From: jimruttshow8596
The concept of a “National Divorce” refers to the intentional splitting apart of the United States, so it would no longer be a unified nation of 50 states [00:01:59]. This idea encompasses a range or “spectrum” of possibilities [00:01:54].
Interpretations of a National Divorce
The ways in which the nation might split are a matter of debate [00:02:10]:
- A single state, like Texas, going rogue and splitting off [00:02:13].
- A number of states joining to form a new entity [00:02:17].
- Parts of states splitting, such as the eastern halves of Oregon and Washington separating from their metropolitan areas [00:02:28].
The general idea is that conservatives and “normal people,” primarily in rural areas, and “leftist wingbats” and their supporters, primarily in cities, can no longer coexist under one set of laws [00:02:52]. This roughly aligns with the red state/blue state divide [00:03:08]. The host jokingly refers to it as “the most Generation X solution to a problem I’ve ever run into” [00:07:01].
Origins and Public Sentiment
The term “National Divorce” appears to be a very recent idea [00:03:55].
- Early Mention: The host found its earliest reference in a book titled National Divorce: The Peaceful Solution to Irreconcilable Differences by Thomas J. Woods in August 2022 [00:03:30].
- Mainstream Prominence: It gained higher-spectrum media attention with Marjorie Taylor Green in February 2023 [00:03:43].
- Conservative Drive: James Lindsay senses a drive on the conservative side since the 2020 election to split from Democrat-controlled parts of the country [00:04:02], due to issues like a two-tiered justice system, identity politics, environmentalism, and ESG requirements [00:04:16].
- Far-Left Support: Lindsay notes that some far-left communities also embrace the idea, often talking about “expelling those bad red people” [00:04:46].
- Public Opinion: An Axios/Ipsos poll from March 2023 showed that 16% of Democrats, 25% of Republicans, and 20% of Independents supported a national divorce scenario where Republican-leaning states form a separate country from Democratic-leaning states [00:10:07].
Arguments for a National Divorce (Steelman)
Proponents of a national divorce suggest several reasons:
- Intractable Politics: The political landscape has become unmanageable [00:13:34].
- Mutual Separation: It would allow each side to go its own way, reducing polarization and allowing each political entity to pursue its desired direction [00:14:17].
- Failed Experiment: Some proponents believe the Constitution and the American experiment have “already gone too far awry” [00:14:42]. A divorce would allow the “red team” to organize and rally for its own national defense against external forces (like China, the former blue state, or UN forces) or internal threats (like a “Communist Revolution”) [00:14:47]. This provides a place to “circle the wagons and kind of hole up” [00:15:52].
- Reduced Civil War Risk: The host suggests a peaceful, no-fault divorce could reduce the chances of a messy, “Lebanon-style” civil war, which is a plausible trajectory discussed among complexity theorists [00:17:36].
- Viable Smaller States: The host points out that in the modern world, smaller states (e.g., Republic of Georgia, Estonia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Netherlands) are quite viable, with populations comparable to or smaller than many U.S. states [00:08:53].
- Relief from Gridlock: Analogy to heirs jointly owning a farm, where “Alabama and California” senators veto each other’s desires, making governance impossible. Dividing the “farm” would simplify things [00:19:34].
- Deep Divides: Significant political and cultural divides exist, such as:
- Gun Control: 27 US states have constitutional carry, while coastal blue areas often seek more gun control [00:20:40].
- Abortion: The country is highly divided on abortion, with some red states (e.g., Kentucky, Kansas) even voting for abortion rights [00:22:04].
- The Big Sort: A phenomenon where people move to areas that share their values, increasing ideological homogeneity in localities and sharpening divides [00:23:10]. This sorting creates more political enmity rather than solving it [00:25:01].
Arguments Against National Divorce: “National Suicide”
James Lindsay titled his essay “National Divorce is National Suicide” [00:01:38] because he believes any form of splitting would lead to the same negative conclusion [00:06:33]. His primary objections stem from the United States’ position as the world’s leading superpower and the effectiveness of its Constitution [00:27:13].
Threats to the Constitution and Individual Liberties
- Constitutional Divergence: A split would lead to at least two constitutions, which would likely differ significantly, especially as the left shows interest in changing the Constitution [00:28:06].
- Last Best Hope: The U.S. Constitution is seen as “the last best hope for individual liberties in the world” [00:27:51], and fracturing the nation would weaken its strength [00:28:00].
Global Context and Hostility
- Hostile Global Superpower: The remaining superpower in the world would be China, a hostile communist state, if the U.S. fractures [00:11:13].
- Marxist Ideology: Lindsay argues that the “blue team” is motivated by Marxist ideology, which ultimately seeks universal adoption of its beliefs [00:29:32].
- “Neo-Confederacy” Framing: A split would be immediately framed by media as a “Neo Confederacy” or a “rogue state” splitting off to destabilize democracy [00:29:53].
- Military Installations and Nuclear Weapons: U.S. military bases and nuclear installations located in what would become “red areas” would not be given up by the “blue team” government [00:30:23]. This could lead to a conflict similar to Fort Sumter in the Civil War [00:30:35], as the “blue team” would declare an international emergency [00:31:15]. Lindsay believes there would be “every effort to sanction and limit and if not outright crush and contain this red State” [00:39:17].
Paradoxical Scenarios
Lindsay outlines two possible outcomes for a “red state” after a split [00:39:35]:
- Fast Option: The international community and “blue state” react overwhelmingly, leading to a “Last Stand” scenario for the red state [00:39:40].
- Slow Option: For a period (maybe a decade), both sides are given leeway. “Blue state” would quickly transition into a “smart city” or “Brave New World” model, appearing to thrive under a Chinese-style system [00:40:41]. This would include turning power plants back on once their political will is achieved [00:44:09]. The goal would be to attract and “brain drain” the population from “red state” [00:41:22]. Life in “red state” would be free but difficult, while “blue state” would be controlled and appear wonderful [00:41:00]. The “blue state” would likely impose a social credit system [00:43:15].
- This “slow option” is a deliberate provocation to make “red team” do something “stupid” within 5 to 10 years, providing justification for the international community to lock down on the “rogue state” [00:50:09].
Internal Infiltration and Disunity
- Rural vs. Urban Divide: The split is not purely geographic but rural versus urban, meaning “red state” would have “massively dense cities” within its borders that lean blue and contain “subversive political ideology” [00:41:45]. It would be impossible to expel these “subversives” [00:42:52].
- Lack of Amicability: Lindsay does not believe the split would be amicable due to the underlying ideology driving the desire for separation [00:43:56].
Debate on Priors
The host and Lindsay acknowledge a fundamental difference in their “priors” or underlying assumptions:
- Host’s View (Incompetence over Malice): The host tends to believe in incompetence rather than malice, noting that progressives are often “fractious” and prone to “circular firing squads” due to their political approach being a “religion” [00:45:31]. He is less concerned about a “big bad blue conspiracy” because the internal contradictions of ideologies like intersectionality naturally lead to disunity (“intersectionality eventually equals Lebanon”) [00:52:20].
- Lindsay’s View (Conspiratorial): Lindsay maintains a “more conspiratorial” view, believing there is a “global bid for tyranny” that is “at least in cahoots with if not spearheaded through the CCP” [00:37:37]. He links this to figures like Henry Kissinger and Klaus Schwab, who helped build China’s model, which he sees as similar to ESG policies from the UN and World Economic Forum [00:38:00]. He believes this is an “attempted silent takeover of the West” [00:38:21]. He argues that intersectionality, rooted in Mao’s identity politics model, is designed to cause division and enforce compliance, not to build a functioning system [00:53:11].
Despite these differences, both agree that a “red state” might outcompete a “blue state” in the long run economically if given the chance [00:58:59].
Alternatives to National Divorce: The “50 Stars Project”
Given the dire potential outcomes of a national divorce, Lindsay suggests what Americans should do instead [01:00:11]:
- Constitutional Re-engagement: Americans need to become much more familiar with the U.S. founding documents and purposes, as there is a “massive educational problem” regarding them [01:00:51].
- Fight Locally: People in red, purple, and especially blue states need to be willing to “take the fight to their state” [01:01:45]. The goal is to prevent any star from being “peeled off the flag” [01:01:50].
- Civic Revival: Encourage a “civic revival” where people have a strong sense of ownership and pride in their local communities, pushing back against negative trends and returning to constitutional principles [01:04:14].
- Examples of Local Action:
- Gary Tan’s efforts to “take back San Francisco to sanity” [01:01:59].
- Aaron Friday’s battle in California to get gender-related issues on the ballot as a referendum [01:02:32].
- The host’s involvement with the MIT Free Speech Alliance and Alumni Free Speech Alliance chapters at universities like Harvard [01:04:51].
- Shifting Tides: Both Lindsay and the host believe that “peak woke” has passed (around 2021) and that a “counter wave is building” [01:06:55]. Examples of this shift include DEI initiatives rebranding, ESG facing pushback (e.g., the SEC not requiring environmental accounting), and the WPATH files exposing questionable practices in transgender healthcare [01:07:22].
- Legal Action: Utilize existing laws, such as antitrust measures against corporate collusion or private/class action lawsuits against companies like Google for monopolistic practices or discriminatory AI outputs [01:10:07].
In essence, the argument against national divorce is to stand and fight within the existing framework, leveraging the Constitution and local activism to steer the nation back towards its founding principles, rather than abandoning the “American experiment” to its perceived internal and external threats.