “Blue thinking” states along philosophical lines. Both independent countries, he argues, would be capable of fostering a high standard of living because their leaders would not be constantly thwarted by the opposing side. Jackson dismisses bipartisan compromise as “hopelessly unobtainable” because one side always tries to force their principles on the other. He also blames the “elite Fifteen”—the top officeholders in Washington D.C.—for contributing to the country’s polarization. The book is careful to distinguish “Red” and “Blue” from Republican and Democrat, and refrains from passing judgment on which side is better. Several earnest but less than persuasive chapters and appendices explain how both nations could be established fairly, covering issues such as Social Security, dividing federal assets and realignment of the military. Some ideas show a solid grasp of civics, like suggesting a Constitutional Convention to propose the amendment. Others are inconceivable, like “Blue Country” occupying the Northeast and West Coast, geographically separated by a vast swath of “Red Country.” The author deserves points for courage and creativity, but the book comes across as somewhat naive. Key assumptions lack credible sources, and Wikipedia is cited too often for the serious student of politics. While a sincere effort is made to address the domestic implications, scant attention is paid to the geopolitical and global financial market instability that could result from chopping the world’s superpower in half. Ultimately reads like an undergraduate “what-if” essay—passionately argued but highly improbable. Beth Cody, Iowa City, IA - October 2011 Red or Blue? is a thoughtful and bold plan to resolve the many difficulties that plague our political system. Mr. Jackson asserts that our government is broken (and broke) because there is a near 50-50 split between Red and Blue political philosophies, resulting in gridlock and unhappiness on both sides. We are essentially two nations fighting over control of one government, each trying to impose our ideas on the other group.
Consequently, Mr. Jackson proposes a Constitutional amendment to peacefully separate the U.S. into two nations: A Blue Country made up of the west coast, Nevada, Wisconsin, Illinois and every state east of those two; and a Red Country made up of the remaining southern, midwestern, western and southwestern states.
He provides comprehensive details of how the amendment could be implemented, the transition process to maintain stability, the period of five years in which Americans would hold dual citizenship and be able to move freely between countries, the division of assets (including population) and liabilities (including the national debt, divided on a population basis), international and military issues, currency and energy resource issues.
He also speculates how each new nation might handle issues such as health care, Social Security and other entitlement programs, immigration, energy and the issuance of money. He does admit that there would still be political divisiveness within the new nations (think libertarian and cultural conservative Rs, or moderate and far-left Ds), although each country's individuals would mostly agree on the main issue of limited government vs. expanded government.
I found it particularly interesting that Mr. Jackson's interviews with his wide circle of Red and Blue friends showed that each group is utterly convinced that their own nation would be so clearly superior in every way that there would be a flood of migration that would overwhelm their nation. He analyzes voting records to convincingly debunk this fear.
While it is obvious that Mr. Jackson is fairly conservative in his own political beliefs, and cannot help making often-clumsy generalizations about Red and Blue philosophies (what about libertarians?), he makes a respectable effort to remain neutral, reminding us numerous times that both Blue and Red sides have good reason to believe that the country would be better off if their philosophy prevailed. (And indeed, most people are happier living under the system they believe is best.)
Mr. Jackson, whose resume is included in an appendix, is an experienced business owner and civic leader (note: I do not know him personally), and he comes across as a reasonable man with well-reasoned ideas. (Although he could have used an editor to fix some small errors and repetitive language, as well as a better font and layout of his self-published book.)
Unfortunately, if anyone actually reads his book, he will undoubtedly be labeled a radical, right-wing nutcase for his ideas. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the U.S. cannot (and probably should not) remain intact. The political divisiveness and sheer size of our nation, not to mention the fatal flaws in our political system which encourage corruption by special interests and consequent runaway spending, make separation inevitable. We can only hope that it will occur under peaceful conditions such as those suggested by Mr. Jackson.
A fascinating book. | |
|