By Rich Lowry
Friday, October 08, 2021
Divorce usually isn’t a good idea, and that’s
especially true of a nearly 250-year-old continental nation.
A cadre of apocalyptic writers on the right, who believe
the country is too far gone to save, has become obsessed with a Secession 2.0
that would cleave
red America from blue and allow the former to escape the ever-rising
tide of woke insanity.
There is no doubt the country is deeply riven along
political, cultural, and religious lines. Yet a national divorce has nothing to
recommend it.
The practical obstacles are insuperable, and the likely
effects would be very unwelcome to its proponents. If an insufficient
patriotism is one of the ills of contemporary America, then a national divorce
would prescribe arsenic as a cure. It would burn down America to save America,
or at least those parts of it considered salvageable.
A disaggregated United States would be instantly less
powerful. Indeed, Russia and China would be delighted and presumably believe
that we’d deserve to experience the equivalent of the crackup of the Soviet
Union or the Qing dynasty, respectively.
The economic consequences could be severe. The United
States of America is a continentwide free-trade zone, creating a vast domestic
market that makes us all better off. Exchanging that for a market Balkanized by
state or region would be a major loss.
Finally, the United States foundering on its domestic
divisions would be a significant blow to the prestige of liberal democracy.
Abraham Lincoln worried about this effect the first time around, and it might
be even worse now, with a long-stable republic unable to survive internal
dissension.
Then, there’s the question of how this is supposed to
work. Lincoln warned of the physical impossibility of secession when the
Mason-Dixon Line was a more-or-less ready line of demarcation. How would it
play out now, with conservatives and progressives amply represented in every
state in the Union?
If there were to be sovereign pure-red and blue places,
this wouldn’t look like the relatively neat split of the United States into two
in the 1860s, but more like post–Peace of Westphalia Europe, with hundreds of
different entities.
Some proponents of national divorce say not to worry — it
can all be worked out amicably. But if we are going to split up because we
can’t even agree on bathroom policies or pronouns, how are we going to agree to
divvy up our territory and resources?
It would matter, obviously, who gets control of the
federal government, the most powerful organization on earth. It has 1.3 million
people under arms and a stockpile of 3,800 nuclear warheads. Whether it accrues
to red or blue America would, to understate it, be a matter of considerable
haggling.
On top of all this, red-state secession would be
self-defeating. Let’s say Texas left. That’s 40 electoral votes off the
national map for Republicans. In 2020, with no Texas, Trump could have won
Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and still fallen short of an electoral
majority.
On the other hand, Texas isn’t quite as ruby-red as it
used to be. It could secede and still find itself governed by the very
Democrats it hoped to leave behind.
Besides, would the rest of the country really be willing
to watch a state of 29 million people that represents the ninth-largest economy
in the world go its own way?
Meanwhile, red-state secession might not actually
stem the cultural tide. Would the college professors in these places be
less woke? Would the newsrooms be more conservative? Would people in the state
stop using social media?
The real impetus for the talk of a breakup is despair. It
constitutes giving up on convincing our fellow Americans, giving up on our
common national project, giving up on our birthright.
This is an impulse to be resisted. Breaking up is hard to
do, and quitting on America is — or should be — unforgivable.
No comments:
Post a Comment