Splitting of the USA

As a fellow son of the South, I share his fondness of this land, and wish prosperity upon its proud people. Because we differ so profoundly on how best to serve Southern interests, there is room for a lively debate, which I hope readers will enjoy. I will now proceed by identifying the considerable problems with Pro’s primary contention that “I as commander of Dixie, would be beneficial to the current southern states of America. ”Instead of defending that unwarranted assertion by elaborating on his credentials, or on describing leadership qualities which he alone possesses, Pro lists off a flurry of fantasy policies that he would enact, all of which would either be catastrophic to Southern society, or could be accomplished by means far less drastic than a complete political overhaul and secession from the Union. Indeed, as I hope the reader will come to agree, a split would be likely to create far more problems for our good and decent Southern brothers and sisters than it could solve. Pro fails to define exactly what sort of authority and power structure exists in his fantasy Dixie, but at no time indicates that he plans to earn the post of its commander through democratic means. This implies that the people of the South would thus be less free than they currently are to elect their leader(s). Perhaps realizing the legitimacy problems and inevitable dissent he would face by eliminating the liberties afforded by a modern democratic republic and replacing it with a dictatorship, my opponent suggests a strong military (item 1), and idolizes some elements of the North Korean command and control system, namely with regards to immigration policy (item 7). Additionally, Pro advocates eliminating the hard fought separation of church and state which our forefathers cherished, and a tradition of religious freedom which has been a beacon of hope for a world otherwise mired in religious dogma and conflict. By declaring the national religion to be Protestant Christianity (item 10), Pro would immediately and unnecessarily impose hardship on Jews, Hindus, Catholics, Agnostics, Atheists, Mormons, Muslims, Rastafarians, and countless other law abiding and contributing members of Southern society. Its inherent ethical repugnance notwithstanding, item 8 of his manifesto would essentially mean the end of the interior design, wedding planning, fashion, fine art, and theater industries of the South. The displacement of gay Southerners would cost the Southern economy untold billions, as well as much of it's culture, meanwhile strengthening the North, where it could be presumed these absolutely fabulous exiles might settle. Policy items 12 and 13 are inherently contradictory. I submit to the reader that I have sufficiently demonstrated that as its leader, my opponent would not be beneficial to the South. Despotic theocracies, such as the one he advocates, routinely have inferior economic growth rates and overall standards of living, and higher levels of corruption than representative democracies, such as the one already enjoyed by Americans in the Southern states. [1] Iran could be a useful point of comparison here, so an explanatory chart can be found at the link below. I invite the reader to also try typing in North Korea to see just how unfavorably it compares to the United States. 1) . http://www.heritage.org... |iran&src=country