Adam’s Blog

That’s my thing, keepin’ the faith, baby. –Joe Friday

The “Good” National Divorce

Posted by Adam Graham on April 18, 2006

Cross-posted from WhereIstand

Oatney has a plan for solving our political problems. Split the nation in two.

I don’t know that it would be so bad, myself. What’s more, I can guarantee you that if Red State America is left alone to do its own thing, we could get along with anyone, and my guess is that the same is true for the Blue States…

Our commerce would be peaceful and our political interaction with each other would be limited. I would also be willing to wager that this would solve the “getting along” problem.

There are several problems with this. David proposes that we have “an amicable parting” I would posit such a thing is nigh impossible, like the fabled “good divorce” the idea of a good national disunion is itself somewhat of a misnomer.

Lets begin with where I see the problems:

1) States are more than Red and Blue. Take a look at USA Today’s County Map and you see there are a lot of Blue Counties in Red States and Red Counties in Blue States.

In addition, people are more complicated than Red and Blue in general. For example the Red State of Florida sends Democrat Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fl.) to the Senate while the Red State of Arkansas sends two Democrats to the Senate. Red and Blue are the way two Presidential Elections have gone, not indicative of all the values of people in that states.

Also, I’d point out that the Red/Blue works as comparison for parting the union only if you forget the narrow margins of some of these places. For example, Bush won Iowa by 10,000 while losing Wisconsin by 11,000 so Wisconsin is then doomed to the hades of Blue America’s rule.

Now, people may migrate, but what you’d be looking at is millions flleeing from marginal places to avoid Red or Blue rising. Others unable to leave, or given a choice between leaving their ancestorial homes or living under a government they abhor.

2) Some of the comments indicated the problem, particularly Clark’s:

Are you suggesting two culturally different countries each with its own standing army, one practically surrounded by the other?

Actually not a bad idea, as long as Blue Country has the bigger army so that it can crush Red Country when Red Country defends itself against affronts to its national security through preemptive strikes.

The real challenge here is the fact that if the left were ever going to be willing to accept a national “live and let live” arrangement, they’d obey the 10th Amendment.

I’ll predict that if this ever happened, Blue Americans wouldn’t leave Red States, they’d stay right where they are in positions of Higher learning and State Courts. They’d continue to do what they’ve always done as educators first subverting the morals and values of the Society, while on the Court legislating from the bench to bring about their own will.

Look at your own State, David. Your activist Supreme Court has read a right to abortion into the Tennesee Constitution. The Montana Court is the most insane bunch of clowns to sit on a bench this side of the insane asylum. How is secession going to solve that? Look at those Red States with Liberal Senators, Liberal Congressman and Liberal Governors.

The only way to achieve the Blue/Red seperation is for both Blue and Red Nations to have national purges of those who remained. It’d be nasty and create tons of ill-will that’d spill into those lovely border skirmishes and occassional full-blown wars when you have nations of fairly equal size and military might next door to one another.

3) When does the division stop?

If the nation were to divide, where would it stop. As I’ve mentioned before Red and Blue are extremely arbitrary divisions. What happens when different states because to discover the differences between each other?

New Englanders aren’t the same as New Yorkers. Wisconsin doesn’t have a whole lot to do with Hollywood. You’d begin to see a fragmentation of the nation along these lines:

1) New England States and New York Seperate as they’re a lot of different than the Mid-Atlantic states.

2) Pennsylvania splits off from everyone with its strong Catholic voter base, its different from New England and other more liberal states. Meanwhile Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland form their own nation.

3) Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota start their own country for similar reasons to Pennsylvania.

4) Illinois, now surrounded by Red States and former Wisconsin brethern starts its own nation.

5) Hawaii Gets Independence,

6) Southern California declares itself part of Mexico, and Civil War breaks out in Northern and Central California.

7) Washington and Oregon form a small Pacific Republic.

So, you’d reasonably have 7 and probably 8 seperate nations in the Blue States.

1) Utah would either be expelled or leave the Red States with a different religious population.

2) The Southern States would break off to restore the Confederacy.

3) The Midwestern States would realize they weren’t like the Southerners or Westerners, with a greater number of moderates and a different approach and style to politics.

4) The Western States would form their own nation.

5)Alaska far from being a source of oil would bale and become the Northern version of OPEC, though much colder. What I think we would end up with would something like this:

The idea that in division will be political peace is counterintuitive. We’ll always find something to fight about and those fights will lead to political parties. Anyone whose been on a Conservative or liberal message board knows that. When we establish that secession is an acceptable conclusion for an argument we’ll get much more of it.

7 Responses to “The “Good” National Divorce”

  1. Well, I don’t think your map is quite as accurate, I’d redraw a few lines, but what would be so wrong with that redrawing of the national map?

    The reaction to my proposal has been as expected. Liberals want to keep us because they want our tax money, and so-called conservatives don’t really want to be free of the Left.

    Hence, our political problems will continue until they implode us.

  2. united we stand, divided we fall.

  3. Yes, and “a House divided against itself cannot stand”, which are actually the words of Christ.

    At present, this nation is a House divided against itself.

  4. that would be my point. We need unity, not divorce. Your suggestion, with all due respect, is toss in the towel and destroy the nation. We’re stronger together than we are apart. That’s why 13 independent nations (colonies) got together to form a single union in the first place. If you start dividing up the union, what you’ll have left at the end of the day is 50 independent nations, each with the same problems the whole had, only in microcosm, by and large at each other’s throats and none equipped to withstand our enemies. We need unity or we will fall. America has a decision to make, whether she will stand up as a figure of Israel or Babylon. The first is why the religious right, in general, is the literal Israel’s best friend. We unconsciously identify with her.

    What we need is to get back to the tenth amendement nad start respecting the sovereignty of the states. The people of New York, California, or DC should not be dictating how folks in South Carolina, Wisconsin, or Idaho govern.

  5. Hey: an idea for a valid pretext to go to war against middle eastern countries: make Israel the 51st state. She’s no bigger than Rhode Island, after all, and with Alaska and Hawaii…..

    btw, I’m not entirely serious.

  6. The difference Andrea, between you and I is this: I understand that the only kind of unity our friends on the Left will accept is a unity in which their policies are the accepted law in all places.

    This is unacceptable.

    Barring an Act of God (which is always possible, of course) I expect that the Left will play the National Unity card when attempting to force their way down our throat.

    Do I want division, of course I do not.

    Am I willing to accept that it may be the only way to rid our country of the militant Left? If things continue as they are, what other option do we have?

  7. Adam Graham [Member] said

    our only option is prayer. I repeat again, you are suggesting we throw in the towel and give up on our nation. As the saying goes, divide and conquer. What you propose wont’ make our problems go away, it will only compound them. The division within our borders is NOT territorial, it’s not the conservative south against the liberal north or the conservative west against the liberal east. It exists at every level, in every state, in every city. Even if that were the case, the liberal east (or north) would not allow us to live in peace. Regardless of who fired the first shot, we would most likely anniliate ourselves.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: