I completely understand the appeal of a national divorce. As the worldviews of Americans diverge further apart, we are forced to acknowledge that there really are two versions of the United States trying to stay married, but whose irreconcilable differences are too substantial to ignore. You see the divide in:
And more, too many to list here. Certainly if combined, these divisions are as deep as the slavery divide was in America during the 1850s, and I would argue even deeper and more profound. For these divisions go beyond politics or public policy, though the two political parties remain the primary vehicle by which worldviews are given voice. These divisions are ultimately a result of a lack of belief in God and the outworking of His moral authority, and they are not likely to disappear anytime soon. Given our freedom of movement and the stranglehold that woke-ism has on the political left, it seems likely that blue states will only get bluer and red states will get more red. i.e. California is losing population while Florida is booming. Therefore, the divide between the states will only intensify.
Is it Time to Split Up?
So if the gap is unbridgeable, what are we to do? One attractive solution is to simply part ways. Figure out a way to have joint custody of the kids, start all over with a new spouse, and leave one another in peace. We are seeing inklings of this idea at the state level. A movement called Greater Idaho is an effort to annex over a dozen Washington counties to become a part of Idaho. After all, eastern Washington has far more in common with Boise than Seattle. Actually, many states face that same kind of rural/urban divide. Southern Illinois has little in common with Chicagoland, for example.
But is any of this even possible? As appealing as it is to imagine a utopia where I am no longer burned by progressive fiscal policy, endless foreign wars, abortion on demand, and the tyranny of the BLM and the LGBT movements, let’s talk reality. What would such a divorce look like? What would it actually take to divide the United States of America into multiple countries? What are some possible outcomes, for better or worse?
Let’s begin with the obvious: the eastern, western, and southern borders of our country are natural as well as much of our northern border thanks to the Great Lakes. We are blessed that our borders are defined by nature, including massive oceans at that. That fact alone makes the idea that this landmass could become multiple nations far less than ideal. We are all safer having oceans to defend us from invasion. And yet, it is along the eastern and western coasts that the ideological divide is most strongly felt, and it is those areas that would most likely form new nations if given the opportunity to do so.
So if the East Coast and the West Coast are the “bluest” states and if a national divorce were to take place, it seems most likely that the West Coast would become a nation and the East Coast would become a nation and the vast middle of America would become a nation (or simply remain the United States as they still tend to like our founding.) While the east and west are ideologically of one mind, there is no way to physically bridge the two coasts. So let’s call the West Coast nation Nation A, the middle nation Nation B, and the East Coast nation Nation C.
Right off the bat, if we are talking about three nations, there will be three currencies, three governments, four borders (two for each nation on each side), three militaries, three diplomatic corps, three capitals, three divisions of the nation as it exists now etc. etc.. Sure, as has been done in Europe, a landmass can be shared among many nations, though the EU seems to be failing before our eyes. We could fast track border crossings and ease business restrictions and share the existing infrastructure like highways and even develop a new currency we could all use.
Practical Issues on the Ground
But how long would those agreements last? Why wouldn’t the worldview differences that are tearing America apart eventually wear on the relationships between these three nations? Yes, they would be separate, but they would still need each other. Iowans need California’s tech and California need’s Iowa’s corn. Texans would love to visit Yosemite and Oregon needs goods delivered through Galveston. Total isolation would be impossible. And with continued interaction, wouldn’t we still irritate each other? Don’t existing sovereign nations irritate each other now because of fundamental worldview and cultural differences? Hello, Russia and Ukraine.
It would be foolish to assume that friendly relationships would be the norm among Nations. A, B, and C. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine Nation B being increasingly squeezed by Nations A and C who, though separated by land, would be natural allies.
And while Nation B may have three or four major ports and grow much of the food, Nations A and C would have the most significant population centers, financial, technological, and media infrastructures. They may not be able to grow enough wheat, but they could certainly afford (and would they inherit?) significant militaries. Such a nation can just take over wheat producing states.
Could Nation B easily find itself unable to defend the natural borders to her left and right? Absolutely. For it should be clear that Nations A and C would not be nations with “peace and love” leanings, but the kind of leftist authoritarian leanings that we are seeing today. High taxes, Covid tyranny, incredible regulation, fiscal irresponsibility, and trans-mania all seem to go together. In short, blue states are run by progressives who believe they have the right to tell you how to live because they have the high moral ground.
If Nations A and C, for example, viewed Nation B as inhumane because of its “conservative” takes on abortion and marriage, could trade come to an end at some point? Could a two-front war be incited if Nations A and C form an alliance, tired of dealing with the Neanderthals in Nation B? Could Nations A and C come to believe that a nation that did not affirm transitioning persons did not have the right to exist? That is all easily imaginable for that war is already being waged in our schools, media, and via technology.
But that is looking into the future. Let’s ask some practical questions about the present. Who gets the nuclear weapons? Do all three nations become nuclear nations now with the possibility of using them on one another? Or do they all get destroyed, which would make this landmass become more vulnerable to foreign attacks?
Would Nation B trust Nations A and C to defend the borders, or might nations A and C freely choose to cozy up to China, say, allowing a Chinese port on the Hudson River or in Los Angeles? There is no reason to believe President Newsome of Nation A would not invite the CCP to set up an alliance on California’s coast. And Nation B could do nothing about it.
I’m sure there are many more practical issues I cannot possibly imagine and many unexpected issues that would present themselves. And if there were a single part of the landmass - say, the northwest - where all of the division was taking place, perhaps a divorce would be possible. But given that it is the coasts, I cannot imagine a way to divide those portions of the landmass and have three nations (or more) coexist. For the vast worldview differences would not go away with a divorce. Rather, with their own military at their disposal, enforcing those worldviews might become dangerously tempting.
Looking at a Real Resolution to the Divides
The only real option forward is for one side to decisively win and the other to decisively lose. The Trumpian revolution within the Republican Party is the first serious effort at such a victory in my lifetime. Certainly, the Bushes did not seem too interested in such a victory. In America, we still have a process, flawed though it may be. Working through the democratic process, Nation B - if you will - will simply need to exert its will on the other “nations” that despise it. And we still have, in theory, state sovereignty, whereby Americans can flee to states more aligned with them. It isn’t a perfect solution, but it is far more workable than a divorce. It is one thing to have a custody battle for children; having one over a military with nuclear weapons would simply invite disaster.
Photo Credit: crosswalk. com