Why National Divorce Is a Horrible Idea that Will Solve Nothing

Michie · Sunday at 6:33 AM

In the aftermath of the Charlie Kirkassassination, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) once again called for a “national divorce,” claiming that the American right and left have “nothing left to talk about.”

Her September 15 post on X was similar to one she wrote in February 2023. It called for dividing America into red and blue states while downsizing the federal government.

The most recent post spoke about a “peaceful” divorce, but re-emphasized the country’s radical polarization. “There is nothing left to talk about with the left. They hate us,” Rep. Greene wrote.

A Strong Metaphor

Divorce is a strong metaphor to describe the separation of a state or states from the American Union.

Proposing a national divorce is like demanding a figurative abortion for some unwanted social problem. Divorce and abortion are never solutions, literally or metaphorically. They will always end badly. The children (real and figurative) will always suffer.

This attitude reflects a spirit of desperation at the present state of affairs. Seeing how entrenched leftists in Blue State institutions impose their woke agenda on the rest of the nation, these misguided conservatives lash out in despair rather than with purpose.

Continued below.

Why National Divorce Is a Horrible Idea that Will Solve Not…

In the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) once again called for a “national divorce,” claiming that the American…

www.tfp.org

Maria Billingsley · Sunday at 7:02 AM

Michie said:
In the aftermath of the Charlie Kirkassassination, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) once again called for a “national divorce,” claiming that the American right and left have “nothing left to talk about.”

Her September 15 post on X was similar to one she wrote in February 2023. It called for dividing America into red and blue states while downsizing the federal government.

The most recent post spoke about a “peaceful” divorce, but re-emphasized the country’s radical polarization. “There is nothing left to talk about with the left. They hate us,” Rep. Greene wrote.

A Strong Metaphor
Divorce is a strong metaphor to describe the separation of a state or states from the American Union.

Proposing a national divorce is like demanding a figurative abortion for some unwanted social problem. Divorce and abortion are never solutions, literally or metaphorically. They will always end badly. The children (real and figurative) will always suffer.

This attitude reflects a spirit of desperation at the present state of affairs. Seeing how entrenched leftists in Blue State institutions impose their woke agenda on the rest of the nation, these misguided conservatives lash out in despair rather than with purpose.

Continued below.

Why National Divorce Is a Horrible Idea that Will Solve Not…

In the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) once again called for a “national divorce,” claiming that the American…

www.tfp.org

A " national divorce " would be devastating to red states as most of them rely heavily on blue states who produce the majority of the funds required to run them including the most food, California being the top producer. The red states who despise immigration, global trading, green energy and who promote limited or no government would quickly become a dystopian society.
Relying only on localized resources, scarcity would lead to perpetual conflicts between small, isolated communities. They would have stagnant or regressing technology due to lack of shared knowledge, and would most likely have to create an authoritarian power structure to maintain order and control over minimal resources. Individual freedom would likely disappear as renegade sects would emerge and xenophobia against outsiders would be intense.
Doesn't sound like a good idea to me, in my humble opinion.

Thanks for sharing!

John G. · Sunday at 7:14 AM

Rather than you people ending up killing each other, I would rather see the USA split up.
Give all 50 states sovereignty in the matter and allow them to combine in any matter they wish.
You'll probably end up with AK and HI as independent states, a Pacific coast liberal state, a southern state, a northeastern liberal state and a landlocked mid-America.
Problem solved!

Richard T · Sunday at 1:43 PM

In the divorce you divide the liabilities and the US has on the books 31 trillion, plus many more promises. It would be a financial mess. Where would your social security come from? What if some states refused to pay off the U.S. government debt? The Federal Reserve would disband but it has trillions on its balance sheet. The dollar would become near worthless.

John G. · Sunday at 4:30 PM

Richard T said:
In the divorce you divide the liabilities and the US has on the books 31 trillion, plus many more promises. It would be a financial mess. Where would your social security come from? What if some states refused to pay off the U.S. government debt? The Federal Reserve would disband but it has trillions on its balance sheet. The dollar would become near worthless.

You divide liabilities AND assets therefore: not as big a mess.
Social Security would be the liability of each state where it was issued. This can easily be determined from the first digits of the SS number.
The dollar need not be worthless as it can follow the example of the euro (common currency for several states).
Bigger problems would be the distribution of armaments - especially nuclear weapons - the dismantling of foreign bases, etc.

I still think it's do-able.

bèlla · Sunday at 4:35 PM

That would probably appeal to many and it’s a common idea mentioned in films. Most recently A24’s Civil War and The Handmaid’s Tale and the maps don’t look that different. Nor were red states unified. They formed different alliances and that’s a more likely outcome than the whole working together as one.

~bella

FireDragon76 · Monday at 6:59 AM

MTG's rhetoric is extreme. Despite the seeming media polarization, there are alot of Americans that are left of center that oppose ideas, not human beings- "hatred" is a strong word, and it isn't representative of most Democrats. There's a difference between drawing boundaries around behavior and relationships (something I've had to do unfortunately in my own private life as political rhetoric has become more extreme), and being willing to commit violence for a cause.

What's more likely is anocracy and various levels of dysfunction and continued institutional decay, resulting from low social trust. Similar to many Latin American countries.

SuperCow · Monday at 7:22 AM

John G. said:
You divide liabilities AND assets therefore: not as big a mess.
Social Security would be the liability of each state where it was issued. This can easily be determined from the first digits of the SS number.
The dollar need not be worthless as it can follow the example of the euro (common currency for several states).
Bigger problems would be the distribution of armaments - especially nuclear weapons - the dismantling of foreign bases, etc.

I still think it's do-able.

It would take decades to legally sort out all the economic disputes that would arise in this situation, but even so, it wouldn't solve the problem that MTG is blathering about. You can't split the country along red state/blue state lines, because you'd find that you'd still have the exact same problem, only it would be exasperated by the split. Most states are between 60/40 and 40/60, so now you've got 40% of the population that gets little to no representation for its respective ideology and you're going to instigate even more extremism as a result. And which side gets the swing states?

Either that or you will get internal migration like India did when it split up with Pakistan and Bangladesh over Hindu/Islam grievances. Though Americans are richer overall and have more to lose by moving for purely ideological reasons, so this extreme is unlikely here. It would more likely be a silent slow transition.

Dale · Monday at 10:50 AM

Michie said:
In the aftermath of the Charlie Kirkassassination, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) once again called for a “national divorce,” claiming that the American right and left have “nothing left to talk about.”

Her September 15 post on X was similar to one she wrote in February 2023. It called for dividing America into red and blue states while downsizing the federal government.

The most recent post spoke about a “peaceful” divorce, but re-emphasized the country’s radical polarization. “There is nothing left to talk about with the left. They hate us,” Rep. Greene wrote.

A Strong Metaphor
Divorce is a strong metaphor to describe the separation of a state or states from the American Union.

Proposing a national divorce is like demanding a figurative abortion for some unwanted social problem. Divorce and abortion are never solutions, literally or metaphorically. They will always end badly. The children (real and figurative) will always suffer.

This attitude reflects a spirit of desperation at the present state of affairs. Seeing how entrenched leftists in Blue State institutions impose their woke agenda on the rest of the nation, these misguided conservatives lash out in despair rather than with purpose.

Continued below.

Why National Divorce Is a Horrible Idea that Will Solve Not…

In the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) once again called for a “national divorce,” claiming that the American…

www.tfp.org

Maybe we should stop listening to Marjorie Taylor Green. As someone said, as a member of Congress, MTG has no idea of what Congress is or what it does.

Several years ago I was shocked when a gun advocate said, in a letter to the editor, that if New England wants to restrict guns then New England should leave the US and join Canada. I was appalled. Does notthing else matter.

I have always hoped the US could be force for good in the world. To do that, we first need our unity.

Dale · Monday at 10:52 AM

John G. said:
Rather than you people ending up killing each other, I would rather see the USA split up.
Give all 50 states sovereignty in the matter and allow them to combine in any matter they wish.
You'll probably end up with AK and HI as independent states, a Pacific coast liberal state, a southern state, a northeastern liberal state and a landlocked mid-America.
Problem solved!

The last time the USA split up, Americans did wind up killing each other!

Richard T · Monday at 4:28 PM

John G. said:
You divide liabilities AND assets therefore: not as big a mess.
Social Security would be the liability of each state where it was issued. This can easily be determined from the first digits of the SS number.
The dollar need not be worthless as it can follow the example of the euro (common currency for several states).
Bigger problems would be the distribution of armaments - especially nuclear weapons - the dismantling of foreign bases, etc.

I still think it's do-able.

Because of interstate migration patterns of the last 60 years, the number of people supporting each social security recipient would be different for every state. I imagine the best you could do would be to draw social security from the state from where the employment took place. If more than one state then that same percent would be passed down to the recipient. Not all states would have the same resources though and social security likely would have to be paid out at different rates. Some might even try to default on paying at all.

Seperate states too mean that financing with printed money seems less likely This would severely limit government as we know it which even under Trump is needing to raise the debt level while at the same time running deficits for the current years to come. Part of which would be a good thing. But if states were alone, with no credit history, the interest would have to be greater because the greater risk.

The main assets of the USA government I believe would be land and you are right the military. So sell Yellowstone and split the proceeds? What would you do with the billions worth of land leases for oil and gas? You going to reimburse the companies, or split the revenue?

Then of course there is the Native American issue. I guess just allow them to be truly sovereign too? What if a state wanted to implement Shariah law? No Federal conformity so I guess they could. Why would democrat and GOP states agree to a common currency? Would there even be the ability to move to a different state? Part of Oregon wants to be with Idaho now. Some states might want to join Canada or Mexico.

The cost of the break up would be too tremendous. Millions of workers would lose their job, millions would lose at least some of their benefits. Contested divorces between two people can be very expensive. This would be 50 or more at the table, and if not all agreed who would force them?

Border security too would be an issue. Some states would allow easy immigration and the borders thus between 50 states and law enforcement to go with it would have to be implemented. Huge costs. Rep Greene has not thought this through. I am sure there are thousands of items that would take years to decide. Not to mention without a common defense the individual states would be vulnerable.

It would be easier to seperate in blocks of states but who really would want the poorest states?

Anyway, it is Ok to think of the repercussions but the reality is that it will not happen in her lifetime unless some really bad things happen to the USA.

Why National Divorce Is a Horrible Idea that Will Solve Nothing

Well-Known Member

A Strong Metaphor​

Well-Known Member

A Strong Metaphor​

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

❤️

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

A Strong Metaphor​

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

A Strong Metaphor

A Strong Metaphor

A Strong Metaphor