Declaring "the debate is over" is a weird way to try to win a debate. Sure, interest in National Divorce waxes and wanes, and is now rather low. However, National Divorce can happen without national support if Texans decide to kick it off unilaterally. A majority of Texans prefer independence.
US voters who aren't conservative think a Republican killed Charlie Kirk. They don't watch factual news sources and they don't want to. This will lead to Rwandan levels of partisanship
So the US is too divided to remain harmonious without totalitarianism, which only Leftists are willing and able to provide. Totalitarianism isn't popular enough on the Right. So we must secede to avoid Leftist totalitarianism.
I don't see anything wrong with Shapiro's comments. (Even a stopped clock...)
I could foresee a Soviet-like breakup of the USA, where the old Confederacy breaks off like Kazakhstan, but that was more likely under the President Kamala timeline where a 1,000-year leftist reich was promised, and years of crime, corruption, and economic decline ends with some things blowing up Washington and we get an American Yeltsin in the aftermath.
As always, the true test will be 2028. If MAGA is as popular as X claims it is, then a national right-wing mandate will buy the USA a few more decades.
This is one of your weaker pieces. Which is too bad, because some of it is good, including the overall message.
However, just because it’s true that immigration and trade are in fact national issues that must be addressed at a federal level, just because defense is a national issue (one of the few places where Americans actually aren’t that split, even if politicians seek to exploit small differences for partisan divides), it does not in fact follow that the federal government needs to get involved in *everything*.
You are half (60%?) right, half wrong.
Trump does not in fact need to send the National Guard into blue cities in blue states uninvited.
“States are incapable of being purely autonomous” is an Obama-style strawman. Our country is a *federation*; it is a false dichotomy to claim states must be either purely autonomous or purely under the thumb of a heavy-handed Federal government.
Less federal funding for basic services would be a very good thing. Less federal taxation would be a very good thing.
Just because Trump is doing more heavy-handed federal impositions does not make them all proper.
Some of them surely are, and Trump should be applauded for those. You take fed education dollars, you can’t teach DEI.
But not all are. And we shouldn’t applaud Trump acting like the nanny state soft authoritarian Dems when he’s wrong.
Only immigration is the issue that HAS to be done federally.
Scott Greer is effectively a Democrat in this opinion, in addition to him claiming to be a 'pragmatic political operative' emphasising where the American people are now, whilst not trying to move them back towards particular values.
The 10th Amendment renders basically every federal government body created since 1903 illegal. Greer seems to want managerialist consoomer-slop America.
This is a tough one. Nothing written here is wrong. That and the simple fact of inertia means the U.S. isn't going to break down. Neil Howe, Mr. Fourth Turning, notes that no country as old as the U.S. has ever broken up peacefully. So the U.S. likely won't break up.
What makes it tough is that voluntary separation is literally the only way to avert conflict. Either you do it voluntarily or it happens violently. It's the lesson of racial integration in America. It's difficult to make the argument that it was a success. Plus it doesn't make sense for Black people to live with their so-called oppressor.
National divorce is a dumb idea because it's not going to happen. But it's also not a dumb idea in principle.
Shapiro is right. Nor does having much, even most, power returned to the states mean no federal government. Borders are of course federal dominion and that necessarily means immigration. Some national trade policy might be justified under this umbrella too. The military is a federal concern.
But education does not. Labor standards and wages do not. All transportation related matters fo not. Environmental protection does not. Provision of health services does not. What you describe as states being dependent on federal crumbs (money) illustrates two things: first, the old saw that the cheese in the mousetrap is not free, and second, the extraordinary inefficiency of the federal system over-reach. As to the latter, in essence you have the wealth of the citizenry, both individual and corporate hoovered up in ever increasing amount by an ever growing tax behemoth that the behemoth itself cannot explain its mechanisms. Once collected, various bureacrats study the reasons for and means and methods of disbursement. Then another group of specialized bureaucrats studies the actual disbursements. Then a lower tier of bureaucrats disburse the funds to states, local governments, and sometimes a mind-numbing array of vrant recipients. And as we learned from the DOGE lads with little to no rhyme or reason, much less oversight or accountability. Then once the funds are received by said state, local government, or grant-recipient a new round of bureaucrats takes the helm. It has resulted in a massive, bloated federal bureaucracy that is too unwieldy to manage. And wa-a-a-y too many of those that have sucked at the federal teat for w-a-a-ay too long see the solution as overlaying another level on top in the form of globalism.
Declaring "the debate is over" is a weird way to try to win a debate. Sure, interest in National Divorce waxes and wanes, and is now rather low. However, National Divorce can happen without national support if Texans decide to kick it off unilaterally. A majority of Texans prefer independence.
US voters who aren't conservative think a Republican killed Charlie Kirk. They don't watch factual news sources and they don't want to. This will lead to Rwandan levels of partisanship
So the US is too divided to remain harmonious without totalitarianism, which only Leftists are willing and able to provide. Totalitarianism isn't popular enough on the Right. So we must secede to avoid Leftist totalitarianism.
I don't see anything wrong with Shapiro's comments. (Even a stopped clock...)
I could foresee a Soviet-like breakup of the USA, where the old Confederacy breaks off like Kazakhstan, but that was more likely under the President Kamala timeline where a 1,000-year leftist reich was promised, and years of crime, corruption, and economic decline ends with some things blowing up Washington and we get an American Yeltsin in the aftermath.
As always, the true test will be 2028. If MAGA is as popular as X claims it is, then a national right-wing mandate will buy the USA a few more decades.
This is one of your weaker pieces. Which is too bad, because some of it is good, including the overall message.
However, just because it’s true that immigration and trade are in fact national issues that must be addressed at a federal level, just because defense is a national issue (one of the few places where Americans actually aren’t that split, even if politicians seek to exploit small differences for partisan divides), it does not in fact follow that the federal government needs to get involved in *everything*.
You are half (60%?) right, half wrong.
Trump does not in fact need to send the National Guard into blue cities in blue states uninvited.
“States are incapable of being purely autonomous” is an Obama-style strawman. Our country is a *federation*; it is a false dichotomy to claim states must be either purely autonomous or purely under the thumb of a heavy-handed Federal government.
Less federal funding for basic services would be a very good thing. Less federal taxation would be a very good thing.
Just because Trump is doing more heavy-handed federal impositions does not make them all proper.
Some of them surely are, and Trump should be applauded for those. You take fed education dollars, you can’t teach DEI.
But not all are. And we shouldn’t applaud Trump acting like the nanny state soft authoritarian Dems when he’s wrong.
Only immigration is the issue that HAS to be done federally.
Scott Greer is effectively a Democrat in this opinion, in addition to him claiming to be a 'pragmatic political operative' emphasising where the American people are now, whilst not trying to move them back towards particular values.
The 10th Amendment renders basically every federal government body created since 1903 illegal. Greer seems to want managerialist consoomer-slop America.
Shapiro is unbearable, and this retarded Paul-Ryan-like take proves it.
This is a tough one. Nothing written here is wrong. That and the simple fact of inertia means the U.S. isn't going to break down. Neil Howe, Mr. Fourth Turning, notes that no country as old as the U.S. has ever broken up peacefully. So the U.S. likely won't break up.
What makes it tough is that voluntary separation is literally the only way to avert conflict. Either you do it voluntarily or it happens violently. It's the lesson of racial integration in America. It's difficult to make the argument that it was a success. Plus it doesn't make sense for Black people to live with their so-called oppressor.
National divorce is a dumb idea because it's not going to happen. But it's also not a dumb idea in principle.
Shapiro is right. Nor does having much, even most, power returned to the states mean no federal government. Borders are of course federal dominion and that necessarily means immigration. Some national trade policy might be justified under this umbrella too. The military is a federal concern.
But education does not. Labor standards and wages do not. All transportation related matters fo not. Environmental protection does not. Provision of health services does not. What you describe as states being dependent on federal crumbs (money) illustrates two things: first, the old saw that the cheese in the mousetrap is not free, and second, the extraordinary inefficiency of the federal system over-reach. As to the latter, in essence you have the wealth of the citizenry, both individual and corporate hoovered up in ever increasing amount by an ever growing tax behemoth that the behemoth itself cannot explain its mechanisms. Once collected, various bureacrats study the reasons for and means and methods of disbursement. Then another group of specialized bureaucrats studies the actual disbursements. Then a lower tier of bureaucrats disburse the funds to states, local governments, and sometimes a mind-numbing array of vrant recipients. And as we learned from the DOGE lads with little to no rhyme or reason, much less oversight or accountability. Then once the funds are received by said state, local government, or grant-recipient a new round of bureaucrats takes the helm. It has resulted in a massive, bloated federal bureaucracy that is too unwieldy to manage. And wa-a-a-y too many of those that have sucked at the federal teat for w-a-a-ay too long see the solution as overlaying another level on top in the form of globalism.
Yes, it could take the form of what Ben Shapiro advocates.
"Ffew"
Got his ass.
Don't forget to order your MTG '28 Bibi Space Laser T-shirt today! Available exclusively at mtg-28.com
If there are conservatives don’t even want to conserve our nation’s geography, then they should be ignored.