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.
Only 27% of Texans want independence. Even fewer would want it when it would mean that they would no longer be able to build roads, schools, guard the border, maintain bridges, pay police and fire departments, and basically function without federal funding. Texas would also be in the lurch for their seniors' social security and other federal benefits. Texans would also oppose it when they'd realize they wouldn't have the same access to our economy and would grow poorer for it. Maybe they can build a partnership with China to offset it, but that might upset the people pushing for secession.
We're not going to have Rwandan levels of partisanship with an aging population. Middle-aged people get mad at the TV but they aren't going to commit violence. America had far more political violence in the 60s and the early 20th century. We remained a nation. People believing in BS about kirk doesn't indicate we're heading to separation. Many Americans believed the Right killed JFK. We still remained one country
A top-rated pollster found that Texas regular voters are 66% in favor of Texas independence, and only 7% of Americans think fedgov should attack a seceding state. Texas is ready to lead every red state out of the Union. You can see the pollster's webpage linked in this article: https://secession.substack.com/p/poll-66-of-texas-voters-want-to-secede
Federal money comes from taxing people in the states. Texans subsidize non-Texans through fedgov. Texas state gov can just require employers to direct withholding to the state treasury instead of the federal one.
DC already spent the social security savings anyway. So Texas social security would be better funded than DC's. DC is bankrupt because it can't control spending.
Red states will join Texas in federation because without Texas voters, they can't get a conservative POTUS in DC. The blue states can't afford to not trade with red states because their supply chains run through them. The US trades with 98% of the countries of the world. The red states will grow richer under lower taxes and lower regulation. Entrepreneurs will flock here. https://redstatesecession.org/the-economy-of-a-federation-of-red-states-would-do-just-fine
We remained a country in the 60's because only half of one generation was commie. Now half of every generation is commie.
Most republics form coalitions on two sides, but few are equally divided between 2 completely different worldviews. In most countries, there is a stable majority that has one worldview and religion. In the US, the swing voters have to choose between polar opposites. US partisanship is at Rwandan levels because Christendom and Satanists both have a shot at controlling the federal government, and one blocks the other.
The way to lower the stakes is National Divorce. It's better to have sovereignty over half the states all the time than all the states half the time.
The only source for the SurveyUSA results that I can find is your article, which is from 2022.
The US set a precedent of what it does when a state tries to secede during the Civil War. The most powerful empire in human history is not going to allow its own breakup because middle-aged people incapable of serious resistance are tired of woke advertising. (Also not clear how separation stops woke advertising). A divided America would not be richer and would be more convoluted and prone to foreign control. Look to the EU for how "independent states" manage their affairs under its system. National divorce would likely mean we turn the US into a continental HOA along the lines of the EU, with a weak defense, shitty economy, and utterly helpless before serious foreign powers. We'd also still be influenced by Blue America culture under such a situation.
The hope of national divorce is you magically block out blue America in a separation. But this is the 21st century, not the 19th century. We'd still have the same issues in Red America, but we'd now mandate teaching that MLK was a Republican in school textbooks. While we have a serious problem with lone wolf terrorism, there's no risk of serious mass political violence in America. If you feel threatened by the geriatrics in walkers who protest at Tesla dealerships, that's on you
Many people think that seceding from the US means attacking the US militarily, so the SurveyUSA poll asks about "peacefully seceding." Your pollster did not. This always makes a huge difference in results. The pollster you cited is a low-rated pollster who found 39 percent were against secession, 33 percent supported it.
The US has allowed many territories to peacefully secede since 1861, so the precedent is quite the opposite. This proves that the US sees land as not worth subjugating if it has hostile residents or badly-voting residents: Liberia 1862, Cuba 1902, Philippines 1946, Marshall Islands 1986, Micronesia1986, Palau 1994 , and every territory we conquered in WWI, WWII, Desert Storm, and GWOT https://redstatesecession.org/list-of-nations-that-seceded-peacefully
The US can't stop secession. If the Texas Legislature puts it on the ballot and it passes, it won't ask permission from the feds. It will just negotiate the details. It will get the loyalty of Texas LEOs and imprison feds who try to interfere. Red states won't want to remain behind in a union with blue states because they won't be able to elect a conservative POTUS without Texas' votes. As more states declare independence, this logic will grow even more compelling. The red states are contiguous except Alaska.
One of the advantages of secession is that we can force it to happen as soon as Texans are ready. We only need wait for the next economic disaster or major display of federal incompetence (eg in war). People online who are always calling to solve America's problems through civil war or a Caesar have the disadvantage of having to wait perhaps a lifetime to see it come to fruition. If secession forces us to defend our state's sovereignty from federal attack, that will be unfortunate but certainly worth it.
We will design a better compact between states than the EU or US have. Unlike the EU, the central government will be in charge of military & foreign affairs. It would be in charge of resisting foreign influence. We would have a conservative FBI & CIA. But each military unit would belong to a single state.
The advantage of National Divorce goes far beyond possibilities of restricting subversive media. It eliminates the rule of Leftist judges and their living Constitution, which has prevented the Right from solving our problems. It prevents our government from leading us into moral & fiscal bankruptcy. It precludes a Dem president from being elected & sending conservatives to gulags. It allows the promise of everything the Right says it wants.
After leftists migrate out, and blue-state conservatives move in, the vast majority of US citizens who will be awarded red-state citizenship will be conservative. This means that Leftist media will not be able to create a ruling coalition in our states because Leftists will be a small minority. Some states or groups of states might be quite selective on who they give citizenship to, and they can deny citizens of other states to live in their state. This could freeze the ethnic demographics of some white states to remain white.
Any solution you have for the US politics is easier to achieve in a country whose electorate is more right-leaning. If you want to educate people on who MLK was, you want a country that allows you to speak, not the USA.
The reason Republicans in Congress are so depressing is because of blue-state donors, and the fact that they need to make a coalition with independents and moderates to get a majority. That wouldn't be true in a federation of red states.
1) America does not allow for peaceful secession. That was addressed in the civil war.
2) We have not allowed any STATES to peacefully secede since 1861. Texas is not Palau or West Germany. To pretend otherwise shows a deep level of unseriousness. Rome would
3) Abraham Lincoln still successfully stopped secession. It's very dumb to post empty threats like that on substack.
4) The US can easily stop secession, far more easily than it did in the civil war. It can just cut off funding to Texas and block trade to it and Texas would return.
5) Red states still comprise plenty of independents and liberals. To not have that, you'd have to have massive ethnic cleansing just so people don't see woke Bud Light ads anymore.
Americans are far more dependent on the federal government than they were in the 1860s, they're far older on average, and there's no particular threat to their economic existence like there was with abolition towards the slave states. Asking for peaceful secession from the most powerful Empire in human history--essentially asking it to abolish itself without fuss--is silly. It's like Gaul asking at the peak of the Roman empire if it can secede without any problem. This would only occur if the empire was extremely weak and had no capacity for keeping itself together. That is not modern America.
Texas subsidizes the other 49 states through the federal government by up to $100B annually, according to the Rockefeller Institute. If Texans' taxes are redirected to the state treasury, there's no money for fedgov to cut off.
An embargo is an act of war, and red states can respond to such acts with their own sabotage or attacks, for their own survival. But the US can't afford to cut off trade with Texas because of supply chains. The US boycotts countries that had little trade with the US, but trades with the other 98% countries.
Secession is still worth it, even if the blue states choose war. Not because of ads, but so that we can remain free to pass on our religion and culture to the next generation, and so that our states remain the home of our people, not foreigners.
You’ve never seen how right-wing a US red-state can be, because in our lifetimes, they’ve been restrained by Leftist federal judges and their interpretations of the living constitution. They’ve been restrained by federal government, not sovereign. They’ve had little control over the most important issues.
To argue that the South lost the Civil War in the 1860s so America dividing is now impossible, and that we like Rome are too big to fail is comically dumb. To say Americans need the federal government ignores the federal government is funded by Whites (who would make up the majority of a hypothetical red America since they are the biggest conservative block), and that the feds’ spending habits are untenable. The left has waged an off and on war against the right since the 1960s, most recently in 2020. Even the “moderate” leftoids support murdering anyone who is not a leftist, crazy to pretend that isn’t the case at this particular time. Whether separation is the solution or not is one question, but to pretend the left isn’t actively working to wipe out the right is so divorced from reality one cannot be taken seriously and could possibly be described as homosexual.
It's common for commenters to fail at reading comprehension, but this takes the cake. The Civil War established the precedent that America will not allow peaceful secession. We have a far stronger federal government with even weaker state government and less attachment to state identity and greater attachment to national identity than in the 1860s. Asking for a peaceful separation is akin to Gaul asking for a divorce at the height of the Roman Empire's power. So it's not likely to happen.
If Blue America is so deadset on genociding Red Americans, I'm not sure how that helps the argument that we can have peaceful secession. This isn't how it went in Yugoslavia
Saying something that happened nearly 200 years ago, with different reasons, with different demographics, with different technology, and with a million different things is impossible now is retarded. Profoundly retarded. So retarded you should probably be institutionalized.
We're past our height of power, even then to argue something is to big to fail is so juvenile and stupid I can't imagine how you wrote that without realizing it. I assume with zero reflection.
It's common for gassed up journalist midwits to fail at reading comprehension, but this takes the cake. No where did I say secession, peaceful or not, was the best option. In fact I even stated in the comment you are replying to that was a completely separate question. However you're so dumb, gay, and arrogant you can't imagine someone would read your slop and be completely unimpressed by it. I can't believe you're a journalist while being this poor at reading and reasoning, actually never mind that's part of the profession. Down right shameful.
Radical federalism or national divorce is the only way that anything remotely resembling traditional America can be preserved. Top-down power is what has caused this mess. You aren't going to fix it with more top-down power. Sorry, but you are wrong. There comes a time to cut bait. You aren't going to "fix" or "take back" California, Washington, Oregon or New England and the northeast. It isn't going to happen.They aren't yours to "take back." At its core, this is a confederated or federal union of states that styles itself republican. Moving away from that is what has caused the mess that we are in. Doubling down on it is only going to make matters worse.
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.
I do think that more power to the states is a good thing. I moved to Florida in part because it has school vouchers. I can't imagine school vouchers ever passing at a national level. All I want from the federal government is to stay out of my schools!
Civil Rights law is a national problem primarily because the feds enforce it on localities. Getting the feds out of enforcing civil rights law would be a good thing.
Immigration, like defense, is a national policy concern.
Look, Trumps going to be out in four years and it will probably be a DEM. All of the people working in DC are still going to be shitlibs. You are going to appreciate more federalism when that happens.
Sounds great, are you willing to fight for it? How do you retake the Twin Cities as an example? The idea that we are too dependent on the federal state to do anything but slog along is laughable, Lincoln induced programming.
"Are you willing to fight to stay in America?" I don't need to. We're already here. You need to ask yourself whether you're willing to fight and die just so you don't have to see a pride month Starbucks ad (which you might still see since much of our media will remain in "blue America" in a theoretical breakup). You also need to figure out how to convince your fellow Americans to accept a dramatically lower quality of life, subservience to China, a complete end to social security and Medicare, and other such problems just so they might not have WOKE bud light.
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.
Most importantly, just because we aren’t going to go back to the limited government of our founding doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be moving in the *direction* of less government than we have now.
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 big government Dems when he’s wrong.
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.
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.
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.
Only 27% of Texans want independence. Even fewer would want it when it would mean that they would no longer be able to build roads, schools, guard the border, maintain bridges, pay police and fire departments, and basically function without federal funding. Texas would also be in the lurch for their seniors' social security and other federal benefits. Texans would also oppose it when they'd realize they wouldn't have the same access to our economy and would grow poorer for it. Maybe they can build a partnership with China to offset it, but that might upset the people pushing for secession.
We're not going to have Rwandan levels of partisanship with an aging population. Middle-aged people get mad at the TV but they aren't going to commit violence. America had far more political violence in the 60s and the early 20th century. We remained a nation. People believing in BS about kirk doesn't indicate we're heading to separation. Many Americans believed the Right killed JFK. We still remained one country
A top-rated pollster found that Texas regular voters are 66% in favor of Texas independence, and only 7% of Americans think fedgov should attack a seceding state. Texas is ready to lead every red state out of the Union. You can see the pollster's webpage linked in this article: https://secession.substack.com/p/poll-66-of-texas-voters-want-to-secede
Federal money comes from taxing people in the states. Texans subsidize non-Texans through fedgov. Texas state gov can just require employers to direct withholding to the state treasury instead of the federal one.
DC already spent the social security savings anyway. So Texas social security would be better funded than DC's. DC is bankrupt because it can't control spending.
Red states will join Texas in federation because without Texas voters, they can't get a conservative POTUS in DC. The blue states can't afford to not trade with red states because their supply chains run through them. The US trades with 98% of the countries of the world. The red states will grow richer under lower taxes and lower regulation. Entrepreneurs will flock here. https://redstatesecession.org/the-economy-of-a-federation-of-red-states-would-do-just-fine
We remained a country in the 60's because only half of one generation was commie. Now half of every generation is commie.
Most republics form coalitions on two sides, but few are equally divided between 2 completely different worldviews. In most countries, there is a stable majority that has one worldview and religion. In the US, the swing voters have to choose between polar opposites. US partisanship is at Rwandan levels because Christendom and Satanists both have a shot at controlling the federal government, and one blocks the other.
The way to lower the stakes is National Divorce. It's better to have sovereignty over half the states all the time than all the states half the time.
The 27% figure comes from 2024, when the possibility of a vote was likely. This made it more apparent to voters and less of an airy idea. https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-how-texas-would-vote-if-independence-referendum-held-today-1867488
The only source for the SurveyUSA results that I can find is your article, which is from 2022.
The US set a precedent of what it does when a state tries to secede during the Civil War. The most powerful empire in human history is not going to allow its own breakup because middle-aged people incapable of serious resistance are tired of woke advertising. (Also not clear how separation stops woke advertising). A divided America would not be richer and would be more convoluted and prone to foreign control. Look to the EU for how "independent states" manage their affairs under its system. National divorce would likely mean we turn the US into a continental HOA along the lines of the EU, with a weak defense, shitty economy, and utterly helpless before serious foreign powers. We'd also still be influenced by Blue America culture under such a situation.
The hope of national divorce is you magically block out blue America in a separation. But this is the 21st century, not the 19th century. We'd still have the same issues in Red America, but we'd now mandate teaching that MLK was a Republican in school textbooks. While we have a serious problem with lone wolf terrorism, there's no risk of serious mass political violence in America. If you feel threatened by the geriatrics in walkers who protest at Tesla dealerships, that's on you
I will briefly address each of your points:
My article has a link in it to the pollster's webpage. Here's the webpage: https://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=93235179-7a22-454b-ac4d-91b2e5119238
Many people think that seceding from the US means attacking the US militarily, so the SurveyUSA poll asks about "peacefully seceding." Your pollster did not. This always makes a huge difference in results. The pollster you cited is a low-rated pollster who found 39 percent were against secession, 33 percent supported it.
The US has allowed many territories to peacefully secede since 1861, so the precedent is quite the opposite. This proves that the US sees land as not worth subjugating if it has hostile residents or badly-voting residents: Liberia 1862, Cuba 1902, Philippines 1946, Marshall Islands 1986, Micronesia1986, Palau 1994 , and every territory we conquered in WWI, WWII, Desert Storm, and GWOT https://redstatesecession.org/list-of-nations-that-seceded-peacefully
The US also has a precedent that presidents who try to stop secession get assassinated in theaters. Since 1945, 87% of secessions around the world have been peaceful (out of 134 national secessions). Here's why it won't: https://redstatesecession.org/many-ruling-classes-have-tolerated-a-secession/
The US can't stop secession. If the Texas Legislature puts it on the ballot and it passes, it won't ask permission from the feds. It will just negotiate the details. It will get the loyalty of Texas LEOs and imprison feds who try to interfere. Red states won't want to remain behind in a union with blue states because they won't be able to elect a conservative POTUS without Texas' votes. As more states declare independence, this logic will grow even more compelling. The red states are contiguous except Alaska.
One of the advantages of secession is that we can force it to happen as soon as Texans are ready. We only need wait for the next economic disaster or major display of federal incompetence (eg in war). People online who are always calling to solve America's problems through civil war or a Caesar have the disadvantage of having to wait perhaps a lifetime to see it come to fruition. If secession forces us to defend our state's sovereignty from federal attack, that will be unfortunate but certainly worth it.
We will design a better compact between states than the EU or US have. Unlike the EU, the central government will be in charge of military & foreign affairs. It would be in charge of resisting foreign influence. We would have a conservative FBI & CIA. But each military unit would belong to a single state.
The advantage of National Divorce goes far beyond possibilities of restricting subversive media. It eliminates the rule of Leftist judges and their living Constitution, which has prevented the Right from solving our problems. It prevents our government from leading us into moral & fiscal bankruptcy. It precludes a Dem president from being elected & sending conservatives to gulags. It allows the promise of everything the Right says it wants.
After leftists migrate out, and blue-state conservatives move in, the vast majority of US citizens who will be awarded red-state citizenship will be conservative. This means that Leftist media will not be able to create a ruling coalition in our states because Leftists will be a small minority. Some states or groups of states might be quite selective on who they give citizenship to, and they can deny citizens of other states to live in their state. This could freeze the ethnic demographics of some white states to remain white.
Any solution you have for the US politics is easier to achieve in a country whose electorate is more right-leaning. If you want to educate people on who MLK was, you want a country that allows you to speak, not the USA.
The reason Republicans in Congress are so depressing is because of blue-state donors, and the fact that they need to make a coalition with independents and moderates to get a majority. That wouldn't be true in a federation of red states.
1) America does not allow for peaceful secession. That was addressed in the civil war.
2) We have not allowed any STATES to peacefully secede since 1861. Texas is not Palau or West Germany. To pretend otherwise shows a deep level of unseriousness. Rome would
3) Abraham Lincoln still successfully stopped secession. It's very dumb to post empty threats like that on substack.
4) The US can easily stop secession, far more easily than it did in the civil war. It can just cut off funding to Texas and block trade to it and Texas would return.
5) Red states still comprise plenty of independents and liberals. To not have that, you'd have to have massive ethnic cleansing just so people don't see woke Bud Light ads anymore.
Americans are far more dependent on the federal government than they were in the 1860s, they're far older on average, and there's no particular threat to their economic existence like there was with abolition towards the slave states. Asking for peaceful secession from the most powerful Empire in human history--essentially asking it to abolish itself without fuss--is silly. It's like Gaul asking at the peak of the Roman empire if it can secede without any problem. This would only occur if the empire was extremely weak and had no capacity for keeping itself together. That is not modern America.
Texas subsidizes the other 49 states through the federal government by up to $100B annually, according to the Rockefeller Institute. If Texans' taxes are redirected to the state treasury, there's no money for fedgov to cut off.
An embargo is an act of war, and red states can respond to such acts with their own sabotage or attacks, for their own survival. But the US can't afford to cut off trade with Texas because of supply chains. The US boycotts countries that had little trade with the US, but trades with the other 98% countries.
Secession is still worth it, even if the blue states choose war. Not because of ads, but so that we can remain free to pass on our religion and culture to the next generation, and so that our states remain the home of our people, not foreigners.
That first points is almost Freudian in how revealing it is. “Does not allow for peaceful secession”. Wow.
You’ve never seen how right-wing a US red-state can be, because in our lifetimes, they’ve been restrained by Leftist federal judges and their interpretations of the living constitution. They’ve been restrained by federal government, not sovereign. They’ve had little control over the most important issues.
Here is an overview of National Divorce: https://redstatesecession.org/partition-of-the-u-s-is-the-peaceful-way-out-of-the-upcoming-troubles
You won't believe how based a red state could get. They could build a 100-ft statue of MLK with a MAGA hat!
To argue that the South lost the Civil War in the 1860s so America dividing is now impossible, and that we like Rome are too big to fail is comically dumb. To say Americans need the federal government ignores the federal government is funded by Whites (who would make up the majority of a hypothetical red America since they are the biggest conservative block), and that the feds’ spending habits are untenable. The left has waged an off and on war against the right since the 1960s, most recently in 2020. Even the “moderate” leftoids support murdering anyone who is not a leftist, crazy to pretend that isn’t the case at this particular time. Whether separation is the solution or not is one question, but to pretend the left isn’t actively working to wipe out the right is so divorced from reality one cannot be taken seriously and could possibly be described as homosexual.
It's common for commenters to fail at reading comprehension, but this takes the cake. The Civil War established the precedent that America will not allow peaceful secession. We have a far stronger federal government with even weaker state government and less attachment to state identity and greater attachment to national identity than in the 1860s. Asking for a peaceful separation is akin to Gaul asking for a divorce at the height of the Roman Empire's power. So it's not likely to happen.
If Blue America is so deadset on genociding Red Americans, I'm not sure how that helps the argument that we can have peaceful secession. This isn't how it went in Yugoslavia
Saying something that happened nearly 200 years ago, with different reasons, with different demographics, with different technology, and with a million different things is impossible now is retarded. Profoundly retarded. So retarded you should probably be institutionalized.
We're past our height of power, even then to argue something is to big to fail is so juvenile and stupid I can't imagine how you wrote that without realizing it. I assume with zero reflection.
It's common for gassed up journalist midwits to fail at reading comprehension, but this takes the cake. No where did I say secession, peaceful or not, was the best option. In fact I even stated in the comment you are replying to that was a completely separate question. However you're so dumb, gay, and arrogant you can't imagine someone would read your slop and be completely unimpressed by it. I can't believe you're a journalist while being this poor at reading and reasoning, actually never mind that's part of the profession. Down right shameful.
Radical federalism or national divorce is the only way that anything remotely resembling traditional America can be preserved. Top-down power is what has caused this mess. You aren't going to fix it with more top-down power. Sorry, but you are wrong. There comes a time to cut bait. You aren't going to "fix" or "take back" California, Washington, Oregon or New England and the northeast. It isn't going to happen.They aren't yours to "take back." At its core, this is a confederated or federal union of states that styles itself republican. Moving away from that is what has caused the mess that we are in. Doubling down on it is only going to make matters worse.
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.
If there are conservatives don’t even want to conserve our nation’s geography, then they should be ignored.
I do think that more power to the states is a good thing. I moved to Florida in part because it has school vouchers. I can't imagine school vouchers ever passing at a national level. All I want from the federal government is to stay out of my schools!
Civil Rights law is a national problem primarily because the feds enforce it on localities. Getting the feds out of enforcing civil rights law would be a good thing.
Immigration, like defense, is a national policy concern.
Look, Trumps going to be out in four years and it will probably be a DEM. All of the people working in DC are still going to be shitlibs. You are going to appreciate more federalism when that happens.
Sounds great, are you willing to fight for it? How do you retake the Twin Cities as an example? The idea that we are too dependent on the federal state to do anything but slog along is laughable, Lincoln induced programming.
"Are you willing to fight to stay in America?" I don't need to. We're already here. You need to ask yourself whether you're willing to fight and die just so you don't have to see a pride month Starbucks ad (which you might still see since much of our media will remain in "blue America" in a theoretical breakup). You also need to figure out how to convince your fellow Americans to accept a dramatically lower quality of life, subservience to China, a complete end to social security and Medicare, and other such problems just so they might not have WOKE bud light.
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.
Most importantly, just because we aren’t going to go back to the limited government of our founding doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be moving in the *direction* of less government than we have now.
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 big government Dems when he’s wrong.
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.
"Ffew"
Got his ass.
We've got to proofread, guys.
Then it is time to execute order 66
https://substack.com/@yesterdaysnews1?r=6169cz&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=profile
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.
Yes, it could take the form of what Ben Shapiro advocates.
Don't forget to order your MTG '28 Bibi Space Laser T-shirt today! Available exclusively at mtg-28.com