Dear Mr. Schoonmaker,

I am both deeply troubled and disturbed by your website. The world certainly does not want to become part of the United States, and increasing the size of this country will do nothing. I think, in fact, decreasing the size might do something a little better.

Maybe the world becoming one country could solve some problems, but the United States of America becoming this global country? No, of course not.

You say that one of your biggest reasons for not liking Bush is the fact he, and I quote, "has done nothing to annex Puerto Rico". Well, Mr. S[c]hoonmaker, the people of Puerto Rico do not want to be annexed. There is not only sustained support for the current status of commonwealth, but growing and steadily increasing support for the status of independence.

Your advocacy of these ideas is well within your rights under the First Amendment, but you are not immune to criticism. Your advocacy of expansionism and annexation of the countries of this world is offensive.

If I were to believe you when you say you originated the term, "gay pride" in the early 1970's, then that would be something of pride. I am a gay man. Your spelling reform proposal is interesting. But I can not imagine why in all these years since you say you founded the Expansionist Party in 1977 you would advocate this crazy, insane, offensive idea. Whether you advocate these nations be annexed through peaceful or imperialist means is of no matter, it is still one of the craziest ideas I have ever heard.

I doubt your dream will ever come to pass, but if it does, I will assume that everyone in the world has gone mad.

YOU merely WISH that sentiment for independence were growing in Puerto Rico. In reality, it has never been significant in the past 50 years and is unlikely EVER to amount to much. Every hurricane that roars across or even near the island reminds Puerto Ricans of the mess they'd be in if they were ever to be thrown back upon their own extremely meager resources in time of trouble.
+
>>Whether you advocate these nations be annexed through peaceful or imperialist means is of no matter, it is still one of the craziest ideas I have ever heard.<< So you think that even if other countries should WANT to be annexed, we should refuse, for their own good? You are to tell everyone what is best for them, are you?
+
You are typical of a type of American who hasn't a clue as to how bad things are elsewhere, so think things here are awful -- solely for want of perspective. I have a (gay) friend like that, who spent much of his adult life in the perpetual infantilism of academia, who keeps bitching and moaning about unfairness here, even tho he has never been ANYWHERE ELSE. He has never even traveled to Europe, much less lived anywhere else. Yet he keeps holding up Europe as a model of socialist progressivism, and happily forgets that not long ago half of Europe was Communist and a fourth of what remained, Fascist (Spain, Portugal, Greece). Medievalist wars of religion (the "troubles") have killed thousands in Ireland. Tens of thousands were killed in the wars in the various parts of exploded Yugoslavia. All this and more has happened since WWII! -- in Europe, the most advanced part of the entire planet after the U.S. and Canada, tied with Japan. Japan hasn't had a change of controlling parties in the entire postwar period, but suffers one-party rule.
+
I suspect that a large part, if not the entirety, of your objection to Expansionism is an inclination to believe that in expanding, the U.S. would merely be imposing the worst of the present dominant Rightwing Republican program upon areas annexed. That is the exact opposite of what would actually happen.
+
The reality is that even within our current borders, there may be a shift in power from Republicans to Democrats in at least the House of Representatives in next month's elections -- tho that will be extremely difficult, given the fact that almost all seats are now "safe" for one party or the other due to gerrymandering by partisan state legislatures. Would such a shift in party control alter policy at the federal level? Of course it would.
+
Now, consider the effect 22 million Canadian votes* would have on the U.S. political system: 47 votes in the House of Representatives, perhaps 14 in the Senate. There are presently 232 Republicans and 205 Democrats in the House, a difference of 27 votes. A shift in 14 would alter the political complexion of the Nation. What would 47 Canadian votes do? What would 85 British votes do? What would 128 Philippine votes do? What would 154 Mexican votes do?
+
Puerto Rico alone would have about 6 votes in the House, and 2 in the Senate. The split in the Senate is 55 Republicans to 45 Democrats (includes one Independent who usually votes Democratic). Speculation is that this November's elections could not move the Senate to Democratic control because there aren't 6 seats likely to change hands. But if the number were 4 rather than 6? And what if there were 7 Canadian states, with 14 votes in the Senate? An additional 5 British states, with 10 votes in the Senate? Three Philippine states, with 6 votes in the Senate? 10 Mexican states, with 20 votes in the Senate? Put any of these accessions, or all of them, into the equation, and anyone will see the potential for massive political change in the new-domestic politics of the United States, not just in the foreign policy of the expanded country.
+
It irritates the hell out of me that people insist on seeing a static version of what would happen if the U.S. expanded. Expansionism is dynamic: the core changes as much as the now-exterior. Everything changes, as more people and more resources are added to the stew.
+
I suggest that you do not appreciate how important it is for our own, domestic, progress that we admit new areas to the Union. With Canada OR Britain, and especially with both, we could have universal healthcare within a year of accession. With PR only, we might have seen a change in control of both houses of Congress this November. Would that have been worthwhile? Would a more progressive and forward-looking Congress now, and a liberal President in 2008, thanks to the addition of far more than the 4 million votes that separated Bush and Kerry in 2004, be worth having? I suggest it would.

- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 6:57 AM