National Divorce?

I do not think the US will split. The schism is ideological and only roughly geographic, with little continuity that would allow for two contiguous 'nations' to emerge. The far opposites (MAGAs and SJWs) who scream loudest and get the most attention are still fairly narrow slices of crusty waste at the ends of the big national loaf. The rest of us are in the middle, and while we don't much like either end, we have an interest in keep the bread unsliced. Sorry for the crumby metaphor.

A lot of people who have an interest in division will claim that "this country is so divided!" but most people are just trying to get through their day and won't support a national divorce under any circumstances. Things seem more divided than they really are, especially online where most of the extremists hang out and there's no reason to compromise because it's all just theoretical / meaningless. Just people who don't know each other, and often have no way of even finding out the real-life identity of the other person, nattering at each other over whatever is viral today.

Was it Einstein who said something like, "in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they are different"? How, practically, would the country divide up? You could potentially draw a contiguous country with the red states but could not do so with the blue ones. Who gets the federal stuff, like buildings, operational sites, etc. -- i.e., which of USA-red or USA-blue is the official "continuation" of the government that arose out of the Constitutional Convention in the 1780s, and which is a whole new thing? That would probably decide who gets to keep the federal stuff, it wouldn't go based on what state it happened to be in. Who gets the military and who has to build a new one? Hard border or soft border like between, say, Republic of Ireland and the UK (most pertinently, Northern Ireland)? Add in a million other practical considerations, like how to divide federal treasury funds . . . would the "continuing government" half get to keep it all, forcing the "new government" to start from scratch? Or would there be some agreement on dividing it up? Could a country allegedly "so divided" that it has to have a national divorce really come to agreement on such terms? For that matter, would the new borders even follow state lines? What about very blue parts of red states, or vice versa?

Basically, there will not be a divorce unless or until the United States, as a whole, collapses. On a long enough timescale that will inevitably occur, but the idea that it will happen because we have disagreements over abortion and transgendered people just isn't going to bring it about. I know people get angsty when the other party controls the national government, but our system contains lots of room for individual states to set their own rules - - abortion and transgender people are such areas. If you really don't like the laws you are subject to in the US, you can move to a state with laws you like better, and that's much more practical, and much more realistic, than hoping for a national divorce.

Thank you both very much for your thoughtful responses. I think I agree that it is unlikely for the reasons you pointed out that any divorce will happen any time soon. I also agree that my perspective is skewed because 1) I spend a lot of time online and see the opposites arguing and tearing each other down all the time, and 2) I am personally a "peace-loving" person that doesn't like the vitriol that appears - to me - to be almost becoming a national-pastime.

That was a great Einstein quote. I am not hoping for a split, but I do wish the overall environment were less contentious, or at least more tolerant for people to have opposing viewpoints. I wish people were more able to say "I disagree" without it being so personal and attacking towards a person's value as a human being. Also, if hard times were to be coming, I would prefer to deal with it head on instead of kicking the can down the road and have the next generations adversely effected.

Shut up, Confederate.

The name you're looking for is Yogi Berra, not that hack Einstein.

the end game is that tony stark has to steal the infinity stones at the last second and sacrifice his life to snap his fingers so thanos dies

Pretty good

And kicked in a nice pun, to boot.

Your first paragraph is basically the thesis of “Decadence” by New York Times’ in-house conservative Ross Douthat. I didn’t love the book, but I think he and you are basically right.

Bottom line, vanishingly geeky Americans would actually be willing to pick up arms or otherwise endure the unpleasantness of a split.

To paraphrase #44 but apply it both sides, people cling to political ideology (and really, all ideology) because they’re looking to fill a hole with meaning. Life in the U.S. today, diffuse and workaday and lacking community is kind of meaningless. But that isn’t a recipe for civil war.

Correction: it’s called “The Decadent Society.”

Correction: “Vanishingly few” not “Vanishingly geeky”

Some other people in this thread have made some good points, but I would like to point out that letsrun's page (or even twitter/facebook/reddit/4chan, w/e) are not the real world! Heck, only 62% of voting age persons voted in 2020. A lot of people do not care.

One side will have a lot of trouble dealing with a shortage of people in the skilled trades and the other will suffer from a paucity of doctors, engineers, architects, computer scientists, etc. Never happen.

Care to guess which side will eat?

They both will eat. One side will export food and one side will import food.

Extremists will continue to lose elections to centrists until they stop.

Stop being jobless and idiotic. Keep in mind predator drones and nuclear missiles that neither you nor any of the states have.

Care to guess which side will go bankrupt without blue states to fund them?

Precisely...the opposite. The issue we have today as opposed to 1975 is the right is sending a different set of people to washington. You say "both sides are equally bad" all you want, but that's just not true today. The right elected a crazy person that is still to this day saying elections are stolen, he will pardon all the people who attacked the capitol, and the other side is inherently evil and you should never work with them. That attitude has trickled down to people like MTG, McCarthy and others who simply wont work with anyone. They are there to stop progress period. This new tactic of threatening your own country with harm , unless you get what you want, is what goes on in bannana republics, not the US and A. They attacked our capitol (and celebrated it), and they are using the debt limit as a weapon to harm the country. Even in yearbook committee in HS, we learn that you have to at least get along (and not make up insulting nicknames for your colleagues on the other side of the aisle). Unless you are like 14, you know this is true. I always assumed 90% of Democrats AND Republicans would not tolerate such behavior. I was wrong, no way I would have thought at this juncture 66% of GOP still supports Trump.

Douthat is a complete RINO. I hate the NYT but have to read it for my job. WSJ is far better

Excellent!