Supposedly, governments which are voted into power by some broad group of residents, as in the US, are, by their very nature, “fixable”. If the government is not working properly, let the members know what should be corrected. If the problem continues over some period of time, ‘vote the b**d’s out” is the commonly held solution – and it’s not a bad one at all.

That supposition seems logically impregnable. What could go wrong?

That supposition is also almost hilariously flawed – at least it would be if the results weren’t so often tragic.

The fact is – and this is a fact that I think you are zeroing in on in this latest series of ‘Colonel entries – that no ‘nation’ can arrive at a common course of action without a common set of beliefs and a common set of goals. Certainly there are always going to be differences among residents but – to be a nation – those differences have to be relatively slight. There has to be at least the possibility of agreeable compromise among the differing parties.

I’ve held that the Northern victory in the War for Southern Independence did not reunify the nation at all, it simply changed what was then a ‘currently divided’ nation into an ‘irretrievably divided’ nation. It did that by consolidating power in a central government which would always be the shiny prize sought after by ambitious politicians. No longer would the ‘top brass’ be accountable to their Vermont or Tennessee or other neighbors; they would be comfortably insulated in Washington, DC, far away in both distance and manner of thought from the majority of all residents everywhere. The state would always be secondary to the national government from then on and who wants a secondary job when you can have all the bells and whistles? Who wants it especially when the added layer of government can so comfortably shield you from public scrutiny?

Well – and here I’m reluctant to pick on a particular politician when they are all so deserving – Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts certainly wasn’t one of those who wanted to labor among the locals. Nor did he want to take any steps to insure any commonality among the residents of the US.

I mention him because he was among the leaders of the ‘let everyone in’ movement of the ’60’s. Largely because of Ted, we were able to enjoy all manner of “discommonalities”. To the – at least sort of Christian – urban, rural, northern, southern, big government, little government, etc. mix we could add the Muslim, the Sikh, the Animist, the Not Too Sure But It Really Doesn’t Matter Because No one Here Speaks or Understands the Language And Doesn’t Want To.

That certainly added interest. The list of ‘favored diversities’ of course expanded exponentially as time went on and we are now where we are now.

Beyond the fractures introduced this way, Washington was able to fracture even the existing ‘common groups’. It did that by assuming the role of Mom and Dad, aka Nanny. It became increasingly possible for people to get through life without ever taking on the personal responsibility of caring for their elderly – the government would do it. It became increasingly possible for people to get through life without ever taking on the personal responsibility of rearing – educating or, at least overseeing the education of – their children. The public school would do it. Public schools now start somewhere around pre-pre school in some ‘progressive’ areas.

It became possible to escape the personal responsibility associated with pregnancy, with laziness, with sloth, with both financial and social issues. There seems no end of issues for which the government does not either have, or is frantically willing to develop, a solution. That solution will almost always absolutely infuriate more people than it satisfies. But that’s OK because the government can then turn to rendering some additional solution to placate the currently upset group which will …

I don’t believe there is any end to this nor do I believe there can be. It is simply not human nature to be the first to bite the bullet when there’s no personal principle involved. And it certainly isn’t political nature to do so when ‘fixing things’ invariably results in larger, better funded government with larger staffs and greater prestige.

When government grows out of the man/woman/family – group/tribe – small area/larger region – common experience progression, it has a foundation and a solidity that can hold it together for a very long time. When government grows out of pitting the wants of one individual against those of another, it’s sooner or later doomed. The ebb and flow of constantly changing alliances among constantly changing groups is simply not ‘governable’. But, and I think this is important, it’s easily ‘manipulatable’. A smart and ambitious person can play one against another, play one group against another, play one party against another for a very long time and enjoy a very good life in the process.

I am saying here that I think there is absolutely no hope whatever for the US to regain its status as a nation and, probably, no hope of it even surviving as a single political entity. Your series, encouraging examination of traditional values, the traditional nation and the possibility of some day enjoying that in the South, is very helpful in my opinion. I don’t know that it can be done but trying is better than not trying.