-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Should The United States Break Up?
- Thread starter Archmage
- Start date
You would then need to provide free resources for resettling folks into their choice of country and allow unrestricted border crossing at that time. I mean theoretically it could be done and I personally think that is the only way we are getting out of this mess we are currently in but I just don't see it actually happening. Which is a shame because we are never going to dismantle the toxic core of this country.
OP
OP
Really? You don't think the country would be significantly different if, say, Moscow Mitch couldn't be a Senator for 35 years? If spewing bullshit to your base didn't matter because you couldn't get re-elected? We saw what McCain did on the Obamacare vote because he knew he didn't have to worry about re-election.
IDK, but I do know that we should have busted the shit out of some of the states after the civil war.
Even if you could spilt everything exactly down the middle and shift the population around so everyone's where they want to be (which would be impossible), you'd still be left with two countries sharing a massive land border, diametrically opposed ideologically, who absolutely hate each others guts. I don't think such an arrangement would last a decade before the nukes start to fly (which both nations would have, as the US stockpile would be split between them).
They're still in power because white people in the North valued bringing white traitors back into the fold over the people those traitors enslaved.
if you don't care about triggering an immense humanitarian crisis for minorities in the red states left behind, then sure. I've brought up that possibility in many conversations about the subject here and quite a few of you have gleefully told me that you don't care.
There's a whole bunch of nuances to answering this question, but the key understanding is that there's no obvious way to break up the USA, and no way to negotiate such a break.
You can't do red states/blue states - that's far too simplistic. You'd end up trapping huge swathes of the population in very unwelcome circumstances (that's true now, of course, but any development should aim to fix that situation, not ossify it). You can't do any bigger geographical split because that'd just have the same problem. It'd also be extremely difficult to do a smaller geographical split (like, say, having two nations that consisted of noncontiguous collections of counties or whatever).
The urban/rural divide is a little closer to matching the political reality in the USA but you can't exactly split off cities into their own conjoined nation. There might be some hypothetical rearrangement of US politics that delegated much formally more power to cities (effectively making them entities on a national level like states are now, with their own federal representation) that might help fix some of the bigger problems with US politics, but such a re-arrangement seems extremely unlikely to be politically feasible any time soon.
So without that obvious negotiable way of splitting, the US Is not going to split via any kind neat process.
Which doesn't mean it can never split, or even necessarily mean that a split is unlikely. It just means that if the US splits, the way that happens will be an unpredictable mess. In terms of "should" - anyone saying that the US should split is probably imagining an end-state that works reasonably well for everyone, but the inherent unpredictability of any split means that end state cannot be guaranteed. It is totally possible that the immediate aftermath of a split would be a war that was some combination of long, genocidal and nuclear.
You can't do red states/blue states - that's far too simplistic. You'd end up trapping huge swathes of the population in very unwelcome circumstances (that's true now, of course, but any development should aim to fix that situation, not ossify it). You can't do any bigger geographical split because that'd just have the same problem. It'd also be extremely difficult to do a smaller geographical split (like, say, having two nations that consisted of noncontiguous collections of counties or whatever).
The urban/rural divide is a little closer to matching the political reality in the USA but you can't exactly split off cities into their own conjoined nation. There might be some hypothetical rearrangement of US politics that delegated much formally more power to cities (effectively making them entities on a national level like states are now, with their own federal representation) that might help fix some of the bigger problems with US politics, but such a re-arrangement seems extremely unlikely to be politically feasible any time soon.
So without that obvious negotiable way of splitting, the US Is not going to split via any kind neat process.
Which doesn't mean it can never split, or even necessarily mean that a split is unlikely. It just means that if the US splits, the way that happens will be an unpredictable mess. In terms of "should" - anyone saying that the US should split is probably imagining an end-state that works reasonably well for everyone, but the inherent unpredictability of any split means that end state cannot be guaranteed. It is totally possible that the immediate aftermath of a split would be a war that was some combination of long, genocidal and nuclear.
Should it? Probably not. As much as I would love to watch Republican states fall apart without California's economy keeping them on life support, there really is no easy way to split the country up into "sane" and "not sane" areas. Like I live in New England, we're a firmly blue region but we still have legions of Trumper pond scum.
Same way that plenty of red states have their pockets of progressivism. Do we leave them to die? We can't.
Same way that plenty of red states have their pockets of progressivism. Do we leave them to die? We can't.
Technically, it broke up a couple of centuries ago. One side pulled this clever trick tho where it got the other side to keep paying for all of its shit.
I know it's just recently made, but jesus fucking christ at those poll results so far. It's a culture war that will never end.
No. There is no way to do this without millions of people ending up living under oppressive, hard-right, fascist government(s). Almost every major city in America is blue, even in the hard red states that surround them. I would know, as I live in extremely liberal Alexandria, Virginia, and every fucking proposal for this shit just wants to throw the entire state to fascists despite the entirety of Northern Virginia being decidedly not on board. Also, it would fuck up the equilibrium of a ton of stuff. Red USA's economy would be fucking gutted without California and New York. Blue USA would have to scramble to find sources of food because presumably 99% of our agriculture would be Red USA's. Amongst I'm sure tons and tons of other issues that would arise.
Like yeah on paper it sounds like a cute solution to the polarization problem, but the reality is is thousands of people would die and millions would suffer.
Like yeah on paper it sounds like a cute solution to the polarization problem, but the reality is is thousands of people would die and millions would suffer.
Would it be different? Yes. But FPTP, the Senate, Gerrymandering, House districts being too large, the Supreme Court, and more are all vastly more impactful than tenure in government.
Replacing Mitch with a young whippersnapper like Ted Cruz wouldn't make much of a difference, or replacing Mitch with a younger version of himself.
I think the fact that the divide is mostly urban vs rural makes it really hard to think about what structures would be an improvement
I had thought in the past that the US breaking up into 5-8 distinct regions and creating a more EU like framework could help, since we could still coordinate on large issues, have freedom of movement, and be governed mostly by our own new political systems that would be more parliamentary, but I am not sure how workable that is. I'm in New England and think it'd be fine if we were our own thing, but you'd still get a north/south divide.
Probably a better first step is abolishing the senate, or at least really nerfing it's power so it's more like a House of Lords
I had thought in the past that the US breaking up into 5-8 distinct regions and creating a more EU like framework could help, since we could still coordinate on large issues, have freedom of movement, and be governed mostly by our own new political systems that would be more parliamentary, but I am not sure how workable that is. I'm in New England and think it'd be fine if we were our own thing, but you'd still get a north/south divide.
Probably a better first step is abolishing the senate, or at least really nerfing it's power so it's more like a House of Lords
I mean, given how much power states have over legislation compared to federal power.... they already kinda are?
The urban/rural divide is also confronted with the issue of the suburban/urban divide. How do you reconcile Republican outer suburbs with Democratic inner urban areas? Sometimes the transition is pretty clear cut from street to street. Cities themselves could easily be Balkanized.
Forget the turmoil caused internally by remaking new American countries. Imagine the fucking power vacuum created by this. Does anyone really want China and Russia throwing their weight around the international stage WITHOUT the looming threat of American intervention? What was saber rattling becomes real action.
Black people should be given the former Confederate States of Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Nukes for self defense and allat.
Furthermore modern US cities are not self sustaining, like at all.
Yeah this. The north just wanted the south to outsource the slavery like they did. Pay a pittance, own all the homes, shops and services so the workers pay the pittance back to survive.
You know that there are millions of people of the opposite political ideology in a given red/blue state, right? You can't just cleanly split the country based on red/blue states.
Y'all forgot the last time America tried this? The Confederacy were branded as traitors and hundreds of thousands of people died in an effort to keep the nation together.
So unless you want this "break-up" to result in an immense loss of life--because this is what will happen--then maybe think of other solutions that aren't so childish.
So unless you want this "break-up" to result in an immense loss of life--because this is what will happen--then maybe think of other solutions that aren't so childish.
Yep. And that in a lot of cases will be a divide that goes right down to street level, or household level.
Into... what? Sovereign citizens that define their sphere of influence by their houses and cars?
I don't see how that would solve anything, you know the crazies would only want to invade and "take back what is theirs."
Do us Mexicans get Texas, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma?
This is an incredibly stupid idea to purposefully try. Now will it happen over time if things dont change governmentally due to civil war? Perhaps. But to do it willingly is a recipe for immediate disaster for all of the people who struggle the most in this country already. Its something only those who have the privilege to live comfortably would suggest.
What needs to change is the constitution and the way our institutions are run. Those monoliths are what need to be "broken up". The only problem is 30-35% of the population holding this country hostage. Hence the thought that it'll probably happen "naturally". Besides how does something like this even happen without things coming to a head in some way shape or form.
And yes I believe in divorce. Not nearly comparable.
What needs to change is the constitution and the way our institutions are run. Those monoliths are what need to be "broken up". The only problem is 30-35% of the population holding this country hostage. Hence the thought that it'll probably happen "naturally". Besides how does something like this even happen without things coming to a head in some way shape or form.
And yes I believe in divorce. Not nearly comparable.
Last edited:
This is why the red state/blue state talk really dumbs things down. Think about this - Kevin McCarthy is from California and Cori Bush is from Missouri.
It is relevant when it comes to the makeup of the Senate, but you can't apply that logic broadly.
In fact, right now, you have red state governments doing everything they can to reduce the power of their blue cities to self-govern. Republicans complain about the federal government not letting states decide things for themselves and then proceed to not allow cities to decide things for themselves.
Sounds about right. Quite a while ago, someone was saying that liberals in red states should just move out. As if everyone just has the resources to do that. Not to even mention the fact that it would essentially be a self-imposed gerrymander of Democratic votes.
It is relevant when it comes to the makeup of the Senate, but you can't apply that logic broadly.
In fact, right now, you have red state governments doing everything they can to reduce the power of their blue cities to self-govern. Republicans complain about the federal government not letting states decide things for themselves and then proceed to not allow cities to decide things for themselves.
Sounds about right. Quite a while ago, someone was saying that liberals in red states should just move out. As if everyone just has the resources to do that. Not to even mention the fact that it would essentially be a self-imposed gerrymander of Democratic votes.
Anyone who thinks that you could somehow cleanly split the United States into two (or possibly more) countries is a damn fool.
Ah yes, my favorite activity, dream scenarios about the US breaking up with no thoughts or care about how certain groups would instantly lose their rights and become targets of extreme violence, thrown into chattel slavery like their forefathers, others having their lands and reservations taken from them, etc.
It's the one field exercise that succinctly demonstrates that despite being on polar opposite sides politically, both sides want the same thing, a version of America where they feel "free" with no coloreds. Difference being when conservatives speak of their secessionist dreams they expressedly tell you what will happen to PoC whereas liberals will tell you via omitting PoC in their dream scenarios.
So my answer is no, I'd rather live under my current conditions than any scenario in which the bulk of my people in the south are left to fend for themselves against racists who have the backing of their new confederate government V2. Blue America would know no peace as long as my ppl were suffering in confederate America.
It's the one field exercise that succinctly demonstrates that despite being on polar opposite sides politically, both sides want the same thing, a version of America where they feel "free" with no coloreds. Difference being when conservatives speak of their secessionist dreams they expressedly tell you what will happen to PoC whereas liberals will tell you via omitting PoC in their dream scenarios.
So my answer is no, I'd rather live under my current conditions than any scenario in which the bulk of my people in the south are left to fend for themselves against racists who have the backing of their new confederate government V2. Blue America would know no peace as long as my ppl were suffering in confederate America.
I wanted to address this point in particular: You realize this is already the case, right? Like I live in Austin but Austin the city is entirely under the jurisdiction of Greg Abott. State governments hold power over blue cities. They can and they do overturn anything and everything a blue city does in attempt to be progressive. When the state legislature and state judicial is hard right and fascist living in a blue city provides only the mildest of protection.
The illusion that people living in a blue city are protected from most of this is a farce. Especially as the far right closes ranks, rewrites districts and diminishes voting power for the large population centers. This isn't to say that I think breaking up the US is a good idea, but you are not safe just because you live in a bluer part of a red state.
No. That's just dumb. Pretty much every red state has significant blue areas. Pretty much every blue state has significant red areas. Even the few that don't certainly have minorities and individuals who don't fit in with their state. Are we supposed to abandon huge chunks of people to this? Do you have any idea what would happen to gay and trans people who live in the south?
There's no way to split that actually makes any sense or helps people.
There's no way to split that actually makes any sense or helps people.
Cities need to be allowed to be independent of their rural parts. The difference between urban and rural is too great now. In my mind places like KC and STL would sort of have a "federal" system within the state of MO. We pay taxes, agree on things like roads, energy, business law. But everything else you do it your way. Kearney MO and KC after all have nothing in common.
The problem is Republicans don't just want to rule their own communities, they want to rule everyones.
The problem is Republicans don't just want to rule their own communities, they want to rule everyones.
I can't even imagine letting the maga freaks have full range access to create their own laws. Imagine having to travel to maga "country" for work or an emergency.
Changing the constitution is somehow more unrealistic so from what I gather is there is no solution
Enough people have pointed out the problem with how "red" and "blue" people are all mixed together in all areas, so moving past that...
Do you really want a country comprised of only the most extreme conservatives in America right now, with nobody else to even slightly keep their government or military in check? If you think America is bad now, oh boy. That country would be the WORST.
Do you really want a country comprised of only the most extreme conservatives in America right now, with nobody else to even slightly keep their government or military in check? If you think America is bad now, oh boy. That country would be the WORST.
Yeah, this is where I'm at. As much as I'd love a hypothetical cut-out of America with just the left-leaning people and a progressive governance policy, it's a fantasy. The divide is much to closer to urban vs. rural than state vs. state, and even then, it's not monolithic. There's no way, in my mind, to pull this off and not fuck over a bunch of people.
Ya know OP the US actually tried to do this once before. Was really messy and a lot of people died and it didn't work. We also uhhhhhhhhhh legally restricted states from succeeding from the Union. So there's that.
A "breakup" only happens because of violence and we are still a ways from that point. Ya never know, we could have a WWII style national project that relieves tensions. But forcing a "breakup" for political differences and gridlock, even if those things are leading to tragedy, will just lead to more tragedy.
A "breakup" only happens because of violence and we are still a ways from that point. Ya never know, we could have a WWII style national project that relieves tensions. But forcing a "breakup" for political differences and gridlock, even if those things are leading to tragedy, will just lead to more tragedy.
We lose Colorado but keep the Tim Allen state? LmfaoNever forget Jesusland 2004. Let's permanently abandon those beat red states of... Virginia and Colorado?
Jesusland map - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Of you can break up the country without killing millions of people, you have the political will to fix the Senate.
Let's play this scenario out… who gets to control the new economy? Who gets to draft the new constitution? Whose interests will be protected? Why do you assume the new form of government would be a republic/democracy?