Tags
Alexandra Caraballo, Bill of Rights, California's Central Valley, democracy, Electoral College, Kurt Schlichter, national divorce, People's Republic, representative republic, Second Civil War, Supreme Court, The Constitution, United States of America
On 07-14-21, Kurt Schlichter asked: Is It Time For A National Divorce? As I’m sure you recall from SCW #35, gentle readers, it’s a pertinent question. The SMM Second Civil War archive is here. Schlichter begins:
I talk about what a national divorce might look like at length in a chapter of my new book, We’ll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America, and it’s not a pretty picture.
‘Yet, if anything, the last couple decades have taught us that the worst-case scenario can happen. Therefore, let’s examine what it might look like if all these things came to pass and America decided that its next destination was Splitsville.
The basic notion is that the red people would take their part of the community property and the blues their portion and they would go and live in separate parts of the U.S.A. Fortunately, as we all know, divvying up the pot in a divorce is never, ever, ever a giant hassle that becomes an endless, massive battle and ends unsatisfactorily for everyone except the lawyers.’
This is an Electoral College distribution from the 2020 election. We can reasonably assume a contemporary map would be somewhat different, perhaps even substantially different, but it illustrates the difficulties. Would Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico, for example, particularly with Hispanics deserting the D/S/C Party in droves, choose to go with the People’s Republic—I’ll use the terminology of Schlichter’s Kelly Turnbull novels—or would they throw in their lot with the United States? Would Nevada and Arizona, which provide substantial portions of California’s water and power, willingly surrender those assets to a government that would be proudly, militantly less than democratic? Schlichter continues:
A national divorce is an idea born of frustration – our frustration with the Democrats being nimrods and the Democrats’ frustration with us not accepting that we are serfs whose purpose is to serve them and obey their whims. It seems superficially easier to just split up with people who are so fundamentally different in how they see the world and our respective places in it – for example, red Americans see themselves being left alone and blue Americans sees us normal people on our backs with the pinkos’ Birkenstocks pressing down on our throats.
That’s a substantial problem. As much as D/S/Cs—the blue states—love to ignore reality in favor of their non-falsifiable schemes, when it came down to some sort of settlement, there are enough of them that know they don’t produce nearly enough food, energy, or any of the other necessities of civilized life. California’s Central Valley, one of the most fertile agricultural regions on Earth, has been purposely all but desolated as the water it needs for irrigation has been diverted to flow into the ocean for berserk environmental priorities. Even importing electricity as it does now, California will experience rolling blackouts this summer. Imagine how pleasant it will be without friendly red states under a common rule of law—as much as blues ignore it—upon which to depend. And there’s this reality:
The fact is that without our influence, the American left would go full Stalin, and you never, ever go full Stalin. With their own country sharing our continent, the blues would turn America into the world’s most oppressive college campus and then would immediately blame their myriad woes on red America. And that is a recipe for trouble. We’re all stuck on the same continent, and that’s too close for comfort. What we need is some constitutional marriage counseling because there’s a big chance that a national divorce would make all our problems a hundred times worse.
Schlichter is being alarmist! He’s exaggerating! Caraballo is a Harvard Law professor. One would think such a person would honor the Constitution and the rule of law. One would think they would see harassing and intimidating judges, misrepresenting the law, as damaging to our constitutional republic, but no:
The People’s Republic would be a “democracy” as D/S/Cs want it. It would certainly not be a representative republic, which would mean, among other things, virtually unlimited governmental power, no federalism, a national police force, which would be of necessity and design, far more interested in keeping the people in line than in enforcing the law, and the Bill of Rights would be out the window in an instant. Oh, there would be a majestic document promising all manner of rights, just like in the old Soviet Union, but reality would be very different, just like in the old Soviet Union. You think wokeness has run amok? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
The United States of America would be different too. There would be far less centralized governmental power, and individual rights would be rewritten in such as way as to make them sacrosanct. The rule of law would be tightened, and criminals wouldn’t like the swift, and in some cases, final, consequences. Most of them would gladly move to the People’s Republic. The United States would be glad to see them go. Politics would no longer be a lucrative career, and the moment government—there would be far fewer and smaller bureaucracies—stepped out of line, forgot who employs them, they’d be seeking new employment. Borders and national security would suddenly matter again. Welfare would be temporary and only for those who demonstrably needed it. The police and the military would be honored, and expected to be worthy of that reverence. Oh yes: merit would make a triumphant return, in schools, in business, and in every facet of life. Skin color wouldn’t matter; character, ability and reliability would. Teachers would have clear boundaries they dare not overstep, and groomers would be stepped on.
Other realities would make themselves brutally apparent. The power, food and material goods necessary for our level of civilization are not, for the most part, produced in what would become the People’s Republic. In any Marxist state, people produce, and the state takes, so as the old Soviet saying went: “they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.” Self-interest produces results; government mandates don’t. The United States would have most of the people who know how to make things and fix things, people who make everything work, and who are fairly compensated for their efforts. They demonstrate merit and work hard, they prosper and so does society. All of that would be drained, by design, out of the People’s Republic. All that power, food and other goods would have to be transported through the United States—if everything stayed nice and friendly, and it’s 50/50 they wouldn’t. Actually, the odds are probably worse.
Imagine negotiating the split of the nation with one side refusing to compromise. Their view of compromise is “shut up you racist and give me everything I demand!” And this time, it wouldn’t just be for political power and the spoils that provides. It would be for survival. On one hand you have Normal Americans who don’t want to split the nation and just want to be left alone to live under the Constitution and rule of law. On the other, you have people who hate Normal Americans and America, can’t think of sufficiently vile names to call both, and many of them want Normals jailed or dead. Are they going to politely settle for the bounty their current socialist/communist utopian states, which are, if not close to bankruptcy, not far from it, can provide? Will they realize without the current federal government and the full faith and credit of the United States to bail them out of their own economic illiteracy, they’ll be starving in short order? Sure they will–some of them anyway–and they’re going to want it all, and when Normals won’t give it to them, what’s the alternative?
Civil War–a hot war–with all its glories.
Considering these virtually certain realities, and considering hundreds of thousands of Americans living in blue states are voting with their feet even now, what do you suppose will happen to the populations of the blue states in a split? California may have the same boundaries, but many, if not most, of the producers will flee. With gas at $5.00 and our meat puppet president wanting to raise it to achieve his glorious green energy “transition,” even former D/S/C voters are abandoning their former religion, at least temporarily, in the expectation things will likely once again go back to normal and they can once again live a middle class existence and maneuver for power. If they realize things are going to get worse—much worse—and never again be anything approaching normal, how many do you imagine are going to be happy to remain in socialist utopia, or give their lives to achieve it? And consider a state like Colorado, with a east/west, red/blue split at the Rocky Mountains. Does the East half and all that productive farm and ranch land go red, or will Coloradans kill each other to get it all? Will state boundaries be willingly redrawn, or redrawn in blood?
If the divorce is more or less amicable–cough–people will probably be able to freely travel from country to country, but if it’s not, there will be no fond memories of the Berlin Wall–we’ll believing it on a continental scale.
Will our military align itself with the left, or Normal Americans? I wouldn’t bet on the former. Most of the members of our military, including virtually all the NCOs and lower to mid ranking officers, come from Normal America, and if the NCOs aren’t on your side, you’re not doing much of anything. Do you think people who hate America and Americans enlist? Remember the execrable John Kerry saying if you didn’t go to college, you got stuck in the military, a military he despises and dishonorably betrayed? He spoke for D/S/Cs then as he does now. Our military members are more than smart enough to know who hates them, and who is going to force pronouns, trans, racism, vaccines and all that down their throats.
But our military has powerful weapons. AR-15s can’t defeat them. Anyone making that asinine argument has no idea of the tactical or strategic realities of this kind of conflict, and of trying to defeat and occupy a country the size of America. For example, our primary armor training base is in Texas, as are many other vital installations. Texans–Texans–are going to roll over and let all that combat power be used against them? A great many others–which includes huge numbers of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles–are in what would be red America. Surely, some of our military, even our police, would throw in their lot with the blues, but that would be a terminal mistake.
A new United States would likely not be the most powerful military or economic engine in the world anymore, but the People’s Republic would be far, far weaker. Would foreign enemies take advantage of a divorce? Absolutely, perhaps even to the point of invasion, and the world would quickly become a far less free and prosperous place. Life on much of the globe would surely become nasty, brutish and short. As much as D/S/Cs gush with admiration at the Chinese Communists, how many would really like to live under their benevolent rule?
Schlichter recommends a sort of national marriage counseling, and I agree, but both sides have to be willing and have to agree, and one non-negotiable demand has to be honoring the Constitution and the rule of law, and a color-blind society—the willingness to live under those rules and leave others alone, stop trying to perfect them against their will. Normal Americans would do that.
Would D/S/Cs?
Yeah.. I took the link to Schlichter’s new book and read the chapter excerpt.
I find it appalling that (seemingly) educated Americans are signing on to this stuff as some sort of road to take to get their way… and speculate a survivability of some post-conflict America like the good old days.
This is sick, Mike… certainly a domestic disease taking over.
Doug:
“Their way” is to be left alone to live under the Constitution and rule of law.
Left alone? You’ve cited this before. How exactly are you being persecuted by government that you are not being “left alone”? You live in a state of not even a million in population, and one report shows your state gets 1.58 back from the fed for every dollar you folks send out. Most living in that state typically think like you, hence the state legislature does as well, so it’s one political Kumbaya over there. You’re retired so you are certainly engaged in Medicare. You live in a state untainted in general by the environmental adverse effects of human existence.. and you certainly have a state with the natural beauty to suck down every day. So.. please tell me how persecuted you are over there. Is this all about the damn guns? A war about owning guns??
Doug, you are saying Mike lives in a nice cage. It’s gilded, but it’s still a cage. The constitution as amended is the supreme law of the land. If you don’t like what it says, then work on amending it. If you don’t like the 2nd amendment and think somehow that man has evolved beyond it, then pass an amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment. Probation is a great example. We passed it and most people found they did not like it and then they passed another amendment to repeal it.
In my case, I want to pass an amendment that basically says that if you willfully violate the constitution, you are guilty of a class 1 felony and will spend a minimum of 5 years in federal max security prison.
“I want to pass an amendment that basically says that if you willfully violate the constitution, you are guilty of a class 1 felony and will spend a minimum of 5 years in federal max security prison.”
And who determines when there’s a violation?
I rather thought we currently have a justice system to administer such accountability.
Doug and by the way, what Mike is saying is not sick, what you are saying represents what a lot of our elected officials says and is very sick and is the root of most of our problems today.
If the system is sick should we not want to remedy that rather than dump the entire enchilada?
Please describe “entire enchilada.”
It’s akin to “the whole shebang”.
I have a reason for asking. You wrote in response to Phil:
“If the system is sick should we not want to remedy that rather than dump the entire enchilada?”
I’m on board for “remedy” … I just don’t understand “entire enchilada” or “whole shebang”. It SEEMS to me that you are using that in reference to “the system”.
This is what I keep talking/writing about. Reason. Principle. Finding common ground. If I don’t ‘get’ the terms that others use, I cannot communicate with others.
Your final paragraph gives me hope. That being the case, forgive my dismissive retort.
My point to Phil was regarding the idea that indeed the “system” is sick… or rather, the political approach that makes possible our national divide, that includes no faith in our traditional Constitutional institutions, and in many cases the Constitution itself. I was suggesting that rather than blow the whole thing up (my “entire enchilada”) perhaps we should work on a remedy from within. Because if we allow all this to sink into some abyss there is no coming back to the way we were.
What fuels much of this suspicion of conspiracies and great grabs for power is the idea that our guns are going to make things right again.
TBS.. with the elections coming it really matters little about who wins, but rather whomever wins will result in some national turmoil surpassing where we are at now. This doesn’t even take into account the external pressures from Russia/Ukraine, the economy, upcoming environmental and climate disasters, and the resurgence of Covid.
The enchilada has no legal standing. The constitution was ratified by the founding 13 states and is the law of the land.
And as far as an amendment that punishes willful violations of the constitution, that’s up to congress to pass laws to codify the violations and the process to determine that.
You didn’t answer my question… in your amendment to codify what’s already been codified.. who determines a violation.. accountability… justice?
What about “And as far as an amendment that punishes willful violations of the constitution, that’s up to congress to pass laws to codify the violations and the process to determine that.” do you not understand?
Phil, c’mon, this blog represents the opinion that the Constitution be left alone.. and you want to create an amendment that is a redundancy to the justice system already in force for the last.. 240 years? As I asked you more than twice so far.. pertaining to your proposed amendment who judges when a person violates the Constitution? More to the point, what law enforcement agency do you expect should enforce this? Street cops?
BTW.. I know the word “codify” is new to many, but even a decision from Congress to create law in an effort to “codify” a previous SCOTUS unwelcomed decision, still can go through SCOTUS once the new law, re-worded or whatever, ends up as the generally inevitable court challenge.
Dear Doug:
No, this blog wants American citizens to be left unmolested by an intrusive, increasingly totalitarian government. I want the Constitution to be honored as the supreme law of the land.
I asked you somewhere above, Mike… how exactly have you been oppressed, persecuted, or intruded on by government? Where is the totalitarianism?
Dear Doug:
Gee, let’s see. The self-imagined elite are:
*Destroying the economy, raising gas and every other price
*Trying to abolish the First Amendment
*Trying to abolish the Second Amendment
*Trying to codify vote fraud
*Refusing to prosecute criminals doing D/S/C bidding…
*Trying to abolish the electoral college
*Trying to pack the Supreme Court
*Intimidating, with the help of the DOJ, Supreme Court Justices
*Throwing open our borders…
and the list goes on and on and on…
I see….. so there is nothing here directly impacting you personally… nothing to keep you from doing what you wish… travel anywhere.
I see a lot of “Trying” on your list. I’m guessing nothing has been successful. Probably because the Senate GOP wouldn’t let anything pass anyway. That “throwing open of borders” is just hyperbole since no borders have in fact been “thrown open”.. but I understand Trumpian populism.
There’s the usual “I object to anything the President does” that’s typical for either party in political posturing a sitting president. Nothing new there.
Not sure there’s a lot of “defiling the Constitution” going on with all of these. “Destroying the economy” doesn’t fit. Not sure it’s really “destroyed” though… I can still eat the wrong foods.
As far as I am aware, it’s perfectly ok, per the Constitution, to challenge amendments. You saying we can’t do that?
I suppose I’m left wondering… this is what has prompted all the “non-violent civil war” posts? Honestly, I thought I’d be seeing a list of oppressive, life altering, Marxist (to use your word) socialist/communist policies, and “one inch away from government taking your guns” and your cool looking tricycles, kinda concerns.
Geez Louise. I gotta go digest this.
“I asked you somewhere above, Mike… how exactly have you been oppressed, persecuted, or intruded on by government? Where is the totalitarianism?”
Any person who asks this question — in whatever form — either *will not* or *cannot* entertain any description of the quite real attacks that are already afoot regarding unalienable rights.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator* with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to *secure* these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” (*Emphasis added*)
Our Rights are NOT granted by the Declaration of Independence OR the US Constitution. Persons do not ‘grant’ unalienable, Creator-given Rights. Yet persons CAN recognize, claim, and defend them. Likewise persons can, and do, seek to suppress said Rights and oppress those who have been given them — by their Creator.
Unless or until the Collective We regains and nurtures Reason — which includes at its heart the ability to speak in *principle* and not from *personality* — a bloodless turnaround in our country is increasingly unlikely. The phrase “any person” (above) is not directed at ‘our’ dear friend Doug; his asking was just a reminder to me. That being said, I have taken the decision NOT to engage with those who insist on wrestling in the realm of Personalities rather than showing a willingness to embrace common Principles.
Now, I’m crawling back under my rock. Best to all.
Dear TBS:
What you said.
Many in here likely think I should crawl back under my rock… or in the least, I’ve never crawled out.
TBS…. did you read Mike’s reply below (Jul 28) where he has a list of his reasons for the Right Wing’s extreme rhetoric? If not….
—————-
Gee, let’s see. The self-imagined elite are:
*Destroying the economy, raising gas and every other price
*Trying to abolish the First Amendment
*Trying to abolish the Second Amendment
*Trying to codify vote fraud
*Refusing to prosecute criminals doing D/S/C bidding…
*Trying to abolish the electoral college
*Trying to pack the Supreme Court
*Intimidating, with the help of the DOJ, Supreme Court Justices
*Throwing open our borders…
and the list goes on and on and on…
—————–
I don’t dispute that these are the alleged reasons the Conservative Trumpian Right dislikes the Left so vehemently, and to the point of using extreme measures in some grand crusade to MAGA… thus our divide.
What do you think?
Dear Doug:
No. The divide occurs because the D/S/C left is trying to do these things, trying to limit and abolish liberty. It is not the reaction of Normal Americans to these depredations that is the problem, bu the depredations themselves. If we are to retain liberty, we must fight against attempts to limit or take it.
Who is doing all this “trying’? I see all this as the usual opposition rhetoric assigned toward any sitting administration. What makes you presume to think all this has now become a desperate battle (whatever that even means) outside of the normal political process? Has any of this actually gone real.. beyond the “trying”? I don’t see it. Sell me on the idea that the current administration is getting all this past this Congress.
Dear Doug:
If you’re going to pretend D/S/Cs aren’t actively trying to do all I’ve listed and more, you’re not a serious person.
No, Mike.. while you enjoy vilifying everyone not agreeing with your politics as D/S/C, those ideologies do not in fact live together in one large Batman villain’s lair working in harmony to piss you off. In fact, the “D” represents the most political power of your triumvirate of American villainy. So given that.. I would most certainly be interested in your explanation of the “they” in all those reasons.. in fact a “who” would be good too. Because, Mike, these people, to you and others in here, represent the threat reasons from which you perceive echoes of violent conflict on the horizon. This constant lament that D/S/C people want to shred the Constitution in some deep state conspiracy to make America some authoritarian Utopia… I just don’t see. I mean.. if you convince me maybe I might wanna “join” up.
Dear Doug:
As I’ve said repeatedly, D/S/C is merely an acronym that accurately describes the three political philosophies of the contemporary left. As to the rest, if you’re going to continue to pretend these people aren’t doing what I’ve suggested, that they continue to try to do that and more, I’m not playing along.
As you wish.
Why would we want a divorce?
We would loose all of those valuable resources. What we need to do is just cull the herd of useless idiots.
Or quit feeding the beast. Then it would eat itself.
Things are not likely to be divided up by State, but are more likely to divided by counties.
Some existing States would break into several new, smaller States, or merge with neighboring States.
The USA might break into several countries if this were to happen. The East and West Coasts would not have a land connection, and it is unlikely that they would stay together.
States make sense for the Electoral College. We are cursed with Blue tumors amid normal Red populations. E.g. Chicago in Illinois, Saint Louis and K C in Missouri, Swamp County and Norfolk in Virginia, Ghetto de Los Angeles, the Coastal Slime , and San Fransicko in California, etc. The smell will be horrible, but, in truth, the urban concentrations no longer serve a useful purpose, except as refuse dumps.
Just remember that CW2 will be a complex, nasty undertaking. We can’t count on the Mad Tsar Putin to help us out on this one.
This is why I believe that there is nothing wrong with America that could not be cured by a limited nuclear war.