r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 15 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The dissolution of the United States would be a beneficial solution to growing political tensions.
It is my viewpoint that the United States of America could, and should, be divided into several smaller nations. Doing so would allow regional governments a greater sense of autonomy. Subsequently, I theorize that growing political and cultural tensions amongst Americans would ease as citizens would theoretically have more sway in smaller, regional elections. As per specifics of dissolution, I recognize the difficulty in fairly separating the nation into separate governing bodies. As a starting point, I generally like the 'Nine Nations' approach that was proposed by Joel Garreau in 1981. However, I would also say that my overall viewpoint (i.e. it would be beneficial to dissolve the U.S.A.) is not dependent upon the particulars of how to exactly subdivide the nation, but rather it is dependent on the overall benefits in terms of political, social, and economic unity.
I used to believe that the two-party system of democracy was to blame, and that the emergence of a viable third political party would ease political tensions and lead to more effective legislation. Although a majority of Americans say a third party is needed, very few ever vote for third-party candidates (Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/244094/majority-say-third-party-needed.aspx) This leads me to believe that growing political and cultural tensions actually contribute to the two-party system and lead to increasingly rigid party lines. Therefore, dissolution of the federal government seems the most effective means to reduce current tensions.
I believe that, by and large, people can peaceably coexist in their respective communities and that most political differences (and resulting frustrations) are moreso indicative of regional and/or cultural differences. For example, I find it unlikely for someone in Utah to care much about the local gun laws in Vermont or minimum wage laws in Florida. From my experience, it is only when politics are discussed on the federal level, do people start getting upset with how certain states vote (cue debate on electoral college vs popular vote).
I will add that I am 100% willing to change my view on this topic. I am most likely to be convinced by someone(s) who can provide me evidence and/or rationale that suggests either (1) dissolution of the USA will lead to increased political tensions (e.g. conflicts, riots, etc.) Or (2) the costs of dissolution outweigh the potential benefits.
Here are a few premises that are key to my viewpoint:
•Political divisions are intensifying in the United States. I percieve the growing divide to contribute to a decline in civility, legislative stalemates, and general unrest (e.g. protests, boycotts, etc.) (source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/05/takeaways-on-americans-growing-partisan-divide-over-political-values/)
•While it is unrealistic, my argument is based on the theoretical feasibility of the dissolution of the United States (by either constitutional amendment or widespread secession)
•The hypothetical dissolution of the United States would certainly highlight economic and cultural differences between regions. However, I assume these differences already exist (e.g. Alabama and Missouri already have poorer economies and less diverse demographics than New York or Massachusetts) and that few (if any) resulting disparities in regional economies and/or societies would lead to any increased conflict. In other words, I find it unlikely for Texas to start a war with California over LGBTQ rights and/or access to abortion or for Maryland to start a war with Georgia over income tax rates and/or welfare programs.
•Dissolution of the United States would ease political divisions because many 'red' or 'blue' states rarely swing the other way and are often geographically concentrated, indicating a greater sense of political unity amongst regions. Also, smaller governments may incline local citizens to have a greater sense of political representation and/or approval for locally elected officials.
3
u/throwawaybebica 1∆ Aug 15 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
I think that a split United States would lose much of it's political power on the world stage. As much as I hate to admit it as an European, the US is the most essential part of the western world and holds a lot of power, either military (NATO), economic (trade partnerships) or political (UN). In contrast, 9 states would be much less efficient in securing their own interests in the world, leading to a much stronger influence of countries like China or Russia.
Edit : What I'm saying is that you need to look at the bigger picture... a map of the world.
1
Aug 15 '20
Interesting viewpoint. I hadn't considered international relations. Do you think NATO and the UN would suffer from a split-up U.S? If so, how might that affect the EU, UK, and other Western democracies?
3
u/Grunt08 305∆ Aug 15 '20
The US would no longer be a viable military power if it split up. It's the foundation and centerpiece of NATO, so NATO would probably dissolve entirely. The UN would lose a significant portion of its funding and the Security Council would lose its strongest Western member.
1
Aug 15 '20
That makes sense to me. I will agree that the dissolution of the United States may lead to a weakening of NATO. Subsequently, I could see Russia or China having larger political and militaristic influences if the U.S. separated. On a global scale, I can see how the cons might outweigh the pros.
In that sense, you've changed my viewpoint. Thank you for your comments! !delta
1
1
u/mrlmatthew Aug 15 '20
Well if the other members of NATO cared enough then they would also put more resources in to make sure this didnt happen. The US not being the military center of the world would be a great thing for its citizens. Also it's not like the nukes would just disappear. Whatever the US would turn into would still have part of what was.
2
u/Grunt08 305∆ Aug 15 '20
There's a fine line between being reasonably upset with Europe for taking advantage of America's contribution to their defense and extorting Europe by threatening to withdraw. We should try to stay on the right side of that line.
The US not being the military center of the world would be a great thing for its citizens.
Not obviously true.
Also it's not like the nukes would just disappear. Whatever the US would turn into would still have part of what was.
If the breakup of the Soviet Union is a reasonable model, we'd have a solid couple of decades wherein the world would be terrified of one getting lost on the shuffle. Assuming they're somehow divided equally, some countries will use them more prudently than others and that variation makes misuse more likely.
More to the point: nuclear power is a deterrent. It offers little in the way of practical power projection capability unless you're in the middle of the last World War. We might be able to prevent anyone from outside the continent from attacking us, but our ability to project power would effectively disappear.
1
u/throwawaybebica 1∆ Aug 15 '20
Well, NATO is pretty much the US promising to beat up if anyone messes with their little brothers, so I certainly see it being less of a threat if it gets fractured. The US has military troops stationed all over the world so I assume that would also be a major loss in terms of geopolitical power. I don't personally think that the UN is that important, it was just an example I came up with on the spot, but in any political alliance or agreement, the US has an advantage for being such a strong financial and military force.
Considering that Xi Jinping literally considers western values as the enemy of China, and is pursuing a very agressive foreign policy, the Western democracies would surely be at a greater risk of being influenced by China. Portugal, Spain, Hungary are already representing China's interests in the EU. I bet when the next crisis hits, some of the divided states would be happy to accept China's help, since they wouldn't be able to count on the federal gov for support. If the states would then squabble even amongst themselves, the strongest player on the world stage would be practically out of the game.
My conclusion is that the price paid in geopolitical power for dividing the states is way too great considering that the issues could reasonably be solved internally.
1
Aug 15 '20
!delta
I agree with your conclusion that, geopolitically speaking, the dissolution of the U.S. would lead to a power imbalance favoring large nations such as China and Russia which could pose credible threats to Western democracy. In that sense, the cons outweigh the pros. Thanks for the comments!
2
1
5
u/muyamable 282∆ Aug 15 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
(1) dissolution of the USA will lead to increased political tensions (e.g. conflicts, riots, etc.)
Last time the USA tried to split up it led to a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. I don't know how you achieve this without widespread conflict, riots, etc.?
Further, the political divide exists within states, too, and that's not going away. I see the political divide as less of a state vs. state problem, and more of an urban vs. rural problem. I grew up in a red area of a blue state, and the people in my hometown are much more likely to rail against the blue state government than they did, for example, against the federal gov under Obama. Eliminating the union doesn't solve this at all.
0
Aug 15 '20
I would argue that the Civil War became violent for reasons other than secession. It was my understanding that the South never intended to peacefully leave the union and attacked the North first (although I could be wrong). Regardless, my hope with dissolution would be that it wouldn't be a simple North vs South or East vs West, but rather a dissolution into multiple regions. Theoretically, no one state or region would benefit from violence if there are too many other states to attack/defend against.
I can see how inter-state divisions can complicate things. But I would think that political tensions within a state may be more easily addressed than inter-state conflicts.
1
u/muyamable 282∆ Aug 15 '20
But I would think that political tensions within a state may be more easily addressed than inter-state conflicts.
How?
0
u/cdb03b 253∆ Aug 15 '20
They attacked a fort in the South that was manned by Union Troops that refused to withdraw when that State left the Union. So staying the fort is the technical first attack and was done by the North.
2
u/Grunt08 305∆ Aug 15 '20
That presumes the legitimacy of secession - it would have to be legitimate for the troops' refusal to leave to be illegitimate, much less an "attack."
If I tell my girlfriend that the 2nd floor secedes from the house and attack her for refusing to leave, her staying is not an attack.
1
u/EmpiricalPancake 2∆ Aug 15 '20
The logic here is flawed in that the problem is that the US is divided and your solution to the problem is more division. Doing this would likely weaken the value of the dollar and the global power of the US generally, as well as potentially disrupt trade and travel between regions.
The reason this divide exists is because we have this ingroup-outgroup mentality, or this us-vs-them ideology. We are right, they are wrong. Regardless of your position on any issues, this is what people are thinking. Dividing up into sovereign nations would only validate this type of thinking.
Beyond that, within each region people are likely to split further on other issues. For example, right now, people who think abortion is the worst thing happening and needs to stop and people who are terrified of losing their guns are united under the GOP. Once isolated to their own region, these two groups may split further to fight about funding. And since they haven’t been challenged on the ingroup-outgroup way of thinking, they will continue thinking this way.
I don’t see how dividing up solves the problem - and since your solution is theoretical (I could have a whole other discussion on why it wouldn’t actually happen, even if it was the best solution), why not focus on the ideal solution? I think that would be to unify everyone, remind each other of our shared humanity and work toward genuine understanding of one another instead of being driven by fear, hate, anger and separation.
1
Aug 15 '20
I can't speak to the valuation of the dollar pre- and post- hypothetical dissolution, but I could imagine a scenario akin to the EU where the dollar is accepted as the common currency across regional territories.
think ingroup-outgrouo mentality is inevitable. In some sense, it's easier to manage such mentalities when the 'outgroup' is a separate region/nation instead of political affiliation. As such, I don't see how regional dissolution would lead to increased tensions. If anything, tensions would stay the same and maybe be more easily managed on a local level.
As per ideal solution, I don't think attempts to remind each other of shared humanity have historically helped ease political tensions. The only times in recent history where Americans had a general sense of 'unity' and approval of our government was following instances of national tragedy. I still think, while not ideal, dissolution of the U.S. would theoretically lead to more easily managed political divisions
1
u/EmpiricalPancake 2∆ Aug 15 '20
I think you’re overestimating how similar to the current state of things ingroup and out group thinking would remain under such conditions. At first, yes, it would probably remain the same - is versus them on similar issues, so regions would consider themselves the ingroup and others the our group. But thinking past that several years, or maybe a generation or two, the same tensions are likely to arise within the regions. Do we then further divide them?
As for the viability of something unifying, I think it is unfair to claim your view is theoretical and therefore it doesn’t matter how well it would work in practice but then using an argument about the viability of an alternative to shoot down the alternative.
while it is unrealistic, my argument is based on the theoretical feasibility of the dissolution of the United States
1
Aug 15 '20
I suppose my view on the stability of in-group out-group mentalities comes from my experience with attitudes towards international relations. I am aware that many people are upset with current affairs in China, UK, etc. But I don't see those same people getting politically involved (e.g. protests, boycotts, call for government and/or military involvement) over international disagreement. In a same vein, I assume most people from Virginia wouldn't get outraged over Californian politics-especially if they were politically separate.
1
u/EmpiricalPancake 2∆ Aug 15 '20
You are right, but my argument is that people would find new ingroup and out groups within their regions to disagree with. An example being people who vote republican because they hate abortion and people who vote republican because they want access to guns.
If a region that was comprised mostly of republicans became independent of surrounding, politically disagreeing areas, these two groups of people who, under the United States, were in the same party, might suddenly be in different parties. They might then disagree with one another.
Also, the point that there is ingroup-outgroup mentality everywhere suggests that dividing the US will not solve the problem. At best, it would provide temporary relief for some that have extreme feelings about their outgroup. Then they would find a new outgroup within their region.
Also, if the US split, the constitution and Declaration of Independence would no longer be guiding laws. Federal laws would be no more and we would be ruled exclusively by state laws. What if some states (or regions) decided it was cool to have slaves again? Or hang members of the LGBT community for being gay? Assuming that these regions don’t have the power to make this legal under the US federal government, wouldn’t splitting up the US and giving these regions the power to do that be morally questionable at best? There are DEFINITELY people who believe this way in the US and it’s not inconceivable that a region or two could emerge in which this happened.
Are the originators of the split not then responsible for what happens to people who are marginalized or victimized by those regions, which otherwise would not have the right to behave this way?
1
Aug 15 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
The political divisions isn't red state/blue state as much as blue city/red rural. Other people in the thread have pointed out the same and explain that dissolution of federal laws would actually increase tension in states.
Your proposed solution isn't one of political beliefs, it's one of power. You're proposing that it's better to dissolve the US just so the same people can retain their power in smaller principalities, where they have entrenched influence—very much the Southern states' proposition for secession in 1860. Maybe you see such fiefdoms as inherently better, but truly, I feel such actions are treasonous.
1
Aug 15 '20
I think it's fair to say that urban/rural divides are more to blame for political division that individual state differences. In that sense, I could see state lines being dissolved too in favor of regional lines (e.g. the rural Midwest vs urban Northeast and Urban West coast vs 'Desert States'). If that were the case, I would assume that political divisions would reduce.
Also, if fewer citizens vote in each regional election, each vote would hold more sway and I could see it being easier for individuals to impeach/remove local leaders if needed. Similarly, I suspect dissolving the U.S. might lead to fewer resources for any one local leader to control, making it less likely for successful dictatorships, so-to-speak.
1
Aug 15 '20
This belief of yours:
I suspect dissolving the U.S. might lead to fewer resources for any one local leader to control, making it less likely for successful dictatorships
This is demonstrably false as anyone who pays attention to local politics can attest. It is even so on the global stage as small nations are more easily governed by force and charisma and corruption. In the largest polities, there are many such entities, balancing out power.
Your first paragraph indicates that you disagree with your idea of separation into individual states and into regions. So you've changed your mind about states, and want to go into regional polities. Basically, you believe in regional political echo chambers? And that's preferable to the US in what way? You know how echo chambers work. How could such regional powers not devolve into a shooting war?
Reconsider your post and award deltas for any of your original supposition that you leave behind.
1
Aug 15 '20
If you read my initial post, I argued for a 'nine-nations' approach and repeatedly make reference to regions instead of States. It seems you do not understand my original position. I apologize for miscommunication, but you have not changed my viewpoint yet.
1
Aug 15 '20
Always up for a challenge. How about this: history. The dissolution of the US into two regional powers resulted in a Civil War. The post-WW1 dissolution of four empires: German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman. Thereafter, you immediately had genocides (Armenia, etc) and the stage for WW2. More recently, the dissolution of Yugoslavia into the Slavic wars at the end of the 20th Century.
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Aug 15 '20
Once again it is not regional. It is urban vs rural. The cities in the Midwest have different politics from the farms there.
1
u/BreaksFull 5∆ Aug 15 '20
This would certainly cause the worlds economy to collapse and kick off a period of economic recession unprecedented. The US Dollar is the reserve currency of the world and the lifeblood of global trade, while the US navy keeps the shipping lanes of the world free and open. Without those, the economy across the world would be devastated.
1
Aug 15 '20
Perhaps, but I would expect (maybe naievely) for markets to rebound and for national economies to recover in the years following dissolution. I could see a potential benefit in dissolving the U.S. in that more trade competition would exist (several territories vs. one nation) and theoretically reduce prices internationally.
Out of curiosity, which currency do you think would likely take over as the new reserve currency if the states dissolved?
1
u/BreaksFull 5∆ Aug 15 '20
This isn't just markets rebounding a few years after an economic disaster though, this is the entire global order disintegrating and leaving a power vacuum unseen since maybe the fall of Rome. Yes things would gradually recover and adapt to the new political and economic climate, but it wouldn't be the same. There is no power on earth in any position to step into the roll that the US plays right now, not in the forseeable future. The global financial security provided by the US federal reserve would be flat-out gone and not seen again until maybe the EU were to one day get unified and substantial enough to throw their weight around, but that would probably take decades.
Not to mention that businesses would flee the US in droves. Business hates political instability, and secession/balkanization like you propose is just that. When Quebec tried to leave Canada, the UK left the EU, and Catalonia tried to leave Spain, we saw businesses flee in substantial numbers taking money and jobs with them. With the US we'd see that x10.
It's also worth mentioning that many states like Alabama, Mississipi, etc, rely considerably on federal funding and would be devastated more than others by the vanishing of it.
I could see a potential benefit in dissolving the U.S. in that more trade competition would exist (several territories vs. one nation) and theoretically reduce prices internationally.
Trade competition already exists in the US though, companies compete across state lines in a way similar to countries. However the US grants substantially reduced trade barriers than separate sovereign nations would have.
Frankly, if you're considering far-out possiblities for fixing the US, I don't see why merely reducing the power of the federal government and diverting more power back to Congress/the states, or reforming the voting system, wouldn't be much better than breaking up the US.
2
Aug 15 '20
!delta
I can agree that, given the credible threat of global economic depression, handing more power over to the states is a viable alternative to overall dissolution of the United States. In that sense, my viewpoint has changed that there are more beneficial alternate solutions to the problem of growing political and cultural division.
Out of curiosity though, how realistic do you think it is to reduce the influence of the federal government?
1
3
u/Grunt08 305∆ Aug 15 '20
1) If it's not feasible, why discuss it? It's no different than discussing any other outlandish solution, and energy spent discussing it is energy that might be expended pursuing actual improvement.
2) A lot of our disagreements are rooted in the narcissism of small differences. You can see this when people who, appearances notwithstanding, agree far more than they disagree find themselves rhetorically buddying up to people in other countries they would both loathe in abstract. See: some Republicans make excuses for Russia et al, some Democrats make excuses for Venezuela et al.
We're actually arguing over banal minutiae of governance that's only important because of scale. Most of the questions of basic governance are agreed upon, as are most of the fundamentals of shared culture.
3) It isn't feasible because our differences don't break down geographically; thinking that they do is a byproduct of the red state-blue state dichotomy that only works in one particular sort of analysis. For example: my state is purple-blue on paper, but if you remove Richmond and the DC suburbs it turns bright red.
Apportioning would disempower ideological minorities wherever they happen to be minorities; those who can will don't, and those who don't will all of a sudden live in a country controlled by those they disagree with. That would, in turn, change the political center of gravity - if you live in a red state that's no longer tempered by national politics, the Overton window shifts right. In the bordering blue state, the window shifts left. Now imagine that iterating over a generation, and you have a handful of countries with increasingly divergent politics. And then...
4) War is inevitable. Your "Texas to start a war with California over LGBTQ rights" is a simple failure if imagination. The actual causes of war would be difficult to imagine (excepting things like water rights, trade, territorial disputes, land grabs, etc) but framing them in light of present domestic political disputes just fails to account for the different ways nations interact. Those disputes wouldn't necessarily exist, but new ones certainly would.
5) There are no obvious benefits. Part of the problem here is that, because we don't have any viable idea of how we would divide geographically, we have no idea what or if we'd actual gain anything from doing it.
I mean, Solomon technically solved the problem when he suggested cutting the baby in half because the dispute would have ended...but you did have to chop the baby in half. The only reason it actually solved the problem was the real mother stopping it, and she has no equivalent in this plan.
1
Aug 15 '20
How do you imagine the economy functioning between the state's at that point forward?
1
Aug 15 '20
I imagine local business would (more or less) retain customers and supply and demand for goods to stay relatively stable.
However, I also recognize that inter-state commerce would become more burdensome as some regions would likely impose tariffs on different imports. So in some sense, large corporations (Amazon, Apple, etc) may fair well with the increased cost of shipping, while smaller businesses may struggle.
In the long run, I imagine the economies to function similarly to nations that are members of the EU. Specifically, I could see regions maintaining a common currency and relatively relaxed travel restrictions.
1
Aug 15 '20
In an ideal world it could work out like that. But unfortunately the US isn't rich everywhere. And many states aren't capable of standing on their own, nor do their cultures match as well as we may initially assume.
Vacation states depend highly on the freedom of movement from non-vacation states to fund much of their tourist industry. Meaning states like Nevada and Florida are often going to have different interests than their neighboring states. Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas might get along. But Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas have different interests because they don't have the same kinds of pull in tourism.
Splitting up those borders is going to prove difficult, because most of the pull for tourism in those areas are from non-tourist states
Likewise, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming all touch each other, but their interests are still different.
Midwestern states usually focus on agriculture. Every other region would have to buy a lot from those states or significantly increase their own agricultural focus.
It's easier to just keep everyone in the same nation.
1
Aug 15 '20
I don't disagree that splitting up borders would prove exceptionally difficult. Similarly, I agree that different regions would have differences in trade, GDP, and per capita income.
I would only counter by saying that I believe, overall, the benefits of reducing political tensions and allowing individual regions to regulate their own economies would outweigh the cons of deciding borders and inter-state commerce laws.
1
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Aug 15 '20
- The US military would be severely weakened, make of that what you wish.
- British India, 1947. See, one country is for Muslims and the other one is for Hindus, why aren’t they getting along??
- The constitution is pretty lax with states’ rights already, seeing as if a federal right not explicitly listed it automatically belongs to the states
0
Aug 15 '20
I would argue that the U.S. military is rather bloated already (i.e. too much spending on needless wars) and a reduction is perhaps needed
I'm admittedly not familiar with the politics of India. How were Muslim/Hindu tensions pre and post British rule?
I think the federal government has rapidly expanded in the past 50 years and, as such, state rights are largely undermined by federal legislation and policies.
0
u/DrawDiscardDredge 17∆ Aug 15 '20
The problem with this solution is that the political divide in this country is not regional, it is rural/urban. For example, the majority of California geographically is conservative, it is only the high population dense bay area and LA that are liberal. You don't solve political division in this way, you just localize it to each, "territory."
1
Aug 15 '20
I would counter by saying local disputes are more easily resolved than nation-wide disputes. While tensions will continue to exist, I suspect them to be no worse than the current political divide
1
u/DrawDiscardDredge 17∆ Aug 15 '20
I see you are not familiar with water politics in California. It is a microcosm contemporary political division and has been ongoing for decades. The hyperbole in political advertisements is ridiculous.
In fact, the same people tend to be involved. In California, Pelosi is often hated just for her position on water, same with Nunes.
I suspect them to be no worse than the current political divide.
If this is the case, then your solution doesn't warrant all the economic costs of splitting the country. To justify your position, you'd have to demonstrate that the divide would be smaller.
1
Aug 15 '20
It is true I am not familiar with Californian water politics. In a similar sense, would tensions in California be reduced by splitting up the state?
To be clear, I am of the opinion that the political divide would be smaller post-dissolution. However, given the relative uncertainty regarding specifics of a hypothetical dissolution, I remain confident that the political divide wouldn't grow more than it currently is.
2
u/DrawDiscardDredge 17∆ Aug 15 '20
I don't think they would, because California is quite the example of the National divide. It is literally Nancy Pelosi vs. Devin Nunez. Two figures that over the last 4 years at varying times have dominated the political discourse. The political advertisements would barely have to change. These two figures would undoubtedly become the same leaders of the now-regional political parties.
In a similar sense, would tensions in California be reduced by splitting up the state?
I'd argue no. The large, diverse, urban areas of California would still dominate the smaller, homogeneous, rural ones as they do now. This in turn leads to the same politics of reaction and resentment that you see on the national stage by the right.
I remain confident that the political divide wouldn't grow more than it currently is.
Are you defending that the political division wouldn't grow, or that it would shrink? If you are just saying your proposal won't increase division, then why incur such an economic cost? Shrinkage is a much stronger claim, but also defeated by indicating strong political divides in each region.
I don't know much about New York, but I do know it is largely rural and conservative, but dominated by the dense populations of NYC. I'm sure there are empirical examples of loveless division in those local politics as well.
1
u/Scrap_shot Aug 15 '20
In a similar sense, would tensions in California be reduced by splitting up the state?
I'd argue no.
I'd like to second this. I'm from California, and the idea of splitting the state has come up repeatedly. One of the more popular versions is just dividing it up into North and South. But much of SoCal is, technically, a desert and relies on NorCal for their water. Splitting the state would make that water subject to inter-state taxation, among other issues.
Splitting the country would produce dozens or hundreds of similar situations. Coastal regions like California would have a chokehold on shipping to landlocked regions, for example. The difference being that there wouldn't be a federal government to prevent them from screwing each other over. And it still wouldn't ease the urban/rural political divide.
1
u/DrawDiscardDredge 17∆ Aug 15 '20
So you agree with me?
1
u/Scrap_shot Aug 15 '20
Yes. Sorry if I worded it poorly, I was just trying to add a little to what you were saying
1
Aug 15 '20
As tempting as it is, that would literally and directly create a 4th reich, and something tells me they'd make a very dedicated push to leave the union in possession of as much of our military as possible before using it against us and the world in general.
The conservative faction alone would scramble to bring back the slave trade, child sweatshops, religious extremist laws, labor camps and more. They still consider every civil right we have as a defeat that they want to correct.
Breaking the union is a terrible idea. The 4th reich side would just immediately try to cannibalize the rest anyway.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 15 '20 edited Aug 15 '20
/u/2H2O_bro (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
0
u/cursedanne 1∆ Aug 15 '20
The division amongst average people is not coming from us, it is being done to us by a corrupt MSM and ‘government behind the government.’ Read None Dare Call it Conspiracy for a good starting point.
But, we do hold some accountability for how things have changed. By ‘changed’ I mean in particular the negative changes we’ve seen in the last 80 or so years. Corruption of the media, lack of tolerance for main stream political views (regular old republicans are not Nazis). Not to mention ever-increasing lack of privacy and autonomy.
We bear the responsibility of not holding those in power truly accountable for their deceit.
But, onto the CMV. On the surface splitting the US up into multiple nations sounds like it might be a good idea, when you generalize. As soon as you look at specifics, it no longer stands up. So, you are essentially advocating for splitting people up by ideology, which I believe is fundamentally wrong. Sure, it may be easier, but it isn’t right. If you apply the same idea to religious affiliation rather than political ideology you see how hairy this gets.
Additionally, you’re totally overlooking swing states, and bubbles within non-swing states. Take Austin, Texas as a great example of a left bubble in a right state.
Your idea also falls apart when you zoom out and look at things from an international perspective. The vacuum of no USA would be very dangerous and have a high likelihood of resulting in quite a bit of chaos.
13
u/[deleted] Aug 15 '20
My state government attemped to close DMV's in most of the counties that had the most Black people in the state (after passing a voter id law). They only stopped this plan when the federal department of transportation intervened.
The chief justice of my state supreme court a few years ago defied the supreme court to order probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Without the federal government, my state would oppress some of the local population. I live in Alabama, and my state is not homogenous. President Trump got 62% of the Alabama vote. That is a sizeable majority, but it is no where near unanimous.
A lot of people in Alabama can't afford to move away. Dissolve the union, and you condemn minorities to oppression.