The idea of a national divorce is gaining currency among some on the right. The appeal is as obvious as it is completely unrealistic. Getting a national divorce from the Left is like asking a mugger to stop beating you and just agree to split the contents of your wallet. It’s appeasement from a position of weakness and that never works.
The Left isn’t into compromise. It wants total victory and it holds most of the good cards. It didn’t get into this to settle for New York and California, or for that matter America. Making any kind of deal with it is a delusion and entirely unfeasible. The national division isn’t between red and blue states, but between urban and some suburban areas, and everything else. A national divorce between urban and rural areas would only be workable as some sort of libertarian fever dream in which both sides form federations and sign complex treaties.
Suffice it to say that the boys and girls trying to force gender identity on pre-schoolers and who riot in the streets are not about to agree to a mutually consensual uncoupling, as Gwyneth Paltrow once put it. Fanatics who spend most of their waking hours dreaming of taking over the world while being convinced that all the world’s problems are due to limitations on their authority do not just walk away.
Splitting up the country is unviable, impossible and cowardly. The cold, hard truth is that there’s nowhere to run. This is, as Reagan said, the last hope for freedom. Centuries of fighting for America only to let some of the best parts of it go would be a shameful dismantling of a great nation. And, much like peace with Hitler or Stalin, it’s not on the table anyway. All this talk puts me in mind of Churchill’s “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.”
Retreating to the next hill over and promising to fight for that one has marked numerous surrenders on the right. A national divorce actually surrenders real hills while promising to fight for the remaining ones. It doesn’t work.
Either you have a plan to win or a plan to lose. A plan to cut a deal is not a serious plan, it’s a plan to lose.
And not getting a divorce is battered wife syndrome.
Who said we were asking? We just need to do it and they can kiss our asses. Weakness is staying and trying the same old thing over and again because we’re too afraid to do anything different. Talk about Battered Wife Syndrome. That’s the perfect illustration of it.
“..because we’re too afraid to do anything different”
I think what Daniels saying is try something different: fight back even harder.
The vast majority of the current crop of Republicans are too CS to do it. They would rather keep their positions with the left in charge than try to fix the problems and get this country governed the way the Constitution defined.
the same old thing over and again because we’re too afraid to do anything different.
What Daniel is saying IS to try something different: fight back even harder instead of indulging the Republican habit of allowing itself and the country to be ratcheted ever more leftward.
So you can evict them from part of the country, but not all of it? The battered wife analogy is a poor one, but lets entertain it for a moment. You admit you can’t kick the abusive husband out of the house, yet think you can keep him on his side of whatever dividing line you come up with. That’s ridiculous. Didn’t someone try that already? How did it work out?
Man, this is about the greatest article ever. I was hanging on every word.
Everyone is ‘dumping on’ MTG at the moment. But the problem that MTG called attention to is, in my opinion, a very reasonable fear and problem. Mr. Greenfield, we are not talking about the kind of disagreements that someone like Sen. Dirksen used to have with someone like Sen. Church. We are talking about the kind of disagreements that Genghis Khan might have with Attila the Hun–none of the contending parties are willing to change his position one iota, and the differences between the two are as vast as the distance is between east and west. There will be no compromise between/among these parties, and the confrontation between them likely would be very ugly and destructive. You may be right in that the Left will not allow a peaceful resolution of these differences. But it seems to me that MTG is trying to find a way to peacefully (as peacefully as possible) resolve these differences. As a retired lawyer, I have handled many a failed marriage which ended by an amicable divorce, and that was the best thing that could have happened to/for those people.
Fight on all fronts, never concede and never give one square inch to them in any arena. Align your spending and investments with your values, take back all the institutions. It took the left 100 years there is no reason we can’t.
Gordon, I agree with everything that you said, EXCEPT THE 100 years part. We don’t have 100 years. The Marxist Democrats only believe in ‘democracy’ now UNTIL they win their first election, THEN they will never allow another free and fair election (if they will even allow any elections at all thereafter–they might only allow ‘sham’ elections like the Russians/Chinese do it).
Nobody knows how long it will take, but for us, as with them, there will be incremental successes along the way.
Immanuel Kant published his attack on reason, “The Critique Of Pure Reason”, in 1781, that’s almost 250 years.. He’s the father of modern totalitarianism, he’s the father of the modern Left.
What the Founders didn’t realize and what few realize today is that they founded America in the nick of time at the very tail end, the last full breath, of the Age of Enlightenment. They could not know that just a few years later the philosopher of the Counter Renaissance and the Counter Age of Enlightenment, the philosopher of anti-reason, Immanuel Kant would plant his seeds of destruction.
The left will not accede to a divorce because they know, waaaay deeeeep down in their fevered brains, they don’t have the ability to run viable states. They need the red states and their tax money to keep themselves solvent.
The Biden Admin is the perfect example of a failed state.
I wish you were right – and perhaps you are. But why is it that the communists and socialists always say their ideas have never been truly, rightfully and fully implemented? I am not sure even reality can separate them from their lust for power and utopia.
It feels like we’re in a no-win situation then. Because choosing, “divorce,” would mean chipping away at what was a great country, until only pockets may be left…. And I understand that eventually the Left will still pursue their plan inside whatever is left to crush and divide and conquer everything.
But then I can’t see the other option, war, being a winning situation… especially when dealing with a country that is behaving like the Soviet Union with their unfair tactics. It will bring so much suffering.
But if we do nothing, then it will all become the Soviet Union of America… which would be horrific. And the suffering would last for decades and affect generations.
Just trying to weigh out the options. It seems the suffering of fighting back could actually produce a beneficial win longterm, if taken seriously, and is worth it. Worth it to fight for the our grandchildren and great-grandchildren left to be born.
The complexity of the process alone makes it a low probability event.
Odds out, right?
A national divorce would be as futile as the Iraq War. You can’t force freedom on a people who are not ready for freedom. Or who have lost their understanding of what freedom is and what freedom is founded on and relies upon. A people who have lost their confidence in self-reliance, i.e., have lost their confidence in reason. A republic of liberty if you can keep it ultimately means a republic of reason. When men abandon reason they abandon liberty.
“It took centuries of intellectual, philosophical development to achieve political freedom. It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers.” – Ayn Rand
“Amazingly, Edgerton points out, Tasmanians could not take advantage of the ocean surrounding their island, because although they once learned how to fish, they forgot or gave up the practice. Thus many Tasmanians perished of starvation despite the availability of a plentiful food source all around them.” – Dinesh D’Souza
If the US were split up voluntarily by state, there would still be large socialist enclaves in cities and suburbs inside otherwise capitalist states. One group would have the business centers and ports, while another would have the mines, factories, and farms. Mass population transfer would compound the chaos. This is no stable solution whatsoever. Look at Eastern Europe after WW1.
I think the D’s would like to see a secession movement by the R’s that they could crush. The D agents’ actions to stir things up on J6 imply as much.
Exactly.
you are wrong sir! Ideologies that are diametrically opposed cannot coexist peacefully into perpetuity. They will dominate and crush us completely if we do not find a way to get an ideological divorce. If what has happened over the past dozen or so years have not awakened you, there is no hope.
At this point, our only options seem to be national divorce, civil war, or acquiescence to neocommunism, which to my mind is not an option at all.
Of divorce or war, divorce seems to be the least bad option.
Let me BRIEFLY recount a ‘war story’. There is one family that I represented. They divorced. In the years that followed they got along with each other fine. But until they divorced, they just couldn’t live with each other!
In addition to reasons given by Greenfield and others here, peaceful national divorce is impossible because there’s zero chance that DC will allow whatever states choose to leave the union to take their nukes and other military assets with them, and there’s zero chance that those leaving states would ever trust DC to leave them alone now that they’re defenseless.
The first Civil War was kicked off by the dispute over Fort Sumter. The second civil war would be over the 15 military installations in Texas and 21 military bases in Florida. Can you imagine DC allowing Montana to leave with Malstrom AFB and all those ICBMs?
The Texas Nationalist Movement is growing stronger. Polling shows increasing support for the idea. Texas was its own nation before and has strong constitutional protections for returning to that status. If Texas becomes its own nation, with deep water ports, great farming, plentiful water and lots of oil and natural gas, and strong borders, who is to say that it will not grow and absorb the states around it? Sort of like Idaho and eastern California?
Eastern California counties have been trying to secede from California since the 1930s I think it was.
Northern CA, too. I forget the names of the counties.
Texas seceding is workable. The trouble is it also leaves a United States much more likely to be run by the Left which will use its full powers to come after Texas.
I think they have a few guns
I think they have a LOT of guns. But you know that. You were just using humor.
Don’t mess with Texas is the old saying.
Good point. Bad point when you think of it, though. I’d hate to see the feds mess with Texas.
If Northern CA ever secedes, I’ll move there. The real Northern CA, not the Bay area.
While a red/blue U.S. secession is administratively impossible, State secession is not only possible but inevitable. Does anybody in his right mind believe that “winning the next election” will fix the divisions of this country? That is fatuous, delusional stupidity. The U.S. was founded in secession from Britain, and every one of the 50 States has a history of secession. See page 136-153, here:
amazon.com/dp/1947660853
There is no provision in the Constitution or laws of the United States permitting secession by any state. It would, at minimum, be treated as sedition by the federal government, and anyone taking up arms to facilitate it would be committing treason against the United States. Treason is defined in the Constitution.
You might want to actually read the Constitution, Skippy. You’re full of shit.
Why is it that you leftists never read the Constitution? Oh, yeah. Because you hate your own country and society, and you especially hate white people.
Emigrate to Afghanistan or North Korea, you asshole You don’t belong here. This country is for men and women, not lefty scum.
Succession is surrender. It admits weakness and exposes a state to the power of the national government. Each state leaving the union would be unable to close their borders to population movements, much less US forces. Critical is resuming free elections and free speech. However difficult that looks, it is far easier than succession and can have a much better upside.
It also leaves sizable conservative populations trapped behind ‘enemy lines’ while sizable leftist populations would remain embedded in the ‘free states’.
Never mind that the prospective map is unviable.
And yes it’s surrender and it’s a surrender that won’t be accepted.
I don’t know, big guy. I think if if Northen CA or Texas seceded they would succeed. The lefties would be sidelined..
Free elections? Good luck with that.
The Union is permanent and insoluble. The only way out would be the collective suicide suggested by those who think a “national divorce” is in their interests.
After the original thirteen colonies won their independence from the United Kingdom, they deemed themselves to be sovereign nations. Some of these States (e.g., Virginia) when they ratified the new U. S. Constitution placed provisions in their ratifying instruments which reserved their right to leave the new Federal Government if things ‘did not work out’ for them in that government. After the War Between the States, SCOTUS ruled that the Union was indissoluble, but prior to that time the generally accepted legal consensus was States COULD leave the Union. (I think that the style of this post-WBTS case was Texas v. White.) So, it seems clear to me that a constitutional amendment allowing for a national dissolution of the Federal Government by a State would be needed, and probably Congress would also then want to ‘flesh out’ the details about how this would happen and would need to be set forth in national legislation.
“National divorce?”
Why can’t you leftists speak plain English? What is it with all the STUPID metaphors and similes.?
You fucking retards.
Lots of comments. Lots of negativity. All the reasons why we can’t divorce.
The problem is it’s inevitable. When the left grabs your kids and blows up your trains and then your homes eventually you will have had enough.
Barring a miraculous Trump triumph over vote fraud, it’s inevitable.
I may not live to see it. But after the trauma of the last more than decade, it’s inevitable.
I even have a slogan ready. “ No taxation without representation” Kinda catchy, eh?
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
It’s still onto something. If you make artist and martial arts and natural health and spiritual and all other forms of enclaves all over, a whole city, you take the whole power base of the left getting tricked and give then productive lives.
Most of leftists are terribly lonely, because the left doesn’t care about them. This is more like the neighbor made a few of your daughters crazy so you want to leave them with him and keep them from coming over.
Imagine it though. The first goal of the leftist states will be to send degenecy and abomination missionaries into right wing places.
Anyone arguing that we can preserve our freedoms as one nation is in dreamland. The ‘left’ will fight to the end. We do not. It is as simple as that. The decay that they have caused in the past century plus in education and culture alone is undoable. We are done as one nation! If there is no ideological divorce, we will be completely subjugated over the next few decades. The last couple of decades are all the proof that we need.
I think you’re right, unfortunately.
It’s like the survival of the state of Israel: the core mistake is to assume there is a peaceful solution possible with a determined, ruthless foe. All you can do is fight – the better you fight the more you win, the worse you fight the more you lose, and the struggle never ends. But, “peace”? An abstraction based on mere wishful thinking.
Yeah, the war never ends.