This Reaction is based off of a Commentary published by @timotheeology on YouTube entitled “We Cannot Share a Country with these People: The Peaceful Solution.”
Timothy Gordon’s take, which I not only wholeheartedly agree with but will advocate for at every opportunity I get, is that a Peaceful National Divorce is the outcome that the Right Wing Movement must ardently work toward, as it is likely the only way to avoid a Civil Conflict with the Left Wing Movement.
In his Commentary, Gordon makes it clear that 300+ million people is simply too many people to be unified under one Polity. Evolutionary Psychology supports Gordon’s assertion here, as people are optimally evolved for existence in Tribes, Clans, and Bands.
While Gordon posits that he would settle for the National Divorce resulting in two Polities as the Successor Polities of the “Federal Republic of the United States of America,” I would contend that the United States could be divided into at least four Successor Polities.
Despite the Membership of the Right Wing Movement being in General Agreement that Liberalism, as a Political Movement, is no longer an appropriate means by and which to Govern a Nation (read: people), it is hardly optimal for the various Sects of the American Right Wing Movement to then actively decide to Consort with each other.
At the current moment, the Right Movement is comprised of the following:
- Libertarians
- Classical Liberals (think: Neoliberals/Establishment Democrats)
- Moderate Conservatives (think: Neoconservatives/Establishment Republicans)
- Right Wing Populists (think: Historical American Conservatism)
- Christian Nationalists (think: Christian Hard Right)
- Non-Christian Hard Right
Each of these six Sects in natural contention with each other in ways that would lead to Conflict, especially if they were all forced to live in a Polity.
Economically, broadly speaking, Libertarians advocate for Laissez-Faire Economics (read: un-checked Capitalism) while Right Wing Populists advocate for Economic Nationalism (read: Capitalism, constrained by the Customs and Traditions of the Nation) and Classical Liberals and Moderate Conservatives advocate for Anglo-Saxon Capitalism. Where these groups no longer have to battle Progressive Liberals who often advocate Rhine Capitalism (read: Social Capitalism), they often end up battling each other, even more fiercely than they would the Liberals.
While the Classical Liberals and the Libertarians are the closest in their economic outlook, Classical Liberals bristle at the notion of no state intervention in the Nation’s Economy. Despite Classical Liberals and Neoconservatives preferring the Anglo-Saxon Model, Classical Liberals ardently disagree with what amounts to Corporatism. Interestingly, Right Wing Populists are closer in economic outlook to Progressive Liberals, but believe that the Nation’s Customs and Traditions, and not State Policy, should serve as the Modus Operandi of the Nation’s Economy.
Socially, broadly speaking, Libertarians, Classical Liberals, Moderate Conservatives and Right Wing Populists are either socially liberal or otherwise ambivalent when it comes to social issues (think: live and let live), while the two Sects of the Hard Right tend to be more socially conservative. The first four groups baulk at the socially conservative views held by the Hard Right.
Culturally, broadly speaking, Libertarians, Classical Liberals, Moderate Conservatives and Right Wing Populists are, as they are with social issues, think of Culture as “Holidays” whose primary purpose is Conspicuous Consumption, while the Hard Right have deeply held beliefs about what ties a People together and who are and are not included in such ties. Like with social issues, the first four groups baulk at the culturally conservative views held by the Hard Right.
One of most common reactions of individuals in the comments was that National Divorce is not a realistic solution. I would argue, as Gordon did in his Commentary, that, as a result of the “COVID-19 Pandemic,” National Divorce is already occurring.
Whether or not we get a de jure National Divorce, the object of the Hard Right must be, at this time, to relocate to Red States. Once re-located, the object must then become the capture of Legislative and Judicial Power in such states, so as to leverage the 10th Amendment to ensure that these states can survive sans federal funding and push the boundaries of Nullification and Interposition to shield these states from Federal Laws and Policies that infringe upon and/or abridge what the state determines to be its Conservative Tradition.
Often times, when people think about National Divorce, the issue of how the country would be divided becomes an issue. I have a few thoughts on this.
The Average U.S. Citisen is either not Politically Affiliated, or if he is, he is a Neoliberal or Neoconservative. Even amongst the non-Politically Affiliated, their Political Orientation is some combination of Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism. I could see three countries being formed for the benefit of this group of people.
I think it is relatively safe to say that California, Western Oregon and Western Washington would form one Polity (“the West Coast Polity), New England (Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut) forming one Polity (“the New England Polity”), New Hampshire would form its own Polity (“the Free Polity”), and the smaller Mid-Atlantic States (Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey) forming one Polity (“the Mid Atlantic Polity”).
Regarding Michigan, Illinois, New York, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Minnesota, Ohio and Pennsylvania, I imagine that each of these states would form their own Polities (“the Independent Polities”), or some of them – namely, Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan, Illinois, and New York – becoming part of the the West Coast Polity.
Regarding the other states, I imagine a resurrection of the Confederacy, with all other states except Florida and Texas falling within that Polity. I imagine that Florida and Texas would each constitute their own Polities, as these states have changed beyond recognition since the dissolution of the Confederacy, such that they are no longer traditionally southern in character.
I imagine the Political alignment to look as follows:
- West Coast Polity: Progressive Liberal
- The Free Polity: Libertarian
- New England Polity: Progressive Liberal
- Mid-Atlantic Polity: Neoliberal, Neoconservative
- Independent Polities: Neoliberal, Neoconservative
- Confederacy: Hard Right
- Florida, Texas: Right Wing Populism
Barring the issues of Movable Assets, Migration and Access to Waterways/Ports, the most prominent issue that would arise in the even of a de jure National Divorce is the Federal Debt. This should be resolved by examining Federal Taxation within the confines of the U.S. Constitution prior to the enactment of the 16th Amendment.
In the Founders’ Conception, Congress lacked the ability to Tax Citisens directly. Instead, Federal Expenditures not covered through Tariffs and other Federal Impositions would be Apportioned to the states in accordance with the population of each state.
Therefore, the National Debt, with the exception of Future Entitlements (think: Social Security, Medicare) should be Apportioned to the Polities in accordance with the population of each Polity. Future Entitlements would not be taken into consideration because, in accordance with the Police Power, the Federal Government lacked the Constitutionality to engage in establish Entitlement Programmes and engage in Entitlement Spending.
Regardless of whether National Divorce is de jure or de facto, it is absolutely necessary in order to avoid Kinetic Conflict.
One hopes that the majority of U.S. Citisens come to accept this as fact and make efforts to make National Divorce a de facto, if not a de jure, reality.
Leave a Reply