Some conservative thinkers out on Elon’s playground including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jesse Kelly have been discussing the pros, cons and feasibility of a “national divorce.” A national divorce, unlike a civil war, is a peaceful agreement to redraw country boundaries and separate some of the population into their own governments. It’s an informal term to describe a “conscious uncoupling for irreconcilable differences” if you will. While a “national divorce” does not technically have to be relative to ideological differences, the current discussion in America is in regard to a divorce between the “red states” and the “blue states.”
The left has gone full court press against these ideas calling them stupid and dangerous and implying they are completely off-the-wall nonsense. But that is not how the left, elite and media has treated other major national divorces.
In history, including very modern history, the peaceful reconstruction of country boundaries has often been relative to geographically specific ethno-cultural identities seeking to govern themselves but there have also been credible proposals relative to politically ideological divide. Jesse Kelly pointed out the gradual reshaping of the modern Europe we know today is a good example of thoughtful national divorces.
But as recently as 2014, there was a major referendum in the United Kingdom calling for the independence of Scotland. The basis of this call for independence was a fundamental disagreement on the governing of the nation. It was based on political, ideological differences. Not ethno-cultural identity. While the referendum failed, the national and global consideration of the proposal was that it was serious and plausible. Many credible and thoughtful leaders weighed in on all sides.
Another example of a politically motivated national divorce would be the Taiwanese assertion of independence. Unlike the Scottish independence movement of 2014, the Taiwanese government still receives significant push back and hostile action from China who they chose to divorce. And yet, many credible voices including the Congress of the United States recognize the divorce of nations as official and proper. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with a Congressional delegation traveled to Taiwan as a symbol of the United States support for independence just last year.
Thoughtful opponents of the idea like Matt Walsh have pointed out that logistically national divorce would be difficult because our political ideologies don’t truly have geographic boundaries. Even in very red or very blue states, close to 40% of the population would still identify as the minority view. So a national divorce would incite a lot of moving around. It would also create odd national borders considering California would likely belong in the same country as New York and they are thousands of miles apart.
But not so thoughtful opponents have dismissed the idea all together and an army of liberal thinkers and “journalists” have come out swinging hard against particularly Rep. Greene but the concept in particular. Why would they be so opposed to a divorce of the United States but not of these other nations? Is it possible that the left is so power hungry that they cannot bear to remove their thumb on even the part of the population they will never sway to their side? The vehement opposition is reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Party’s reaction to Taiwanese independence.
Regardless of whether or not a national divorce is feasible, it is clear that the left cannot bear the idea of people escaping their control.