Marjorie Taylor Greene is once again calling for a national divorce.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) renewed her call for a “national divorce” to divide the country along partisan lines on Monday — this time citing the fractured response to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and federal funding disputes in Congress.
“There is nothing left to talk about with the left. They hate us,” Greene wrote on the social platform X. “To be honest, I want a peaceful national divorce.”
“Our country is too far gone and too far divided, and it’s no longer safe for any of us,” she added.
This is not a very good idea. I am actually being too charitable. A national divorce, that is, splitting the United States in two, is an absolutely idiotic notion. The first time a national divorce was attempted, it resulted in the bloodiest war in American history. There is no reason to believe a second attempt will be any less sanguine. A national division is unlikely to be peaceful. It will cause a conflict far worse than the Civil War.
The division between the Blue and the Gray was fairly straightforward along geographical lines. It was a conflict between regions, North against South. The North could have simply granted the South independence with little fuss. The fight between the Red and the Blue would not be so straightforward. We think in terms of Red States and Blue States, but matters are not nearly so simple. In any state, there are swatches of territory of the opposite color.
Consider my neighboring state, Illinois. Illinois is considered one of the bluest states. But that is only because the densely populated area surrounding Chicago is a Blue stronghold. The less populated center and southern portions of the state are fairly Red. My own state of Indiana is Red, yet there are Blue enclaves in the northeast close to Chicago, the college town of Bloomington, and portions of Indianapolis.
So, do we divide the country along existing state lines? A lot of territory is going to be left on the wrong side of the divide. Do we follow political and ideological lines? That could get messy. What about places that are roughly evenly divided? What about enclaves deep in the middle of the opposing side? Do we draw the new borders along geographical features, such as mountains or rivers? Or do we take polls and draw them as we do Congressional districts? If you think creating borders that everyone will be satisfied with is easy, do some research on the history of the Balkans.
Even the reddest or bluest places have plenty of people of the opposite color. What about them? Wouldn’t they be a potential fifth column if the division turns violent? Can we be certain that the rights of the minority will be protected in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion, with incidents occurring nearly every day? Will there be mass transfers of population as there were in India after the Partition?
There are economic considerations in a national divorce. The United States is one huge free trade zone. It is a national-sized market. It is a continent-sized source of national resources. What happens when the national economy is split in two? I doubt either the Red or the Blue will be self-sufficient. Will there be free trade between the two new nations? Or will they erect barriers to protect their economies from the other side? What if there is a conflict? The troubles with the supply chain we had during the pandemic are going to look like a fond memory of prosperity compared to the economic mess a national breakup will cause.
What about the national debt? Will Red and Blue divide it evenly? Will one or both repudiate it? What about foreign trade? If the Blues get the West Coast, will they allow imports to go to the Reds? Will they threaten to interdict trade? What will both sides export?
What about the military? Who gets the bases in the country? Who gets the ships and planes? What about the bases in foreign countries? Who has the responsibility to maintain our bases all over the world? What if one side doesn’t keep up its share of the responsibility? Will we simply abandon our international commitments?
But these practical considerations are not why I oppose the concept of a national divorce. I oppose a national divorce of America because I am an American nationalist. I do not wish to see my country divided. I do not wish to see a single square inch of my country yielded to the Communists who want to see it destroyed. I want to see them defeated.
Nor do I believe a national divorce is necessary. It is often said that we are a nation polarized and divided into two irreconcilable halves. Superficially, this seems to be true. All of our recent presidential elections have been decided by single percentage points in a small number of swing states. Most of the states have become dominated by one of the parties. It would seem that America is divided fifty-fifty.
And yet, on the subjects that really matter, we have more in common than we believe. On many issues, illegal immigration, crime and law enforcement, radical gender ideology, etc, the split is not fifty-fifty but eighty-twenty. The fact is that the twenty percent have been loud and have had an outsized control of the media. This is changing. They are losing their influence. The outpouring of grief for the murder of Charlie Kirk, among other recent events, has shown the eighty percent is the majority. The other side is the extremists. Why give up when we are starting to win?
So no, Marjorie Taylor Greene, we do not need a national divorce. We need to win the ideological struggle to create one united and great America.
David's Commonplace Book 