A National Divorce?

[Holman]

We've occasionally talked about the possibility of a new Civil War, but we've spent less time (I think) on the possibility of a peaceful, mutually negotiated division/secession of states and their (presumed) integration into two or more new unions/federations.

(I know there was a thread on dis-union some time back, but it quickly devolved into discussion of Trump's latest misbehaviors.)

It seems like a possibility to consider, even if only to decide whether it would or wouldn't be preferable.

Some questions/issues:

--It's simplest to imagine a straight division into Redmerica and Bluemerica. If the 2020 electoral map is any guide, Redmerica would be physically contiguous while Bluemerica would be divided in three, although each portion would share a border with (presumably Blue-friendly) Canada. (2020 also gave us an isolated Blue Georgia, but its status seems precarious to me.)

Would division be that simple? Would the barely-blue Midwest be so eager for union with Northeast and West-Coast liberals? And what if the new CSA didn't allow the near-empty plains and mountain states the senatorial influence they've come to expect?

--Is the split to be framed as secession from the USA (in which case who gets the title?) or as the dissolution of the USA and the formation of new unions? The latter offers the opportunity for a clean-slate new Constitution, but the former means (initially at least) continuity of treaties and trade agreements and law for the flag-bearer.

--Let's say each state's decision would be determined by its state legislature. What happens when a Blue Governor vetoes the Red legislature's decision (as would happen in PA, for example)?

--If the goal is peaceful separation, probably the best course would be to carry it out in legal stages over the course of a decade or more. (For example, everyone would become very aware that the next few state-level election cycles would determine the state's eventual choice.) One result of this would be pretty massive internal migration as Blue and Red minorities relocated to homelands they'd prefer, but this is obviously preferable to Red-state Blue cities suddenly waking up in Gilead. (And vice-versa, I guess.)

--What happens, though, when Texas or Florida or North Carolina sees the flight of its Blue urban professional class as an economic threat and passes laws to prevent it (or at least to seize assets, etc)? More broadly, who enforces the terms of the process of separation?

--Then of course there's "Who gets the military?" Geographically, the South has more bases, but the nukes are more evenly distributed, and many of the important Naval bases are in Blue states. Presumably, service members would be allowed to make their own choices, which might not be so predictable as we assume.

--The foreign policy implications of all of this are almost too complex to imagine right now, but sure let's do it...

----

Anyway, all of this seems worth wondering about. If the thread collapses into just another discussion of "Who wins Civil War 2?" then, well, maybe we have our answer.

[Blackhawk]

If you dissolve the union, you dissolve the military. Assets would be divided up during the divorce proceedings.

[Little Raven]

It's always fun to fantasize about what could be done if all the idiots would just get out of the way.

But if you try to take this idea beyond a fleeting moment of whimsy it falls apart almost instantly. I mean, to start with, "Red America" and "Blue America" changes with every election cycle. Wisconsin, Minnesota and Pennsylvania were all Red in 2016 but Blue in 2020...and right now I'm not comfortable saying they won't be Red again in 2024. Which leads nicely into the second huge problem - we have tons of Red and Blue Americans in every single state - even the single party ones. There were 6 million Trump voters in California in 2020 - most of these people won't move unless you make them. There's no clean way to unscramble this egg - AT BEST things would end up looking like the India-Pakistan partition, only with WAY more guns. At worst, we end up with our own version of the Donbas - a Red population in California constantly making trouble and clamoring for the United States to come "liberate" them. "Massive bloodbath" is almost certainly an understatement.

And for God's sake WHY?!? We are quite literally the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen. Why on Earth would we break that up?

If the thread collapses into just another discussion of "Who wins Civil War 2?" then, well, maybe we have our answer.

Oh, we know who wins. China. Russia too, I suppose, but mostly China. Everyone in North America - Canadians, Mexicans, and US citizens alike, loses tremendously hard.

[Holman]

If you dissolve the union, you dissolve the military. Assets would be divided up during the divorce proceedings.

Well that's the question. How are the divorce proceedings (peacefully) negotiated, and by whom?

Obviously we won't work it out fully, but this thread is to imagine how a peaceful and mutually acceptable dissolution of the USA might occur. What would satisfy everyone more than the dissatisfaction we're living with now?

I don't believe I'm in favor of dissolution, but it seems like a possibility that should be thought over.

We're coming to the point where the endurance of the Union must be argued for rather than presumed.

[Holman]

And for God's sake WHY?!? We are quite literally the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen. Why on Earth would we break that up?

Do you think the Right really feels itself to be sharing a legitimate Democracy with the rest of us right now?

[Kurth]

I get the desire to talk about this kind of thing, but I don’t think it’s even a remote possibility or worth a lot of time pondering.

LR is right: Dissolving the country would be stupid. It’s a no-win, lose/lose scenario (except for foreign powers that would love to see this country exit from the world stage).

Really, if we want to have this discussion, isn’t it better framed around a national separation rather than a national divorce? I can see a future - some might say we’re moving towards it now - where the state/federal power dynamic shifts significantly. Blue states keep on keeping on with their blue ways, and the red states drift into further shades of red. Like a couple who remain married but are separated, the states would remain in the union, but they’d be generally off on their own in terms of setting domestic policy.

I’m not suggesting that’s necessarily a good outcome or one that I think is desirable, but I think it’s a whole lot more feasible than a dissolution of the union. It’s also an outcome that has a shit ton less down side than Balkanizing the country into separate, sovereign blue and red blocks.

[Kraken]

Really, if we want to have this discussion, isn’t it better framed around a national separation rather than a national divorce? I can see a future - some might say we’re moving towards it now - where the state/federal power dynamic shifts significantly. Blue states keep on keeping on with their blue ways, and the red states drift into further shades of red. Like a couple who remain married but are separated, the states would remain in the union, but they’d be generally off on their own in terms of setting domestic policy.

This is unfeasible if the federal government falls to authoritarians who overturn democracy to such an extent that blues can never regain federal power -- which they are actively and openly setting up the framework to do. They already stole SCOTUS, which is not inclined to let the blue states keep being blue.

This leads us back to the Civil War II path that Holman doesn't want to consider here, but if the reds successfully impose one-party rule, IDK how we can address that.

[Little Raven]

Do you think the Right really feels itself to be sharing a legitimate Democracy with the rest of us right now?

I certainly think most Republicans feel that way. I mean, talk to them. Virtually none of them are talking about reaching for their guns - instead, they are super fired up about voting in November. Which is exactly how it's supposed to work.

But maybe I'm wrong, and the Republicans are everything you fear. In that case, we fight them. But we fight for the whole enchilada, not just "the Blue States." Nobody gets to leave.

[Unagi]

Sad truth is the South needs the North (and Urban areas all universally lean Dem ). They would have never made it after the civil war if the ‘won’.

So, we are beholden to them - as it takes two to make this divorce a reality.

Other than that, I would so love to divorce myself from their toxic nature.

[dbt1949]

One of the problems is we can't put all the types of people I don't like in the desert. They wouldn't put up with that.

[Kurth]

Really, if we want to have this discussion, isn’t it better framed around a national separation rather than a national divorce? I can see a future - some might say we’re moving towards it now - where the state/federal power dynamic shifts significantly. Blue states keep on keeping on with their blue ways, and the red states drift into further shades of red. Like a couple who remain married but are separated, the states would remain in the union, but they’d be generally off on their own in terms of setting domestic policy.

This is unfeasible if the federal government falls to authoritarians who overturn democracy to such an extent that blues can never regain federal power -- which they are actively and openly setting up the framework to do. They already stole SCOTUS, which is not inclined to let the blue states keep being blue.

This leads us back to the Civil War II path that Holman doesn't want to consider here, but if the reds successfully impose one-party rule, IDK how we can address that.

Yeah, but we're not really there yet, are we? You live in the great People's Republic of Massachusetts. I live in Oregon. Let's talk when we see federal power being exerted in such a way that civil liberties are being curtailed by the red controlled federal government in these bluest of blue states. I'm not saying it can't or won't happen. But I think talk of a national divorce is very much premature until that turn of events comes to pass.

[Kraken]

Really, if we want to have this discussion, isn’t it better framed around a national separation rather than a national divorce? I can see a future - some might say we’re moving towards it now - where the state/federal power dynamic shifts significantly. Blue states keep on keeping on with their blue ways, and the red states drift into further shades of red. Like a couple who remain married but are separated, the states would remain in the union, but they’d be generally off on their own in terms of setting domestic policy.

This is unfeasible if the federal government falls to authoritarians who overturn democracy to such an extent that blues can never regain federal power -- which they are actively and openly setting up the framework to do. They already stole SCOTUS, which is not inclined to let the blue states keep being blue.

This leads us back to the Civil War II path that Holman doesn't want to consider here, but if the reds successfully impose one-party rule, IDK how we can address that.

Yeah, but we're not really there yet, are we? You live in the great People's Republic of Massachusetts. I live in Oregon. Let's talk when we see federal power being exerted in such a way that civil liberties are being curtailed by the red controlled federal government in these bluest of blue states. I'm not saying it can't or won't happen. But I think talk of a national divorce is very much premature until that turn of events comes to pass.

Fair enough. How about when SCOTUS strikes down our gun laws later this summer?

[hitbyambulance]

It seems like a possibility to consider, even if only to decide whether it would or wouldn't be preferable.

only due to the actions of a relatively few power-brokers, plus a whole lot of disinfo sowers and foreign influence, amped up by the media. i would think actual popular support for this idea is far, far less than you'd presume it would be.

[malchior]

Fair enough. How about when SCOTUS strikes down our gun laws later this summer?

No no, that is just *clarifying your individual rights*. Sigh.

On the general topic, I don't think this is whole divorce/separation is possible. I put aside the military and foreign treaty issues. Those could be solved via some federation agreement. However, this is America. It is about the money. Even when it is soaked in schoolchildren's blood. The fiscal problems we'd face are mostly insurmountable. The red states are largely gigantic hypocrite mooches. Their way of life is not sustainable without blue dollars. They talk about their superior low tax models but it is funded by blue states. Especially the northeast. There are notable exceptions like California where they have near parity between what they sent and what they get back from the federal government.

This is very much underneath all of what is happening. All these social issues are mostly tied to control over the purse strings and control of the judiciary which is very much about control of business and culture...to reinforce control of the purse strings. It is the closest analog we have of this time to the Civil War. Slavery was very much at the heart of the South's economic model. In modern times, the red state economic model is a direct descendent of bargains struck coming out of the Civil War. The North tolerated and funded the South's utter racist bullshit because it kept the Union together. Now we see them abusing that relationship. And they'd have to agree to surrender their way of life voluntarily to move something like this forward. Fat chance of that happening.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's a nonstarter. The economics alone would prohibit any kind of split.

[coopasonic]

And for God's sake WHY?!? We are quite literally the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen. Why on Earth would we break that up?

We are, but most of us don't really get to see any benefits of that. Plenty of Americans don't know how they are paying next months rent, how they are going to afford to eat until their next paycheck, avoid seeking healthcare due to cost, etc. We are the wealthiest, most powerful nation because of our military budget and not much else. So that is all bad enough and where we have been heading since WW2, but now, with the authoritarian push that could have much more dire consequences. If people move to blue "safe havens" to feel safe and get a decent education for their children, purple states turn red and the Senate is locked down and then it's pretty much done.

"They" say progress wins out eventually.... and maybe on a global scale it does, but in the US it doesn't feel like we are heading in the right (no, the other right) direction at all.

That's why.

[noxiousdog]

It's a silly question. Even in the most extreme of states it's a 25%/75% split. Texas, Florida, and California are much closer.

The concept of taking away US Citizenship of 150 million people because there's an angry 10% seems ludicrous. Lest we forget Georgia voted Democratic in 2020. Things change.

[malchior]

And for God's sake WHY?!? We are quite literally the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen. Why on Earth would we break that up?

We are, but most of us don't really get to see any benefits of that. Plenty of Americans don't know how they are paying next months rent, how they are going to afford to eat until their next paycheck, avoid seeking healthcare due to cost, etc. We are the wealthiest, most powerful nation because of our military budget and not much else.

Our GDP and productivity numbers are top of the world for the large part. The per capita output crown goes to a few other nations but we're basically the top economy. It is for a lot of reasons. The problem you are talking about is we let wealth concentrate to such a level that it has impacted our stability and called our liberal market into question. And unfortunately our governance model is terrible and began to fail.

In other words, the problem is our constitution isn't flexible enough to survive paradigm shifts when they occur. The system often buckles for some period before getting back on track. And we haven't seen as serious a crack up as we are seeing now in modern times. It shouldn't escape us that our history isn't all that peaceful. We have a long history of assassinations, tax riots, a civil war, race riots, extremist movements, etc. So maybe we pull through or we have a serious break down. Who knows but I don't think history is going to rate our constitution too highly as a framework for a lasting democracy.

"They" say progress wins out eventually.... and maybe on a global scale it does, but in the US it doesn't feel like we are heading in the right (no, the other right) direction at all.

That's why.

The above is why there is a lot of debate at the political science academic level about whether our model of how things should work actually promises progress. Fukuyama back in the early 90s somewhat predicted that liberal democracy got as good as it'd get back in the late 80s. The peak may be fixed sometime in the future on the fall of the wall in 1989 or 1992 with the fall of the Soviet Union. Our model was ascendent...until it wasn't. Shortly thereafter the wolves came to feast on the spoils and left little for the rest of folks.

In any case, folks like Galtung, Fukuyama, etc. were way ahead of this and began discussing the weaknesses in liberal democracy and in particular the United States long before the cracks appeared. Galtung was pretty much the only one who saw it happening as fast as it happened. The upshot is pretty much no one is happy with the political system. We can't even provide basic security to children and the citizens at large which is only hastening the decline as people wonder what the heck we get out of this arrangement.

It's a silly question. Even in the most extreme of states it's a 25%/75% split. Texas, Florida, and California are much closer.

The concept of taking away US Citizenship of 150 million people because there's an angry 10% seems ludicrous. Lest we forget Georgia voted Democratic in 2020. Things change.

I'd say let's check back in on this one in a few months.

[Kurth]

Really, if we want to have this discussion, isn’t it better framed around a national separation rather than a national divorce? I can see a future - some might say we’re moving towards it now - where the state/federal power dynamic shifts significantly. Blue states keep on keeping on with their blue ways, and the red states drift into further shades of red. Like a couple who remain married but are separated, the states would remain in the union, but they’d be generally off on their own in terms of setting domestic policy.

This is unfeasible if the federal government falls to authoritarians who overturn democracy to such an extent that blues can never regain federal power -- which they are actively and openly setting up the framework to do. They already stole SCOTUS, which is not inclined to let the blue states keep being blue.

This leads us back to the Civil War II path that Holman doesn't want to consider here, but if the reds successfully impose one-party rule, IDK how we can address that.

Yeah, but we're not really there yet, are we? You live in the great People's Republic of Massachusetts. I live in Oregon. Let's talk when we see federal power being exerted in such a way that civil liberties are being curtailed by the red controlled federal government in these bluest of blue states. I'm not saying it can't or won't happen. But I think talk of a national divorce is very much premature until that turn of events comes to pass.

Fair enough. How about when SCOTUS strikes down our gun laws later this summer?

Nope. Striking down gun control measures does not qualify. No matter how you slice it, gun control measures -- even the most modest and reasonable ones -- arguably circumscribe a constitutionally enshrined right.

The scenario to be looking for is when a red federal government passes an OK-style nationwide abortion ban and SCOTUS upholds it.

If we get to that point, the shit will hit the fan, and all this talk about divorce or dissolution will be on the table. Until then, it's just a bad dream.

[Little Raven]

If we get to that point, the shit will hit the fan, and all this talk about divorce or dissolution will be on the table. Until then, it's just a bad dream.

I'm not sure why THAT would be the demarcation point. I mean, the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion, which means it's fair game for both the Feds and the States. Right now, Federal law is silent on it as well, meaning states can do whatever they please, but if either side gains enough control of Congress to enact Federal legislation, (which is a very, VERY high bar, assuming the filibuster sticks around) then I wouldn't expect the Court to intervene.

But then, the line where a government becomes unbearably tyrannical is ultimately an individual decision. Drazzil got there long ago, after all.

[msduncan]

Rather than actual divorce, wouldn't the solution in such a crisis scenario where a divorce was needed be a radical re-thinking of the Federal Government's role while keeping the defense and economic union intact? Like a drastic scaling down of federal powers and upscaling of state's powers to self govern?

In a way it seems the SCOTUS has been gently nudging this, but I'm talking on a much more radical scale that moves more back towards Articles of Confederation type territory rather than dissolving the union completely?

I think we can all agree that despite our deep divisions in political, religious, and cultural thought, the victory in WW2 and perhaps a hand in the victory of WW1 was due to the union being intact and the United States being united. Had the Civil War gone differently, would we have been able to turn into the military and industrial machine that helped save the world from Nazi Germany? I don't think we would have, and I think the world would look like a very different place right now.

[Kurth]

Rather than actual divorce, wouldn't the solution in such a crisis scenario where a divorce was needed be a radical re-thinking of the Federal Government's role while keeping the defense and economic union intact? Like a drastic scaling down of federal powers and upscaling of state's powers to self govern?

In a way it seems the SCOTUS has been gently nudging this, but I'm talking on a much more radical scale that moves more back towards Articles of Confederation type territory rather than dissolving the union completely?

I think we can all agree that despite our deep divisions in political, religious, and cultural thought, the victory in WW2 and perhaps a hand in the victory of WW1 was due to the union being intact and the United States being united. Had the Civil War gone differently, would we have been able to turn into the military and industrial machine that helped save the world from Nazi Germany? I don't think we would have, and I think the world would look like a very different place right now.

Please see above.

[Little Raven]

In a way it seems the SCOTUS has been gently nudging this, but I'm talking on a much more radical scale that moves more back towards Articles of Confederation type territory rather than dissolving the union completely?

Oh no. The Articles of Confederation couldn't even keep things going for a decade back in the 18th century. There's no going back to THAT.

But I'm certainly open to the idea that dose of Federalism may be helpful. One of our big problems (as I see it) is that Federal politics tends to crowd out everything else on news feeds, but when it comes to things that will actually affect your life, local politics is almost always infinitely more relevant.

[malchior]

The idea that there are bright lines doesn't seem all that realistic to me. We're already seeing a population that periodically says that the nation is 'out of control' or off track. Our society is unraveling. Thinking that some court case or one particular piece of legislation is going to be a signal that 'it's over' is probably not how it'll happen. Partially it will be a continuation of what we are seeing. Random acts of shocking violence over and over. I feel like many here haven't been talking to folks - the mood is dark. People have been under an immense amount of stress. This nation is a pressure cooker even without the GOP going off the rails.

In a way it seems the SCOTUS has been gently nudging this, but I'm talking on a much more radical scale that moves more back towards Articles of Confederation type territory rather than dissolving the union completely?

Oh no. The Articles of Confederation couldn't even keep things going for a decade back in the 18th century. There's no going back to THAT.

But I'm certainly open to the idea that dose of Federalism may be helpful. One of our big problems (as I see it) is that Federal politics tends to crowd out everything else on news feeds, but when it comes to things that will actually affect your life, local politics is almost always infinitely more relevant.

I'm not surprised to hear this view appear. It has been the talk of the far right for some time and is resurgent. In any case, I think it is folly to think anything is off the table if we migrate to one party rule.

[Kurth]

If we get to that point, the shit will hit the fan, and all this talk about divorce or dissolution will be on the table. Until then, it's just a bad dream.

I'm not sure why THAT would be the demarcation point. I mean, the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion, which means it's fair game for both the Feds and the States. Right now, Federal law is silent on it as well, meaning states can do whatever they please, but if either side gains enough control of Congress to enact Federal legislation, (which is a very, VERY high bar, assuming the filibuster sticks around) then I wouldn't expect the Court to intervene.

But then, the line where a government becomes unbearably tyrannical is ultimately an individual decision. Drazzil got there long ago, after all.

I'm not sure why the Constitution being silent on abortion means it's fair game for both the Feds and the States. That's not my understanding of the 10th Amendment.

But setting that aside, I'm putting no faith in SCOTUS at this point. I should have been more clear: I think if a red federal government passes an OK-style nationwide abortion ban, SCOTUS will likely uphold it, and that's when shit will hit the fan.

It's one thing to tell people that restrictions on an enumerated right in the Constitution are a no-go. It's quite another to tell them it's ok for Federal law to restrict their unenumerated rights in an area as controversial and culturally and personally important as abortion or reproductive rights more broadly.

[malchior]

Meanwhile, we see mounting unrest brewing underneath it all.

But another component of the industry’s radicalization, as former gun company executive Ryan Busse argues, is its push toward ever-increasing firepower, toward a kind of fully armed society and the deliberate exploitation of social antagonisms to jet-fuel this trend.

You hear echoes of this in the customer’s suggestion that the AR-15 has become “America’s rifle,” and in the gun store manager urging the purchase of ever more firepower, on the idea that “mobs,” as opposed to lone intruders, will soon invade your home. You see, the threat can always be inflated further.

“There seems to be a particular ratcheting up now,” Busse told me. The goal, he said, is a “maximally armed public.”

Busse points out that the industry sometimes hails increased gun sales not just as a sign of business success, but as a positive societal development, as an indication that people who fear crime are doing right by themselves. At times, he notes, gun manufacturers hype the possibility of racial conflict to induce people to arm up further in preparation for that eventuality.

[Holman]

I appreciate all the response to my initial post, and I feel like I should reiterate that I wasn't *proposing* this scenario but just gaming it out. How would it work if it happened?

There is an underswell of very divisive discontent in America, though. I won't be surprised to hear more and more talk of a breakup as a reflection of that, or even as cover for other divisive policies.

The idea of an Enhanced Federalism, with states freer to interpret rights as they will, practically leads to the same problems as a National Divorce. If Red states are free to impose a more Christian-nationalist version of law/education/etc within their borders, will urban Blues in those Red states be inclined to stay?

I think the main crisis of all this is internal migration and its economic impacts. It might be true that many states are no more extreme than a 60-40 split, but that (already) results in partisan state legislatures with pretty extreme agendas. If those legislatures gain a freer hand to enact those agendas, things change pretty quickly.

[malchior]

There is an underswell of very divisive discontent in America, though. I won't be surprised to hear more and more talk of a breakup as a reflection of that, or even as cover for other divisive policies.

Agreed, when you are reading NY Times opinion pieces talking about this it can't be dismissed out of hand. It reflects that we are facing levels of political imbalance that aren't sustainable.

The idea of an Enhanced Federalism, with states freer to interpret rights as they will, practically leads to the same problems as a National Divorce. If Red states are free to impose a more Christian-nationalist version of law/education/etc within their borders, will urban Blues in those Red states be inclined to stay?

We actually already have an example working through the courts - the Texas Social Media law. If say that made it to the Supreme Court and got blessed...it'd be chaos. I don't think that one is plausible but it isn't hard to envision that there will be a profound Federalism vs. State SCOTUS decision that will cause widespread chaos. Roe is a cultural equivalent but it won't have that functional day-to-day impact. Which is what a lot of people are arguing. Leonhardt wrote a piece along those lines today in the NY Times newsletter. Something that imposes economic harm at scale or large disruption may happen and trigger an incident.

I think the main crisis of all this is internal migration and its economic impacts. It might be true that many states are no more extreme than a 60-40 split, but that (already) results in partisan state legislatures with pretty extreme agendas. If those legislatures gain a freer hand to enact those agendas, things change pretty quickly.

This is the rub. Internal migration isn't unusual in the US. However, let's posit that this was going to happen at scale. That would be functionally difficult and would almost certainly exacerbate financial divisions. It isn't like we have some great excess of cheap housing sitting ready to support sudden swings in population. Also, if it happened to concentrate more people into blue states...great you've just made the power imbalance even worse.

[Smoove_B]

I'm having a hard time imagining it would end up holding for very long. From a practical point of view if I was living in a state that suddenly was surrounded by other states that were repealing environmental / pollution mandates, vaccination / public health laws, gun regulations, etc... it's only a matter of time before their issues directly or indirectly impact my day-to-day existence. I'm already living in on of the reddest areas of my own state. I can't imagine what some of these folks would be doing if they gained control of the state government and weren't accountable to anyone.

[Isgrimnur]

Libertarian bears.

[Kraken]

I wonder if allowing city-states to exist would work. The rural folk could have their Gilead and the city folk could have their sinful ways, and it could be comparatively easy for individuals to make their choice of where to live, with neither needing to rule over the other.

[Little Raven]

I'm not sure why the Constitution being silent on abortion means it's fair game for both the Feds and the States. That's not my understanding of the 10th Amendment.

I don't understand. Do you believe Roe vs. Wade has been a monstrosity this entire time? That the Federal government has no RIGHT to tell states how they can regulate abortion? I mean, the Feds have been telling states what to do about abortion for 50 years. Should Alabama have been violently resisting this whole time?

Or do you believe that the Feds have the power to regulate abortion only in so far as telling states they must insuring access?

Anyway, we all have our hills to die on, and I completely understand if this is one of yours. But it seems to me that the Feds have been in the abortion regulation business for a very long time. I don't know why that would suddenly become verboten just because Team Red got control of the Congress.

edit - it occurs to me that maybe I'm misreading you, and you're merely predicting that Blue states get shooty over Federal restrictions on abortion, not actually endorsing it. In which case, I absolutely agree.

[Unagi]

I wonder if allowing city-states to exist would work. The rural folk could have their Gilead and the city folk could have their sinful ways, and it could be comparatively easy for individuals to make their choice of where to live, with neither needing to rule over the other.

We have that here.
This would be Chicago right next to rural Indiana.

[Little Raven]

I wonder if allowing city-states to exist would work.

It works out just fine for Rhode Island.

[Zarathud]

This is a pointless thought-experiment. If we can’t pass gun control due to the filibuster, we can’t decide to break up the Union. Who are the principled founders who can negotiate a more perfect dis-Union? There’s no one left who is principled in the Republican Party. The Democratic Party can’t work out a legislative strategy.

There’s a reason the Republicans want to filibuster so badly and needed the judges. We’re raising a generation under the threat of gun violence. They’re more liberal and less conservative. Eventually the gerrymandering can’t stop demographics. It’s why the White Nationalists don’t want immigration or white abortion. They can’t put liberals and GLBT back into the closet.

[Kraken]

I wonder if allowing city-states to exist would work. The rural folk could have their Gilead and the city folk could have their sinful ways, and it could be comparatively easy for individuals to make their choice of where to live, with neither needing to rule over the other.

We have that here.
This would be Chicago right next to rural Indiana.

A couple of days ago I posted a column noting that the cities that wield all the national economic and cultural influence are losing political power. The takers are overruling the makers, to co-opt the right's idiom. I'm just spitballing here, but maybe granting statehood to major cities could restore political clout to the majority that our system punishes for being too concentrated. Could Atlanta secede from Georgia (for example) and petition for statehood?

[hitbyambulance]

I wonder if allowing city-states to exist would work. The rural folk could have their Gilead and the city folk could have their sinful ways, and it could be comparatively easy for individuals to make their choice of where to live, with neither needing to rule over the other.

this was the concept of the first part of Neal Stephenson's _Fall_ - it's not a pretty scenario

[dbt1949]

I wonder if allowing city-states to exist would work. The rural folk could have their Gilead and the city folk could have their sinful ways, and it could be comparatively easy for individuals to make their choice of where to live, with neither needing to rule over the other.

Like the Fallout series.

[Unagi]

I wonder if allowing city-states to exist would work. The rural folk could have their Gilead and the city folk could have their sinful ways, and it could be comparatively easy for individuals to make their choice of where to live, with neither needing to rule over the other.

We have that here.
This would be Chicago right next to rural Indiana.

A couple of days ago I posted a column noting that the cities that wield all the national economic and cultural influence are losing political power. The takers are overruling the makers, to co-opt the right's idiom. I'm just spitballing here, but maybe granting statehood to major cities could restore political clout to the majority that our system punishes for being too concentrated. Could Atlanta secede from Georgia (for example) and petition for statehood?

Just speaking very 'arm-chair' here from the future city-state of Chicago - that would probably make southern Illinois very happy - but that would do nothing but massively reduce the buffer to the open rural gun laws of Indillinois.

What might work is if you gave every city a large radial buffer of 'suburban-state' status that would still belong to the city-state... but far enough from the concentrated population to not reproduce the 'Indiana guns go to Chicago gangs' problem.

[noxiousdog]

I think the main crisis of all this is internal migration and its economic impacts. It might be true that many states are no more extreme than a 60-40 split, but that (already) results in partisan state legislatures with pretty extreme agendas. If those legislatures gain a freer hand to enact those agendas, things change pretty quickly.

Most states are moderate. According to pew, there's only six "states" where the majority party has more than 55% of the populace.
District of Columbia 73%
Vermont 57%
Wyoming 57%
Massachusetts 56%
Delaware 55%
Maryland 55%