Would you support splitting the U.S. into two nations?

This is true, but it's more complex than that. "Ruralness" is a kind of proxy for other things -- a correlate, not a cause. For instance, two out of three white males voted for Trump. The further you go down the social scale, among whites, the stronger the support for Trump. (I'm taking voting for Trump as an indicator of grass-roots conservatism.) A key demographic is what one analyst calls the 'American Preservationists' --

[SOURCE: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmarsico/2017/06/23/who-were-donald-trumps-voters-now-we-know/]

If, as I hope, we see the emergence of FH Buckley's "Republican Workers Party", these people will be its core. It's true that they are not to be found in large numbers in the cities.

 

I have a better idea. Why not return to the original intent of state's rights (taking away the vast federal powers), and we can maintain the union while providing the option of differing forms of governance depending upon where one chooses to live?

 

The South wanted to keep people in bondage. Those who fought for the unity of the nation were fighting, whatever teir subjective feelings, to liberate people from bondage.
If we have another split, it will be to free people from bondage, in two senses: the Right won't be bound to the Leftist increasingly-radical social justice experiment. And in letting the Right go their own way, the Left will have a clear field to build their new society. I would hope that they would let us keep the (suitably-altered) American flag, since they increasingly despise it -- they could have a rainbow flag perhaps.

It would be better for everyone. Like a couple who fought like cats and dogs while married, but become friends -- if cool friends -- after the divorce, we would stop hating each other so much.

We would instead pity each other, which is better.

 

Yes, this is what FH Buckley advocates in this article: https://nypost.com/2020/01/24/how-to-avoid-americas-coming-secession-crisis/

And probably most conservatives would prefer that, being, by their nature, against radical leaps, and also being organic reflexive patriots.

But ... you will have to ask our Progressive friends if they would allow that. Would they allow a state to reinstitute School Prayer, for example, or raising the voting age back to 21, or making abortion illegal?
Of course they wouldn't. And this desire to impose their values -- which, to be fair, they just see as 'human rights' -- will get stronger, once they have the Supreme Court.

AND THEY WILL HAVE IT!!!! Currently, most conservatives, like most people, think this way: "Today was pretty much like yesterday, and tomorrow will be pretty much like today." And so they interpolate linearly into the indefinite future. Things will go back and forth. The Democrats will rule, then we will, then the Democrats, then us ... back and forth.

But they're wrong: America is moving towards a permanent 'Progessive' majority at the national level. I don't mean 'liberal' either. I mean the sort of politics that is driven by white guilt, that assumes when a policeman shoots a Black man, that the policeman is automatically guilty, regardless of circumstances; that the Pledge of Allegiance is an anachronism at best, a pledge to a flag of imperialist colonization and racial extermination at worst; that a man who says he's a woman, is a woman. This is what is coming.

Thoughtful liberals know this as well, by the way. In last month's Atlantic Magazine, there was a very interesting article by a non-conservative, who sees exactly what is coming. Unlike some Progressives, he doesn't exult over it, because he sees the terrible disruption that it can bring. The article is here, and I urge everyone to read it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/how-america-ends/600757/

I absolutely understand that the idea of a peaceful separation sounds nuts right now. And if tomorrow really were going to be like today, and so on indefinitely, then it would be. The classic fallacy of linear projection. Many people have lost their life savings based on applying this fallacy to share prices. But it's not going to be that way forever.

It may well be the case that conservatives will just roll over and die peacefully, watching their children and grandchildren become Newthinkers. But it actually won't be like that. A Progressive America will not be a peaceful utopia, with Black and white holding hands. Its military and police will be hollowed out -- this is already happening. Leading contenders for the Democratic Presidential nomination make a would-be cop-killer into a hero. The military is forced to lower standards in order to fit the radical feminist agenda.

Its institutions of education will more become more and more institutions of indoctrination. The waves of poor people flooding in, people with profoundly different attitudes towards the rule of law (which they have never experienced), and with major needs for economic resources from the state ... this will have a huge effect. For a while, well-off progressives in their gated communities won't experience the full brunt of these changes, of course. But ordinary people will. It's a cruel world out there. The immense disparity between American military force and everyone else has profoundly inlfuenced our complacency. This is changing. China is growing stronger, even as progressive policy eats away at American vitals.

When more and more American cities look like downtown San Franciso, the idea of peaceful separation will start to become more and more attractive.

And everyone taking part in this thread can say, you read it here first!

 

I am not sure that I actually see secession or a drastic return to states rights actually happening. My position isn't nearly as fatalistic as your's, but I will acknowledge that there is a lot more truth to what you are saying than most of us would like to admit.

 

Not in favor of two separate countries, but I could see making a 51st state out of Northern California, Eastern Oregon, and Eastern Washington.

 

When I think about the chances of rescuing civilization by seccession of the patriots-- which I believe is the only way we'll save it -- I can get rather depressed. Who is going to give up their job, sell their home, and move to Idaho, if they're well established in Blue state, or one that will be Blue within a few years?

In ten or fifteen years their attitudes may change, of course. But at the moment, it's like suddenly finding a little lump under your skin somewhere .... surely it will go away?

The only compensations for this rather grim outlook are when (1) I see more and more people beginning to consider this idea seriously, including people on the Center and Left, and (2) now, when I read about a professor being physically attacked for his political views, or someone getting 15 years in prison for burning an LGBT flag (not the American flag, of course, the Left positively love that), or Nike rescinding its Betsy Ross Flag shoes (and not going out of business but doing well), or another conservative getting shadowbanned from YouTube or Facebook, I have this little spark of "Told you so! Now will you listen?" It's uncomfotably like the (spurious) quote attributed to Lenin, "The worse, the better.".

But no one knows the future. We cannot predict what will happen, not even next week, and how that will affect American politics. The demographic changes are clear, the Left's increasingly tight death-grip on the cultural apparatus of America is clear, the growth of China while we decline is clear ... but how it will all play out ... who knows?

All we can do is to try to free ourselves from emotion, prejudices, wishes-that-father-thoughts, and think things through in cold blood.

Mod Edit/Redirect

 

If you want to split up the country in order to rid yourself of extremists, you are the extremist.

 

You probablyknow about the "state of Jefferson" movement. Throw in Idaho and a few more more contiguous states, get state governments in power that will disavow any idea of separation BUT which will do everything in their power to encourage in-migration of people who have gotten tired of living in Progressive-dominated states ... and who knows what might happen?

 

One proposal which has merit is to split Texas into six states (which Texas has a right to do pursuant to an agreement with the U.S. federal government when they became a state) and to compensate by allowing Californian to split into six states. This would effectively keep the overall balance in the U.S. Senate.

I've heard that the biggest problem with this is the dispute in Texas over which of the sections of Texas would get to call themselves "Texans".

 

"Extremist" is a neutral term. People who wanted to rebel against their lawful kind were once extremists. People who wanted to destroy the whole basis of economy and society in the Southern states were extremists.

The question is, what is the alternative to the "extreme" view? As the American flag becomes an object of derision or hatred on more and more campuses -- something Progressives are happyh about -- as the idea that Washington and Jefferson were just self-nterested white slaveholders gets more traction in the schools ... as the water slowly gets hotter and hotter .... perhaps at some point the frogs will take an extreme measure and jump out of the pot.

 

Which reminds me of a saying among people like my relatives in SouthTexas: "The best thing about Austin is that you can drive twenty miles in any direction and be in Texas."

 

Would the division be by state or regions within them? I think it should be done county by county across the country if done at all. I live in a conservative portion of California and we would rather live in the conservatives side than with the urban coastal parts of our own state.

 

I would say by the smallest unit feasible.

It should be done in the way which will result in the fewest 'blue' people living in 'red' areas, (and vice versa, but given the fact that our side wants to change the status quo, we will have to make the most consessions)., Thre should be some prejudice against too much tortuous gerrymandering, some respect for 'natural boundaries', and perhaps some respect for economic viability. (I would dearly love an outlet to the Pacific Ocean, for example. Maybe we could buy it?)

I suppose one could devise a graph-theory-based algorithm which could take a map of the US, divided into the smallest units for which we have reliable data for political preferences, give some reasonable values to the parameters I've mentioned, and see what it comes up with.

Of course, the usual way the human species settles these things is through blood and iron, but we might be able to do better.

The problem is, you will NEVER get a situation where 100% of the people living in an area will agree to its secession, and I can sympathyze with that. They have to be able to be dual citizens if they want, and all of their fears about the future laws of the newly-seceeded state should be accommodated so far as possible.

But this always happens. Many Americans did not want to leave Britain, many people living in Scotland will not want to secede from the UK, and the same in Northern Ireland, etc etc. Russians living in Estonia probably did not want it to leave the Russian Federation. (The Baltic states have bent over backwards not to offend their Russian minorities, and not because the Baltic peoples are such nice guys, either. But they're realists. The nationalist Ukrainian legislators who are dis-establishing Russian as a second language in Ukraine are neither. I suppose they hope Uncle Sam will come in and see of the Russian Bear if they go too far. How I hope they're wrong.) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language_in_Ukraine]

One problem with this discussion is that the USA has just not had to face the 'national question' as a serious issue on its own soil for 150 years. The non-white radicals in the US who argued for Black or Hispanic separatism were never taken seriously by their own people, who know what it would mean to reproduce Mexico or Jamaica on American soil. But that attitude could change, were the US to decline from the king-of-the-world status it has had since 1945. On the other hand, as the drug cartels seize control of Mexico, they may extend their influence much more heavily into the Southwest -- with unpredicatable consequences.

 

sure, the right can have the south and half the debt, works for me

course when republican build that wall between the north and the south, Russia will have fun with it and tell them to tear it down

 

What if we just split on paper? One grouping under the IRS that believes in redistribution, and one group that doesn’t. Could involve two healthcare systems linked to the IRS groupings. Basically have one country on paper that operates with free markets and personal responsibility and the other group who prefers redistribution and subsidizing costly behaviors.

No bloodshed, no relocation, no walls.

 

Well, ask the Progressives what they think about your plan. What will be taught in the schools, for example. Progressives don't want their children to be fed a bunch of pro-American propaganda, to have to salute the flag, or say the Pledge. And they are increasingly in control of the schools. Progressives want open borders, effectively. They want homosexuals to command Marine rifle companies with women in mixed in with men in the ranks ...it's only fair. Of course, eventually they want to do away with Marine rifle companies. (This won't happen overnight. Progressives have a Left wing and a Right wing, and the Right wing provides useful cover. But the progression to the Left will continue, even after they have won national power. It will speed up then.)

No, you've got to have state sovereignty. You've got to be able to make your own laws. That's what they want, and they're going to get it, because they are on their way to being a permanent majority.

 

Just have separate schools. Kids are bussed to three different schools from my area. The closest school is eight miles away and the furthest about 25. If we can do that we can have red/blue schools.

 

Yes, I would support it. However, it would be far easier to simply take back more control at the state level, and shift a few regions from one state to a more politically aligned neighbor. For example, both WA and OR are pretty definitively politically divided along the cascade mountains, and far more politically aligned with their neighbors north-south than their own states-kin east-west. If we merge west coast WA and west coast OR together, and eastern WA and eastern OR together, we'll have two far more politically homogenous states that spend far less of their energy bickering eachother to political stalemate making everyone incontent and stymieing any sort of real progress.

Ultimately, something is going to have to give. We cannot democratically repress the collectivists forever, neither can we ever constitutionally collectivize the individualists. We're either gonna have to split in some fashion or have a big war to reduce the numerical effectiveness of one side or the other. The former should be vastly preferable, no matter how complicated, to any reasonable person over the latter.

As I understand it, a large portion of Virginia, currently divided over gun laws, has been invited by neighbor West Virginia to secede from VA and join WV. I think this would be a wonderful result, and set a precedent for similar reorganization nationwide that would make everyone much more politically content.

 

Ruralness may be a proxy for other aspects that influence the vote, but geographically it lines up pretty well. The by county vote for the 2016 election demonstrates it fairly well and why it would be almost impossible to split the country up by state.

 

I guess so -- mostly Democratic States and mostly Republican States.

 

Yes. I posted a similar graphic on the previous page, but this one is better. What's needed is a red-blue map for Congressional Districts, rather than counties, because Congressional districts are of roughly equal size, in terms of population. That would show far less red and far more blue. I couldn't find such a map with a quick search. (Congressional district maps, yes, but not ones showing the political majority in each one.) And even better would be a map that somehow indicated trends ... Texas is going blue, for instance, so showing a lot of red districts now would be misleading, since many of them will be blue within ten years. Also it would be good to show the shades of red and blue ... a Congressional district where 90% of the population voted Democratic is different from one where only 52% did.

If we had such a map, we could see where the future 'Red America' would likely be .... mainly concentrated in the Northwest.

 

The root of all the problems talked about in this thread relates directly back to our wide-ass open borders. If the border had been closed off....as required by the Constitution....then we wouldn't have the growing 'shithole areas' problem we now have.

It's no different from cancer. It starts small and then consumes the entire body until its dead. The United States will go the same way.

 

Well, that's cerainly a contributor, and once the progressive left get ahold of the Presidency AND the Congress, they will not be able to resist opening the borders even if some of their base are reluctant to.

However, indigenous non-whites are also heavily Democratic, as are, more and more, younger people. In part this is due to the Left's conquest of the "cultural apparatus" of the US.

There are some things we can do to slow things down -- if you have the time, look at FH Buckley's THE REPUBLICAN WORKERS PARTY. --HOW THE TRUMP VICTORY DROVE EVERYONE CRAZY AND WHY IT WAS JUST WHAT WE NEEDED. Here: https://www.amazon.com/Republican-Workers-Party-Victory-Everyone/dp/1641770066/

 

Well, I actually think something like that would happen. The 'realization' will come because 'Blue America' will turn into San Francisco. Then 'Red America' would have to be very very careful about whom it lets in, and not let our natural compassion and soft hearts overcome our judgement. As the insanity in Blue America feeds on itself and the place starts to collapse, our natural response will be pity. But we will have to say, "You made your bed of Progressive politics... now lie in it!". Some exception would of course have to be made for those conservatives who were too tied to job and home to leave when they had a chance. It'll be tough.

Texas is now being Californicated by people who can't afford to live there, and got tired of stepping in human feces when they visited San Francisco. But they bring their voting habits with them.