Politics in America has developed a moralistic, punitive fervor, loudly proclaimed by bloggers on Facebook and other places. Many politicians see this fervor as their ticket up the career-ladder, getting a foothold by finding an issue to champion, or by coaxing a constituency to regard them as their champion. They call on people to protest racism, sexism, and homophobia, to participate in marches and shake their angry fists. The politicians never miss a chance at more publicity.

All the people who speak magnanimously about tolerance and diversity, they appear to vote each time on the basis of their public appearances, but can they create a country that embodies their ideals? Or does the public-stance clash with the way their feet would vote. Would they pull a pillowcase over their heads to hide their identities? Will their followers want to escape their own country, when they find their leaders have already fled.

America has already experienced a situation like this once, during the Cold War. Most Americans don't know it, but many famous left-wing economists, writers, actors, and film-directors identified themselves publicly as Communist. When asked if they joined the Party most of them had to admit, they did not join it. The reason is because the Communist Party was not like America's other political parties. It exerted a discipline on its members. New members had to appear before a panel of Party chiefs and talk about themselves. In good Communist fashion, new members had to endure interrogations about their wealth, their parents, and their circle of friends.

Some Party members endured rough treatment during the interrogations. The famous economists and writers may have thought they had problems with the IRS, but they had never endured an interrogation by Communists! Many sympathizers realized they had better avoid membership altogether. Communist Party membership really means that you have your own country and that you will die for it.

That's what nationhood does. It forces people to define themselves. They may wax eloquent about Marxist humanitarianism, without batting an eyelash, and hold forth about Socialist equality, but do they have big money? And where do they want to live? Ask them, "Don't you want your own country?" They may say something naive like, "We don't need a country", meaning someone else has to provide the country. Sounds kind of two-faced to me. I don't like it, and I don't respect the uncertain stance.

There is another reason why the Left cannot break away and form its own country. The truth is that the Left has invested so much argumentative capital in refuting Capitalism, criticizing the greed of billionaires, and dishing out hatred for their hypocrisy, they have lost self-definition and the ability to form a government with fixed goals and direction. They will realize that nationhood means that their anti-Republican rhetoric no longer has relevance, since there won't be any Republicans around to complain about.  

Left-wing spokesmen will sound as quixotic as Timothy Treadwell's complaining about the way humans treat bears. German film-director Werner Herzog listened to Treadwell's rants, acting supportive of the bears in the background. Herzog looked at the bears and saw not a shred of a real relationship with Treadwell. They just looked primitive and dull.
The Left needs to get its feet on the ground and quit haranguing the wider public on such flimsy grounds