Why the U.S. Should Break Up

Even today, the American political system is still referenced in glowing terms of a participatory endeavor in which voters elect officials who will find middle-of-the-road “compromises” that will work for all citizens. This isn’t reality.

It becomes more obvious by the day that America is made up of AT LEAST two irrevocably divergent cultures that cannot peacefully coexist.

The “We the People” constitutional government that might have existed at one time is gone. Now, the Washington DC institutions are seen as a way to implement a particular vision of America and exact revenge on ideological opponents by forcing policies on others who disagree with them in principle.

A Conflict of Visions

Think of the major issues that are the focus of debate. While there are countless ideologies in America, there are some basic observations we can make when it comes to national topics in politics:

1.     One side believes gun ownership is a fundamental right that puts an ultimate check on government aggression; the other side believes that guns exist for the sole purpose of murder and only police and the military should have them.
2.     One side believes that abortion is flat-out murder; the other side believes it’s a non-negotiable women’s health right.
3.     One side believes that immigration needs to be limited to protect American workers from cheap labor and possible undocumented criminals (thus the need for a wall along the Mexican border); the other side believes there should be no fundamental borders and that immigrants should be able to enter the US and enjoy everything it has to offer – public education, healthcare, welfare, etc.
4.     One side believes that taxes should be as low as possible so that prosperity can flourish; the other side believes that ‘the rich’ should pay as much as possible in taxes in order to perpetuate and expand federal entitlement programs.
5.     One side believes that the US economy should be open during the COVID-19 pandemic with as few restrictions as possible; the other side believes that we need to lock everything down until there’s a vaccine AND no new cases or deaths.

The list could continue, but for the sake of brevity, let’s stop there and ask, how do you expect people to “come together” on these very divisive issues? How do we find a compromise on such divergent principles? 

And these are just a few examples. Think of all the politicized issues that are major points of contention that aren’t even binary – there are countless differing viewpoints on any complex issue that has been deemed should be decided in the political realm? How does the compromise happen?

The truth is it can’t and won’t. There’s no way forward other than fighting with each other until we’re resting in our graves. If political solutions were the answer, these issues would have been resolved already.

At the time of this writing there is a deep division in the country as crowds of people who support the Black Lives Matter movement are rioting, looting, or harassing restaurant patrons dining outdoors. One side believes this is abhorrent, threatening behavior, while the other side feels that it’s a justified protest resulting from hundreds of years of racial injustice in America.

Where’s the middle ground here? How do people of such opposing views continue to coexist?

Why It’s Worse Than Ever Before: Populism, Critical Theories, and Woke Culture

I know. Everyone, as they get older, look at the world and think, “things have never been worse.” Normally, we roll our eyes, utter the phrase, “OK boomer,” and get back to our lives.

However, we do believe it’s worse… much worse, and it’s only going to get worse.

The 2016 and 2020 elections gave us Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders – two men who had a tremendous response from large groups of people who were tired of plastic politicians feeding them platitudes and ending up delivering centrist, bipartisan policies.

While it’s definitely a plus to see people reject the status quo, these alternatives represent populist principles designed to marginalize their respective opposition. As demonstrated above, there is no middle ground between such fringe movements. The implementation of policies advocated by one side ignore any compromise or consideration of policies favored by the other side.

Of course, that’s politics. The crux of the problem that hastens the need for peaceful separation is more cultural.

In recent years, “woke” culture has been rising in popularity, particularly when it comes to race. “Woke-ism” is based in what’s known as Critical Theory. There are several types of critical theory: race theory, queer theory, feminist theory, etc. but let’s focus on Critical Race Theory (CRT) as this seems to be the biggest hot-button issue as of this writing.  Among the fundamental principles of critical theory is that language is power – change language so that the protagonist can leverage it to gain power over his opposition.

Because we don’t want to take up too much space on this site talking about CRT, we recommend listening to podcasts with former academic James Lindsay, who runs NewDiscourses.com and has done several podcast interview (Tom Woods and Joe Rogan, for example) about CRT and the dangers of its expansion into American culture.

But in summary, on Twitter, Lindsay gave examples of a few foundational beliefs of CRT:

“The question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but ‘how did racism manifest in that situation?’”

“To not act against racism is to support racism.”

“Racism must be continually identified, analyzed, and challenged. No one is ever done.”

To put it in religious terms, racism is inherent in all white people as with the Christian idea of original sin. And like devout Christians, whites can never truly absolve themselves of that sin and must devote their entire lives to dealing with and repenting.

In other words, those who accept and devotionally follow CRT, will always be at odds with white people who don’t accept this cultural doctrine. What’s worse, because inherent racism is just a given to CRT cultists, there is no place for civil discourse or public debate about it. They cannot legitimize those who do not accept their inherent racism by engaging in discussion with them.

What does this mean? Well, what’s left if discourse isn’t on the table but violent confrontation? Can there be any other result? If there isn’t submission, there will be conflict.

And who wants to live in a society in which this kind of volatility exists? To quell violence, the government might very well have to implement marshal law. Is that preferable? Or is it better to have separate societies that either embrace or reject CRT but are not politically tethered to one another?

The question answers itself.