'Sometimes tea parties have unintended consequences.' Weekend Watching - Juan Enriquez: The Untied States of America

The US is one of the most homogeneous and at the same time insular cultures in the world. We eat the same food, listen to the same music, and we watch the same tv and movies. We may have different physical characteristics and ancestry but we learn the same things at school, wear the same uniforms, and for the most part speak the same language.
Regardless of whether it is reflected by more or less lines drawn on a map, the world’s borders are disappearing faster than we realize. This cultural homogenization continues to spread at a faster and faster rate. Be it globalization, corporatism, or the internet, America has been broadcast and exported around the globe. Backlashes to the pace of this change have inevitably flared up, but the floodgates have been opened and the tide of this change is irreversible.
For these reasons, I find it hard to accept Juan’s premise regarding the United States breaking apart. He uses Germany as an example of how fast a change can occur, but for me the most astonishing aspect of the reunification of Germany was not how quickly it occurred but that it actually took so many years for it to happen.
Other examples such as Spain, Quebec and Yugoslavia have very little in common with the United States. The US needed to be held together by force only one time in its history, and the cultural reasons for that division have for the most part long since disappeared.
Strong differences may abound between us, but United States is one of the most nationalistic countries in the world today and surely this strong affiliation will overcome any particular divisions, at least in the foreseeable future.
Humans are inherently tribal in nature, be it our affinity to the local team, political party, religion or whichever group we end up associating with. This tribal urge is a powerful and historically dangerous emotion/instinct (or beneficial depending on your particular point of view).
One thing has become apparent, at least to some of us in the Liberty Movement, it is that this basic tribal instinct/emotion has been used to manipulate and control us. The Democrat/Republican flag waving has been used to blind us to the fact that the parties are the same, actually not that unlike your favorite professional sports teams, working to fill the pockets of their owners with your money.
Hopefully, this economic crisis will be the opportunity for the Liberty Movement to shed light on this corruption of our political system and lead to some real changes for the better.

Re: Nonviolence & Michael's comment

They say possession is 9/10ths and they are right. We have the power--violence is not necessary.

DP conversation is key to our ability to develop ways to show others...

I dont think this should be onthe front page.

the Tea parties are defiantly positive, and they are not as divisive as the rest of the crap thats going on these days.

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

Douglas(Oakland,CA)

I wanted to know who the 5% are that are "neither Republicans nor Democrats" that he seemed to imply were a destabilizing force. The facts seem to suggest that the other 95% have been running the country into the ground, so I'm not sure where he was going with that...

Partial reply to your introduction below.

I have copied some of your comments for ease of reference.

My overall impression of your comments/conclusions is that you have arrived back to where the Founders were but I wonder if you have made that connection.

"In the course of our talks, we have tried to imagine how localized economies and local money could work."

A philosophy based on the individual. Moving toward more authority/power/control residing at the level of the individual rather than the long trend, in this country, of authority/power/control moving further from the level of the individual.

"We have argued the value of government regulation versus the responsibilities of the individual. What we really see is the idea of human scale being a core value and that imagining a system of governance that can operate in a modern world at a human scale is a monumental challenge."

Again, at the level of the individual. I think that is key and I agree with your considering that approach, the approach at our nations birth.
I mean no offense in any of my comments to you, I trust you truly have the goal of facilitating what is best for all. I concur with looking for solutions from a perspective as close as possible to the level of the individual, I believe the notion that the "modern" world is a consideration in the solutions process is flawed. I will likely support that comment further in later replies but please consider that basic human needs and drives have not changed since the dawn of humanity nor are they likely to change in the foreseeable future. With that in mind, achieving a system of governance
which operates on a human scale is not a challenge to devise because a group of very selfless, intelligent and wise humans have already provide clear guidance, we merely need implement and adhere to that guidance.

"For a while I have been of the belief that America is really 5 countries trying to find common purpose in a 230 year old dream. The nation state we created had a whole bunch of compromises built in to help keep the slave states aligned with the trading states. But, at heart, I really believe there are severe divisions which can be defined as cultures which keep us apart. I have written about this in a blog called Cultural Confederacies http://eeyorewasanoptimis...."

Within the cultural divisions you speak of here do you notice division at a lower level, toward the level of the individual? That is, think of the person you find yourself in most agreement with, do the two of you still have areas of disagreement?

"It was wonderful when I came across the Enriquez video at the top of this thread, because we realized there were major thinkers considering this option of national devolution. Michael got excited as well. Of course it is true that at the end of the talk Eriquez gives a warning that such devolution is not to be desired but will happen unless we learn to talk to each other. But that was on the heels of a remarkably lucid argument on why such a break up will probably happen.

I, on the other hand, think that we would be ultimately much happier if we were to break up into more manageable "countries". Within this structure, imagining political structures that could bridge key divides might be more possible. Old hates that go back to before the Civil War could be removed from the manipulation of public debate. The control of our money system would need to be redesigned. The impetus to war would be diminished because we would no longer be subsumed into one integrated military industrial state."

Again, movement back toward the individual, away from more control/power residing at levels increasingly more remote and detached from the individual. More manageable countries; smaller, more local governing divisions-like States? Your thinking along the lines of increasing harmony by not swimming into pre-existing divisions, cultural or other divisions is dead on. Taking that further, would not facilitating each individual birds freedom to flock to their natural flock be an improvement to remotely and arbitrarily establishing a set number of common culture harmony districts. If not impeding such a process is best, does that not suggest that thinking in terms of remote "management" of individuals, no matter how local, causes more problems than it seeks to eliminate.

"One other thing in our discussion today brought about this addition to your thread. For a long time, it has seemed to me that much of this site's direction focuses on what makes people angry and afraid (the Fed, corporate controls, the wars). What I haven't heard clearly is the formation of a positive vision of what happens going forward. Where are the modern versions of Locke, Paine, Rousseau and Jefferson who created the dreams of the Revolution."

They are here in a sense. Not reinventing those wheels but recognizing that our way was lost by deviating from their guidance in major ways rather than living that guidance and allowing small, incremental improvements and refinements over time within their well conceived framework. That framework is at the human/individual scale discussed in your comment.

"I know Dr. Paul is all about Liberty, but I that seems a bit squishy to me, since in historical terms I enjoy a lot of liberty. What I don't enjoy is the ability of the banker class to decide that their personal liberty is improved if they ship jobs overseas or milk the treasury of our taxes. But to change that situation might require limits on the liberties of the privileged classes.

As Hugo reminded the French, the laws make it illegal for both the rich and poor to sleep under the bridges. So maybe the means of discussing the possibility of the next level of changes has to be more focused on how we need to build a future that contains more opportunities, equity and possibility. Is that a discussion which could happen here?"

I believe you are very close to achieving the solution you seek. The privileged classes got that way because the history of the world is overwhelming the history of power, by various means, aggregating into the hands of the few. Power begets wealth, Wealth begets power. I suggest the simple solution is to keep the power of one human over another as small as possible. The smallest degree of power over others possible/achievable is a system with each only wielding power over oneself-power residing at the level of the individual. Fortunately, the means to achieve that dispersion of power is already in place.

Thanks again for coming. I believe I speak for us all when I say I hope you will stay.