I’ve been reading Paul Krugman’s “The Great Unraveling” lately, and this column about the “heartland” / “red states” got me thinking…

But what’s really outrageous is the claim that the heartland is self-reliant. That grotesque farm bill, by itself, should put an end to all such assertions; but it only adds to the immense subsidies the heartland already receives from the rest of the country. As a group, red states pay considerably less in taxes than the federal government spends within their borders; blue states pay considerably more. Over all, blue America subsidizes red America to the tune of $90 billion or so each year.

And within the red states, it’s the metropolitan areas that pay the taxes, while the rural regions get the subsidies. When you do the numbers for red states without major cities, you find that they look like Montana, which in 1999 received $1.75 in federal spending for every dollar it paid in federal taxes. The numbers for my home state of New Jersey were almost the opposite.
. . .
There’s no mystery about why the heartland gets such special treatment: it’s a result of our electoral system, which gives states with small populations ? mainly, though not entirely, red states ? disproportionate representation in the senate, and to a lesser extent in the Electoral College. In fact, half the senate is elected by just 16 percent of the population.

But while this raw political clout is a fact of life, at least we can demand an end to the hypocrisy. The heartland has no special claim to represent the “real America.” And the blue states have a right to ask why, at a time when the federal government has plunged back into deficit, when essential domestic programs are under assault, a small minority of heavily subsidized Americans should feel that they are entitled to even more aid.

Wouldn’t have been great if Lincoln decided to just let the Confederacy secede? Yeah, that’s a pretty snarky question, but it’s one that’s popped into my head every once in a while. I’m not much of a civil war buff, but I’ve often wondered what things would be like if the Confederacy had remained intact.

Of course the big con in all this is the obvious one : slavery would have continued for decades after the war ended. Hell, considering that the civil rights act only happened 40 years ago (and isn’t well enforced in at least one state I can name), is it possible that slavery would still be legal in the south? Would the shift from an agricultural to and industrial society society see the slaves move from the fields to the assembly line?

And what about the Union? With their politicians no longer forced to pander to “the heartland”, would this mean that many progressive reforms that we’re still fighting for would be common (such as increased union protection, universal healthcare, and equal rights for homosexuals)? How would politics have evolved without a legislature and electoral system that disproportionally favors the south?

How would the respective countries had developed in the 140+ years since secession? In particular, would the agricultural/industrial dichotomy have forced the two countries into an uneasy trade relationship? Would the countries even get along today? Would the problems that led to the civil war ingnited a war at some point in the future?

Like I said before, I don’t know a whole lot about this stuff so forgive me if these questions have been posed a million times before. I know playing “alternate history” is a game the experts love to play, so if there’s a good book about this stuff, I’d love to hear about it (no sci-fi, please). The more I read the news, the more I’m attracted by the idea of a United States in which the government isn’t held hostage by a radical minority. Especially when the reasonable majority want a smarter, more responsible government that ensures all citizens are treated fairly and protected equally.