Given high political polarization & stark fundamental differences, does it make sense for the U.S. to peacefully separate into two countries?
It's a question worth asking. Clearly, the fundamental divides between liberals and conservatives has enormously widened to the point where both sides say "not my president." Beliefs on gun rights / abortion / illegal immigration / etc are irreconcilable.
Would you support a peaceful / cordial separation between two states? Such separations have occurred before (Singapore & Malaysia / India and Pakistan / etc). At this point, this may be the best way forward
Would love to see it implemented with a free movement clause similar to the EU as I think it's the only way to address the cultural divide that's grown between "right" and "left", but I just don't see a path there with the establishment Democraps and Republicucs running the show. It could be a clean break from a state-level perspective but the gating issue for something like that will always be the Federal government which is now larger and more powerful than it has ever been. There's simply no way the Feds would let that happen. They would 1,000x Waco before allowing half the country to withdraw from their oversight and enforcement.
It would be the humane thing to do. People vote with their feet, they can choose whichever country they like and I can guarantee that both countries will be more unified than the current state of things
We're already seeing this today with people moving out of NY/CA in record numbers to FL/TX, causing the former to lose electoral votes. If there was no federal government in place states could also implement citizenship/immigration laws for themselves which could prevent people who move there from some blue state from being able to turn around and start voting for the same stupid policies they ran away from e.g. high taxes, soft-on-crime prosecution, abortion (child murder), gun regulations, etc.
Oh they could 1000x Waco but at some point this bubble is going to burst and they'll have to do exactly that. But they stand no chance because of guerrilla warfare -- it'll be Vietnam all over again where "You'll kill 10 of us and we'll kill 1 of you but it is you who will tire first"
Sad to say it, but holding together this union is no longer tenable
I prefer to take the white vs black pill on this one and say there's a path to re-cementing the values in this country that have gradually faded over the past century. But what it would take is a massive economic upheaval and complete displacement of the current powers that dominate our politosphere. Unlikely? Probably. Impossible? Not at all in my opinion.
The benefit to the current progressive line of thinking - transitioning their kids, anti-child rhetoric, and disparagement of the stay-at-home mother in favor of the Girlboss/modern working woman - means that cross-generationally they are below replacement rate whereas conservatives tend to be at or just above replacement rate. There's a reason subsequent generations are for the first time starting to be more conservative by some metrics than previous ones, and it's because the progressives don't have kids to continue spreading their values. They rely on indoctrination of your kids in government learning facilities to continue the trend towards the left, a strategy that's worked wonders for the past 50+ years, but is now being threatened by initiatives like school choice and homeschooling.
In my opinion, it's just a waiting game at this point. Who can outlast who.
Idk about this
Well to be fair, globohomo means no reproduction so they would literally die off even assuming they could get food
You are wrong. They would have plenty of farmers, tradesmen and home builders. Libs would continue to get waves of immigrants which they would treat like slave labor in their own states.....you know just like now. It would actually be the red states that would have the shortage of labor with almost no immigration and a population which is largely unskilled and hopped up on meth.
Did I manage to offend everyone equally in that response? I hope so :)
Bruh, you realize we can import them, right? Farmers, tradesmen, truckers and homebuilders are skills that can be replaced pretty easily - it's not skilled labor.
I've worked on a farm before - it's not the difficulty you think it is.
You realize that unskilled labor is cheap and available to the world.
I hate when smug conservatives pretend that this kind of labor isn't replaceable.
I can import someone from abroad to do the job cheaply. Gut their salaries to the bone and exploit them to the max.
Threaten to deport them if they complain -> this problem is easily solvable and employers have been doing it for decades.
---
No
This is a question that has been studied by many political scientists and generally speaking the consensus is that this would not work. Not because both sides wouldn’t agree to it (they actually might) but because political polarization isn’t South/North or any meaningful geographical distinction. It is rural/urban. Yes Texas is more conservative than CA but San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, and Austin are all solidly liberal. How could these 4 cities be part of one nation and the rest of Texas be the other part? How would the liberal parts transfer resources to each other in an effective manner? On the contrary how would the rural areas get serviced such as specialized healthcare or go to a good school when they are all in liberal areas?
Another thing to note is that even if we ignore the above and go at a state level, there are plenty of states that are fairly moderate when it comes to voting.
I could easily see Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, Arizona, etc. choosing to remain neutral and not join either side. Florida and Nevada in particular make big money off of tourism so they might just want to remain as independent governing states to get money from both the red and blue countries.
You then have the question of military defense. If the US splits into two (or more) entries our defense strength splits in half or even worse. Unless the red and blue countries were strong allies one could easily see foreign nations deciding to attack American soil which obviously is problematic.
Reminds me of the phrase that there are no blue states, only blue cities in red states. Not entirely true, but when you look at the county layout it's certainly mostly true.
Interesting post. It would totally weaken the country as a whole if it were to split like that just for the years it would take to rebuild supply chains along new treaties of trade etc. as well as splitting the military capabilities. It would likely provoke attack from our enemies across seas. It would also dissolve any peace treaties or ally treaties we have across the world that would have to be redrawn. It wouldn't be good. There's a reason why Lincoln fought tirelessly to keep the union together. He knew we were stronger together rather than apart.
Agree its the best course. However a great question is how would we spilt up the national debt?
It won't split for a variety of reasons, nor will there be a civil war like people might be imagining. Instead, what will happen is a continued descent into widespread anarchy and distrust, not that different than what you see in places like Nigeria or Mexico. Parallel governing systems and cartel-like behavior with various agencies and companies. Private military contractors/security will become a burgeoning industry as police and trust in social systems lowers to the point where you have various "factions" (ethnic/wealth/religion) only looking out for themselves. Bribery, corruption, and crime will increase, etc. Eventually, you have completely separate "countries" emerge, but it will take a long time. A real interesting point will be if independent groups start monopolizing natural resources and denying others access, food and water especially.
Future billionaires will be like Elon Musk but if he was a techno-warlord of their local region/group/etc.
None of these are my ideas however, they've been written about extensively for decades believe it or not (pretty sure Nassim Taleb even mentioned this "descent to anarchy not civil war" recently), but no one seems interested in doing anything other than short term economic looting, so it basically won't change. For the record, I don't support any of this behavior and certainly don't wish it, but I think it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Also, the "intense political polarization" of the current day is largely just a result of everyone connecting on the internet. The real issues leading to the downfall go back much further than anytime this century. What we are experiencing around the Western world is just the centuries long endgame of the philosophy of "liberalism". There's certainly a lot I enjoy about the lifestyle that it has provided, although one can easily see the cracks in even the original constitution of the US. There's a good George Carlin clip on human rights that comes to mind.
I think this has already been tried. Didn’t work out too well last time. Red states suck dick
Voluptatem quia eligendi voluptas sed non cum voluptates. Incidunt magni nulla nisi minus maxime ut. Quo ipsum molestiae voluptate adipisci odio. Voluptatum qui est tempore ea reprehenderit aliquam id. Eum aut harum nam porro sed aspernatur in.
Et odit quasi voluptas eveniet deleniti possimus. Velit minima quae deserunt ea. Consectetur voluptate asperiores quam quae eveniet debitis consequuntur.
Enim ut recusandae quia incidunt quasi necessitatibus. Doloremque cum labore non ratione ut qui. Ut iure voluptate maiores asperiores voluptas sed rem quos. Beatae et et quidem provident.
Ut alias atque maxime consequatur ut. Laborum suscipit doloremque vel non sint quas. Consequatur architecto ab maiores similique. Sit placeat aut est earum earum fugiat.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...