Political Polarization in the United States

From: jimruttshow8596

Political polarization in the United States is a significant and growing concern, leading to discussions about drastic solutions, including a “national divorce” [01:40:45]. This concept refers to an intentional split of the United States, where it would no longer be a unified nation of 50 states [02:04:08]. The nature of such a split could vary, from individual states seceding (like Texas) to groups of states forming new entities, or even parts of states splitting off (e.g., eastern Oregon and Washington joining Idaho) [02:08:28].

Origins and Evolution of the “National Divorce” Idea

The concept of a “national divorce” is a relatively recent idea, gaining prominence since the 2020 presidential election discussion [04:02:05]. It has been fueled by the perception from the conservative side that the Democrat-controlled parts of the country engage in “utterly intolerable behaviors” [04:16:16], including a two-tier justice system, identity politics related to race, sex, and gender (especially concerning children), environmentalism, regulation, and ESG requirements [04:18:03].

The earliest widely cited work on this topic is Thomas J. Woods’ book, National Divorce: The Peaceful Solution to Irreconcilable Differences, published in August 2022 [03:39:22]. The idea entered higher-spectrum media in February 2023, notably with discussions by Marjorie Taylor Green [03:48:23]. While more prominent on the right, some far-left communities have also entertained the idea of expelling “bad red people” for the past two to four years [04:55:04].

An Axios/Ipsos poll from March 2023 indicated that 16% of Democrats, 25% of Republicans, and 20% of independents supported a national divorce where Republican-leaning states form a separate country from Democratic-leaning states [10:37:20].

Arguments for National Divorce

Proponents of national divorce present several arguments:

• Intractable Politics and Polarization: The primary argument is that U.S. politics have become intractable [13:37:20]. The left and right are seen as a dysfunctional couple with no shared vision for the future, unable to coexist under one set of national laws [13:57:07]. A split would allow each part to pursue its own vision, reducing polarization [14:20:23].
• Preservation of Ideology and Self-Defense: Many proponents believe the Constitution and the American experiment have failed [14:44:20]. A national divorce would allow the “red team” (conservative states) to consolidate and protect their way of life and pursue their desired political arrangements [15:04:05]. This includes rallying for national defense against border invasions, external forces (like China), or the “former Blue State” [15:16:20]. It is viewed as a means to organize against a perceived “Communist Revolution” [15:32:00].
• Avoiding Civil War: Some argue that a peaceful, no-fault divorce could reduce the chances of a messy, “Lebanon-style” civil war [18:28:29]. The current political polarization is not unique to the U.S. and is observed globally [18:50:51].
• Experimentation in Civilization Design: A breakup could lead to multiple new polities (e.g., 10-15 states ranging from 10 to 50 million people) exploring different models of civilization [07:35:38]. This would allow for diverse approaches, such as culturally repressive states, European socialism-leaning regions, hardcore libertarian areas, or “bland World Economic Forum Bland land” [08:20:22]. This experimentation could reveal which societal model works best [08:33:35].

The U.S. currently exhibits deep divisions, such as the prevalence of constitutional carry laws in 27 states, which contrasts sharply with the desires for more gun control in coastal blue areas [21:11:15]. Abortion rights also represent a significant divide, though with some unexpected overlaps (e.g., Kentucky and Kansas as pro-abortion rights states) [22:23:23].

The Big Sort

The phenomenon known as “the big sort” describes how people increasingly vote with their feet, moving to areas where others share their political ideologies and shifts and values [23:25:27]. This includes conservatives moving to states like Tennessee and Idaho, contributing to an increasing rural-urban divide [24:09:10]. This self-sorting leads to greater political enmity and instability [25:06:21].

Arguments Against National Divorce (“National Suicide”)

James Lindsay argues that a national divorce would be a “national suicide” for the United States, largely due to its position as the world’s leading superpower [11:15:18] and the effectiveness of its Constitution in preserving individual liberties [27:21:23].

• Threat to the Constitution and Individual Liberties: Fracturing the U.S. would likely lead to new, divergent constitutions [28:08:08]. The existing Constitution, seen as the “last best hope for individual liberties in the world” [27:51:00], is stronger when more people are bound by it [27:59:08].
• Inherent Conflict and International Reaction:
  • The “blue team” (current U.S. government) would likely frame any secession as a “Neo Confederacy” and a “rogue state” destabilizing democracy and the world order [30:04:04].
  • The presence of U.S. military bases and nuclear installations within what would become “red areas” presents an immediate and dangerous conflict, akin to Fort Sumter during the Civil War [30:37:00]. The existing government would declare an emergency and refuse to cede control of these assets [31:22:22].
  • Such a split could lead to a global realignment, with a “United Nations conglomerate” potentially aligned with China against the “rogue” red states [31:33:36].
• Infiltration and Subversion: The geographical split (rural vs. urban) is complex, with massively dense cities in “red states” often skewing “blue” [42:31:00]. This means any new “red state” would have a deeply embedded “subversive political ideology” within its borders, making it challenging to maintain internal coherence [43:03:00].
• Paradoxical Outcomes - The “Slow Option”: In a “slow option” scenario, the “blue state” might thrive under a “Chinese-style model” [44:06:00], implementing “smart cities” and a social credit system [43:15:00]. This perceived success, combined with sanctions and difficulties in “red states,” could lead to a “brain drain” of talent and population from the “red state” to the “blue state,” further crippling the former [41:29:00]. This strategy aims to provoke the red team into a misstep, justifying international intervention [50:52:00].
• Conspiratorial Prior: Lindsay’s argument is based on a “conspiratorial prior” [37:01:00], believing that the world is currently experiencing a “global bid for tyranny” orchestrated by a global conglomerate, potentially spearheaded by the CCP and communism [38:32:00]. He posits that this effort aims to establish a new order blending neoliberalism, fascism, and communism, focusing on “productive socialism” [38:47:00]. From this perspective, the “blue state” would become a model of efficient control, designed to absorb or eliminate the “red state” [44:06:06].

While Lindsay acknowledges the “incompetence” of progressives leading to self-destructive “circular firing squads” [45:49:00], he argues that the ideology of wokery, akin to a new religion, is deeply embedded and leads to “Lebanon-style” factionalism [52:52:00]. This is based on a view that intersectionality’s purpose is not to create a functional system but to force “politics of compliance” and cause division [54:33:00], similar to Mao’s use of identity politics to break down existing structures [54:51:00].

Pathways Forward

Instead of a national divorce, the recommended path for Americans who want a positive future for the United States involves actively engaging and fighting for the existing Union:

1. Constitutional Literacy and Revival: People must become more familiar with the U.S. founding documents and their original intent and aspirations [01:01:02]. There is a “massive educational problem” regarding American history and its founding purposes [01:01:02].
2. “Fight in the Belly of the Beast”: Citizens, especially in purple and blue states, need to be willing to “take the fight to their state” [01:45:00]. This means not fleeing but staying to fight and bring states back to a more constitutionally-centered basis [01:03:06]. Examples include Gary Tan’s efforts to reform San Francisco [01:02:16] and Aaron Friday’s battle for gender-related referendums in California [01:02:42].
3. Civic Revival: Foster a “50 stars project” [01:13:20] that encourages a civic revival where people take ownership and pride in their local communities, ensuring they develop and thrive under constitutional principles [01:04:39].
4. Targeting Anti-Constitutional Forces:
   • DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion): Despite being a multi-billion dollar industry of “grift” [01:09:35], the “woke” movement reached “peak woke” around 2021 [01:06:41] and is now “on the run,” evidenced by rebranding and pushback [01:07:24]. Efforts like the MIT Free Speech Alliance have successfully pushed for free speech codes in academic institutions [01:05:40].
   • ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance): This “racketeering cartel” [01:09:42] is facing challenges, with the SEC withdrawing environmental accounting requirements and major players like Larry Fink backing off [01:07:35].
   • Transgender Ideology and Practices: State-level laws restricting medical interventions on minors for gender transitions are gaining ground, and recent revelations (e.g., the “WPATH files”) are shifting the legal landscape in favor of these laws [01:09:05].
   • Monopolies: Companies like Google, which openly admit to operating like monopolies (as seen after the Gemini AI debacle), can be challenged using existing antitrust laws [01:10:50].

There is “hope” [01:06:52] if people have the courage to make their communities their home and actively fight against “nonsense” [01:06:35]. This involves encouraging Attorneys General to pursue legal actions against corporate collusion and promoting private or class-action lawsuits [01:11:01].