One of the most difficult aspects of being a reasonable person in the 21st Century is deciding what to ignore and what to devote attention to. There has been much use of the popularized aphorism of Mark Twain:
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
This may be true when it comes to stupid people, but stupid ideas are like fungi that must be yanked from the Earth before they get the chance to spread their poisonous spores into impressionable minds. Stupidity has outsmarted us in a way because it demands our attention, and in the time we’re living in even a mass amount of negative attention can translate into crisp dollar bills. However, ideas themselves cannot open checking accounts, so please let us discuss the circulating idea that the United States should seriously consider breaking up.
As far as I am aware this idea hasn’t taken root in the vast majority of the American population, nor is it likely to, but it has become a half-serious refrain from pop pundits and celebrities (but alas I repeat myself) who in the main are superficial thinkers that don’t put much thought into what they say. The general idea runs that American liberals and American conservatives are so fundamentally different and their ideas about government are so drastically incompatible that the United States would be better served if it fractured into a bunch of smaller nations to avoid the day-to-day political strife of our current democratic Republic. After all, what sort of a madman would think that a democracy having a hefty amount of disagreement within its borders is a sign of a healthy State as opposed to a dying one? Clearly the solution is splitting the nation into two (or in some formulations more than two) one Party States. At least that will make sure everyone’s happy!
Dispensing with sarcasm this proposition is, at best, flippant for the purposes of riling up the partisan and ignorant, and at worst, a battle-cry for what would be considered one the most world-shaking and apocalyptic political events since WWII. One can’t help but look back at the American Civil War and see what secession actually looks like. According to the most recent estimates anywhere from 617,877 to 851,066 people died as a result of the war which itself was a direct result of the Southern States insisting that the United States “break up.” It should be noted that the Second American Civil War will not be divided quite as cleanly as the first one was, considering we don’t have one legally drawn out latitude that cuts the country into “slave states” and “free states.” How do we decide where to cut the “sides” in this war in the present?
Today, most people heuristically distinguish between the Coasts and Middle America. This is the widest possible lens to look through when describing the political make-up of the United States, as usual, it is more complicated than this. If we zoom in a bit we seem to be divided by Red States, Blue States, and Swing States. We’ve already run into a problem when it comes to the Swing States. They will either need to choose a side or form a weaker coalition themselves. However, if one zooms in even further, one notices that there are even differences within districts within these states. Rural areas tend to be more right-wing while urban centers tend to be more left-wing. Now, zoom in even further and you’ll notice that there is another dividing line in that these are still recognized on the basis of “majority.” Meaning that there are still plenty of left-wingers that live in rural areas and plenty of right-wingers that live in urban centers. They just happen to be in the minority there.
This idea has been proposed on the basis that the American left and American right are just too different to live together in peace. What these people don’t realize is that we’ve already been living together in peace for around one hundred and fifty years. I hate to break it to the folks that believe this inane garbage, but the enemy lives among you! If the lines are to be scratched out the way the proponents of this idea imply, then the “sides” would not be restricted to the Coasts against Middle America, State against State, or even district against district. It would need to be neighbor vs. neighbor. I like to consider myself a reasonable person, so I would much prefer a state of affairs where my neighbor disagrees with me as opposed to one where my neighbor is actively trying to kill me.
“Wait,” the wanna-be secessionists cry, “why is it necessary that this be a violent affair? Let us say that we all peacefully agree to part ways and become our own nations? What then?” How about a complete and total destabilization of the world economy, our present military alliances, and the subsequent strengthening of authoritarian States like China and Russia? How’s that for what then? It is essentially guaranteed that without the military of the United States NATO would completely collapse, and it is not guaranteed that each individual nation in the new Balkanized United States would agree to rejoin. It’s arguable that the only thing keeping Russia from being even more aggressive in Ukraine is the threat of NATO. The UN would inevitably be even less functional than it already is, which is saying something. China may have a very powerful and influential economy, but so does the United States. Splitting that into two parts with competing interests cedes an incredible amount of power and opportunity to Xi Jinping.
This also puts our current allies in precarious positions regarding which of the US nation-states to ally and trade with. There are also all sorts of geographical questions to take into consideration as well. Would it not interest the State with the most access to the Pacific Ocean to have a more favorable relationship with Australia, Japan, and South Korea than with countries like France or the UK and vice-versa with the Atlantic? Congress currently has exclusive power over trade between the States. How would trade between our countries function? What if two American states share a border and are hooked up to the same power grid, but want to be part of different nations? What happens to heavily Federally subsidized farms? If it seems like I’m just rattling off random questions that pop into my head it’s because I am. This proposition is so unbelievably stupid and performative that I can come up with pages and pages of objections without much issue whether they be existential or pragmatic. Here comes another one. Who gets the nukes and all the other military equipment and personnel? Do we agree to split them all up perfectly evenly?
Not only would there be a horrendous loss of life in some sort of liberal vs. conservative Second Civil War, even if this was a totally bloodless affair, it would lead to a massive collapse of the world economy, the de facto dissolving of NATO, likely a decrease in the standard of living for millions of people, and will almost certainly increase the likelihood of international war.
All because Americans apparently just cannot get along with each other. How selfish, privileged, secure, intolerant and ignorant can some people be?