When you elect a president who denies American exceptionalism, then in a sense you’ve proved his point, haven’t you?
We are slowly taking on the features of a sclerotic Euro-state. We now have government health care, the last piece of the puzzle will be a VAT. Our debt levels already resemble those of the failing Eurostates.
The only major difference between us and Germany or France is that we have a very large pro-liberty political movement, but it is one is long-term decline. (If you doubt this, just imagine telling your typical voter in 1988 that in 25 years the Democrats would nominate a black radical with open Communist ties to the presidency and that conservatives would be fighting to win states like Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina).
I believe that the chasm will only grow. By the 2030s at the latest, there will be a serious secessionist movement afoot in this country. You can see the beginnings of it in our recent elections, in which two-thirds of the states are already solidly red or blue, with little or no contest. A nation not united by blood needs some set of values to unify it. Without that unifying set of values, we aren’t one nation.
They're not that solid. Take California for example. Obama carried CA in 2008 without question as we knew he would. However, when you break it down, he only got 3 out of 5 votes. In my state, Texas, John McCain won with a mere 55%, so in any given room, as many people voted against him as for him. The difference between a red state and a blue state isn't nearly as pronounced as many think. Which goes a long way to explain how the nation's preeminent conservative website is based in California.
Part of our unifying set of values, was always connected with blood & lines of dissent (i.e., family, etc.). (See the Preamble to the Constitution; the wording of the Fifth Commandment.)
While it is true that the original States had quite diverse populations, they came together in 1789 on the basis of mutual respect--a Constitution, which gave the Federal Government, no role in the area of social policy; no right to interfere with the various religious establishments in those States, etc..
Most of the immigrants who came in later--until the idiotic changes in the law in 1965, accepted the prevailing social values in the areas where they settled; accepted the union based upon mutual respect, and sought a major degree of assimilation into a culture, that had attracted them hither.
Unfortunately, that pattern gradually changed with the inauguration of the Welfare State, and changed yet more dramatically with the subsidization of incongruous immigration after 1965. Of course the inadequately protected Southern Border has become a major impediment to the cultural survival of the America that the Founding Fathers intended to vouchsafe to their posterity, by the Preamble to the Constitution.
William Flax