Today, Jesse Kelly of the Federalist offered his complete thoughts on an idea he has been pushing for months now: that the time has come for the United States to divorce. In his eyes, the cultural and political differences between conservative America and liberal America are too vast to overcome, and the American people would be better served by a dissolution of political bonds between disparate regions. In Kelly’s eyes, Americans seem to hate each other more than ever, and share no common ground in ways that he believes they once did. Therefore, his solution is to divide America into two new countries: one comprising most of the former Confederate states, and the other comprising the rest of the country.
If Kelly’s premises are true, then his conclusion of divorce is the logical end. The fact of the matter, however, is that the vast majority of Americans do not behave like panelists on a CNN show or Hannity. As Converse found in his seminal paper in 1964, most Americans do not think in ideological terms, and most are barely able to imitate what they believe an ideology should look and sound like. Most Americans, if they are interested in politics at all, merely adopt the beliefs of their parents and vote every four years for president. Then they go back to their everyday lives, which are often too busy to spend getting angry about politics. The Americans who do get bent out of shape over politics are usually professionals who eat, drink, sleep, and breathe politics and usually have to invest everything into their political team. Their personal fortunes are tied to the fortunes of their party. But the vast majority of Americans can live their lives with politics being a marginal force (or less). Most Americans will not instantly hate someone who crosses their path who comes from another part of the country, as Kelly seems to imply that they actually do. Ideology, in other words, is just simply not a dominant force in the lives of most Americans, and certainly not a strong enough force to merit divorce.
In Kelly’s world, everyone living in the state of New York wants unlimited abortion, complete gun confiscation, welfare for everyone, communist tax rates and government regulations over every conceivable aspect of business. On the other hand, someone living in South Carolina wants to ban abortion, legalize machine guns, limit welfare to only white people, impose Randian tax rates, and abolish all, but only the most critical business regulations. In reality, most people in New York and South Carolina do not hold very many political positions as sacrosanct, and very few people follow their supposed “ideology” to the letter. For instance, farmers in Wyoming County, New York are very culturally conservative and have little in common, politically, with Manhattan liberals. Similarly, African-Americans in Charleston vote differently than their ditto-head neighbors living in Greenville. In short, Kelly’s geographical explanations for polarization fall flat. States as monolithic as California and Texas still have sizable political minorities within the state (Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas). No political division along ideological lines could perfectly separate the country, and this would leave those political minorities even more powerless in the new one-state country.
Having accepted that his premises are wrong, we can turn our attention to why the nation will be better off staying as one union of states. First, America’s large and diverse population protects the citizens from the excesses of both ideological wings. Madisonianism may have failed to foresee the rise of strong national parties, but the logic of a large republic is still valid. The roughly equal power of both political parties ensures that very little is accomplished in a hasty or irrational manner. Despite nominally having unified control of the government, for example, Trump and the Republican Congress have very few legislative accomplishments to boast of, because there is rarely unanimity within the GOP Caucus, let alone in Congress. Figures like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have often spoken up to slow down or kill rash GOP legislation. In smaller, more homogenous republics, ideological supermajorities can ram legislation through without taking the time to consider the negative consequences of their actions. California and Kansas, for instance, are both under hard times with regard to their state budgets, because of the unchecked power of the ideologues running their states. California spends money recklessly and Kansas severely reduced government revenue and forced austere budget cuts to education and other government operations. A large republic reduces the chances that we will be ruled by such reckless supermajorities.
Second, as Abraham Lincoln wisely pointed out a century and a half ago, the logic of secession mandates that secession never stop. Having split in a country in half, what is to prevent future secessions from taking place and so on? The people inhabiting the lands that constitute the United States will be better off if there is one central government that can protect them from foreign invaders than a confederacy of many sovereign states reluctant to cooperate with each other for mutual defense. That was one of the worst weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, and it would be a huge problem for a future Confederacy of Former American States. And even domestically, the people would be at greater risk, as every government would be subject to the temporary whims of the people. If the people are not satisfied with their government, they can just secede and form another government, meaning that no governments are permanent and no one truly has authority. Kelly points to the map of Europe as an example of how boundaries change and countries rise and fall, but neglects to point out that many of those countries have separatist movements within their borders: the ETA in Basque Spain, the Catalans in Catalonia, the SNP in Scotland, the IRA in Ireland, and so on. If secession is allowed, it becomes a norm that undermines the permanence and stability of any state, until we return to the Hobbesian state of nature.
Third, the division of the country (even into just two states) would be a pragmatic and logistical nightmare. Things like trade, commerce, military bases, nuclear weapons, boundaries, water rights, and a whole slew of other issues would have to be negotiated. If the country is so irreparably split, as Kelly claims it is, just imagine how difficult it would be to negotiate the division of our nuclear stockpile and defense technology. And if the South becomes a new nation, who would man the military of the other sovereign state? Also, how would states like Mississippi and Alabama fare under the new regime, where they no longer have states like Connecticut and Massachusetts to send them federal tax dollars? Kelly’s national division leaves most of the states that pay more than they receive in federal benefits in the liberal utopia, while the conservative utopia holds many of the states that get more than they give. The two new states would look vastly different: the Federalist States of America would have microscopic tax rates, an overfunded military, overfunded law enforcement, and underfunded public services (education, health care, etc.). Meanwhile, the “People’s Republic of Soyland” would have an understaffed military, high tax rates, and excessively high spending rates on everything, but defense and law enforcement. In other words, the regional differences that are already evident between the states making up the two countries would blow up even more. Neither side would be fiscally responsible, with both sides racking up huge debts (for vastly different reasons). This would be a disaster for both sides, rather than merely a tough divorce.
Our country is deeply polarized, there is no denying that. The deep cultural divides are starting to become as evident as the ideological and political divides that political scientists have studied for decades. Personally, I think the major cultural divide is rural vs. urban, rather than region against region, as the tensions between country folk and city dwellers can be found all across the country; in the reddest of states, the bluest of states, and the most purple states. Certainly, there are some cultural differences between southerners and northerners, and between coastal states and heartland states, but farmers in Georgia and Western New York are more likely to see eye-to-eye than a Georgia farmer and a city-slicker from Atlanta. Kelly’s “solution,” therefore, would not actually solve the polarization crisis; it would just recast it on smaller scales and introduce a whole hoard of other problems.
What, then, is the solution? To me, the best solution is the default American solution of the last few centuries: more federalism. This means reducing the extent to which we nationalize/federalize every political issue. Let California be as liberal as they want to be: if their utopia is as great as they say, people will move to it. Similarly, let Texas be as conservative as they want to be for the same reasons. Not every issue requires federal intervention, nor should Washington try to impose a homogeneous culture on the country. I say we should celebrate the fact that we have 50+ laboratories of democracy in the country. We can draw from the springs of wisdom that we see in various state policy experiments to make the country better. We do not need to resent and fear the differences Kelly spoke of; with federalism, we can all benefit from the wisdom of diverse views. We are a diverse people, and this is a major source of America’s strength. Kelly’s vision of small, homogeneous republics echoes the policies of the Articles of Confederation and the views of the Anti-Federalists. These views are not without their merits, but they come with a host of problems that the Constitution corrected.
One other thing: Kelly made it sound like Americans from different walks of life have absolutely nothing in common; no common ground. And this just simply is not true. With the exception of a few truly radical individuals, the vast majority of Americans love their country and want to make it a better place. We may disagree on what exactly a “better country” looks like, but I believe freedom, prosperity, and general well-being would fit into most people’s descriptions. We probably will disagree on the means to the general end of making America a better place to live, but in all likelihood, both sides of a debate argue their points in good faith and out of earnest belief that the adoption of their policies will make life better for the average American. The only way to make people see this is to get them to leave their ideological echo chamber for a little while and interact and engage with those of a different viewpoint in a friendly, respectful manner. Trust that the other person’s intentions are pure and be willing to expose your own beliefs to honest intellectual challenges. If more Americans did that, then perhaps Kelly might reconsider his assertion that there is no common ground with people on the other side. And maybe it would be enough to dispel him of the notion that America needs to be divided. United we stand, divided we fall.
If Kelly’s premises are true, then his conclusion of divorce is the logical end. The fact of the matter, however, is that the vast majority of Americans do not behave like panelists on a CNN show or Hannity. As Converse found in his seminal paper in 1964, most Americans do not think in ideological terms, and most are barely able to imitate what they believe an ideology should look and sound like. Most Americans, if they are interested in politics at all, merely adopt the beliefs of their parents and vote every four years for president. Then they go back to their everyday lives, which are often too busy to spend getting angry about politics. The Americans who do get bent out of shape over politics are usually professionals who eat, drink, sleep, and breathe politics and usually have to invest everything into their political team. Their personal fortunes are tied to the fortunes of their party. But the vast majority of Americans can live their lives with politics being a marginal force (or less). Most Americans will not instantly hate someone who crosses their path who comes from another part of the country, as Kelly seems to imply that they actually do. Ideology, in other words, is just simply not a dominant force in the lives of most Americans, and certainly not a strong enough force to merit divorce.
In Kelly’s world, everyone living in the state of New York wants unlimited abortion, complete gun confiscation, welfare for everyone, communist tax rates and government regulations over every conceivable aspect of business. On the other hand, someone living in South Carolina wants to ban abortion, legalize machine guns, limit welfare to only white people, impose Randian tax rates, and abolish all, but only the most critical business regulations. In reality, most people in New York and South Carolina do not hold very many political positions as sacrosanct, and very few people follow their supposed “ideology” to the letter. For instance, farmers in Wyoming County, New York are very culturally conservative and have little in common, politically, with Manhattan liberals. Similarly, African-Americans in Charleston vote differently than their ditto-head neighbors living in Greenville. In short, Kelly’s geographical explanations for polarization fall flat. States as monolithic as California and Texas still have sizable political minorities within the state (Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas). No political division along ideological lines could perfectly separate the country, and this would leave those political minorities even more powerless in the new one-state country.
Having accepted that his premises are wrong, we can turn our attention to why the nation will be better off staying as one union of states. First, America’s large and diverse population protects the citizens from the excesses of both ideological wings. Madisonianism may have failed to foresee the rise of strong national parties, but the logic of a large republic is still valid. The roughly equal power of both political parties ensures that very little is accomplished in a hasty or irrational manner. Despite nominally having unified control of the government, for example, Trump and the Republican Congress have very few legislative accomplishments to boast of, because there is rarely unanimity within the GOP Caucus, let alone in Congress. Figures like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have often spoken up to slow down or kill rash GOP legislation. In smaller, more homogenous republics, ideological supermajorities can ram legislation through without taking the time to consider the negative consequences of their actions. California and Kansas, for instance, are both under hard times with regard to their state budgets, because of the unchecked power of the ideologues running their states. California spends money recklessly and Kansas severely reduced government revenue and forced austere budget cuts to education and other government operations. A large republic reduces the chances that we will be ruled by such reckless supermajorities.
Second, as Abraham Lincoln wisely pointed out a century and a half ago, the logic of secession mandates that secession never stop. Having split in a country in half, what is to prevent future secessions from taking place and so on? The people inhabiting the lands that constitute the United States will be better off if there is one central government that can protect them from foreign invaders than a confederacy of many sovereign states reluctant to cooperate with each other for mutual defense. That was one of the worst weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, and it would be a huge problem for a future Confederacy of Former American States. And even domestically, the people would be at greater risk, as every government would be subject to the temporary whims of the people. If the people are not satisfied with their government, they can just secede and form another government, meaning that no governments are permanent and no one truly has authority. Kelly points to the map of Europe as an example of how boundaries change and countries rise and fall, but neglects to point out that many of those countries have separatist movements within their borders: the ETA in Basque Spain, the Catalans in Catalonia, the SNP in Scotland, the IRA in Ireland, and so on. If secession is allowed, it becomes a norm that undermines the permanence and stability of any state, until we return to the Hobbesian state of nature.
Third, the division of the country (even into just two states) would be a pragmatic and logistical nightmare. Things like trade, commerce, military bases, nuclear weapons, boundaries, water rights, and a whole slew of other issues would have to be negotiated. If the country is so irreparably split, as Kelly claims it is, just imagine how difficult it would be to negotiate the division of our nuclear stockpile and defense technology. And if the South becomes a new nation, who would man the military of the other sovereign state? Also, how would states like Mississippi and Alabama fare under the new regime, where they no longer have states like Connecticut and Massachusetts to send them federal tax dollars? Kelly’s national division leaves most of the states that pay more than they receive in federal benefits in the liberal utopia, while the conservative utopia holds many of the states that get more than they give. The two new states would look vastly different: the Federalist States of America would have microscopic tax rates, an overfunded military, overfunded law enforcement, and underfunded public services (education, health care, etc.). Meanwhile, the “People’s Republic of Soyland” would have an understaffed military, high tax rates, and excessively high spending rates on everything, but defense and law enforcement. In other words, the regional differences that are already evident between the states making up the two countries would blow up even more. Neither side would be fiscally responsible, with both sides racking up huge debts (for vastly different reasons). This would be a disaster for both sides, rather than merely a tough divorce.
Our country is deeply polarized, there is no denying that. The deep cultural divides are starting to become as evident as the ideological and political divides that political scientists have studied for decades. Personally, I think the major cultural divide is rural vs. urban, rather than region against region, as the tensions between country folk and city dwellers can be found all across the country; in the reddest of states, the bluest of states, and the most purple states. Certainly, there are some cultural differences between southerners and northerners, and between coastal states and heartland states, but farmers in Georgia and Western New York are more likely to see eye-to-eye than a Georgia farmer and a city-slicker from Atlanta. Kelly’s “solution,” therefore, would not actually solve the polarization crisis; it would just recast it on smaller scales and introduce a whole hoard of other problems.
What, then, is the solution? To me, the best solution is the default American solution of the last few centuries: more federalism. This means reducing the extent to which we nationalize/federalize every political issue. Let California be as liberal as they want to be: if their utopia is as great as they say, people will move to it. Similarly, let Texas be as conservative as they want to be for the same reasons. Not every issue requires federal intervention, nor should Washington try to impose a homogeneous culture on the country. I say we should celebrate the fact that we have 50+ laboratories of democracy in the country. We can draw from the springs of wisdom that we see in various state policy experiments to make the country better. We do not need to resent and fear the differences Kelly spoke of; with federalism, we can all benefit from the wisdom of diverse views. We are a diverse people, and this is a major source of America’s strength. Kelly’s vision of small, homogeneous republics echoes the policies of the Articles of Confederation and the views of the Anti-Federalists. These views are not without their merits, but they come with a host of problems that the Constitution corrected.
One other thing: Kelly made it sound like Americans from different walks of life have absolutely nothing in common; no common ground. And this just simply is not true. With the exception of a few truly radical individuals, the vast majority of Americans love their country and want to make it a better place. We may disagree on what exactly a “better country” looks like, but I believe freedom, prosperity, and general well-being would fit into most people’s descriptions. We probably will disagree on the means to the general end of making America a better place to live, but in all likelihood, both sides of a debate argue their points in good faith and out of earnest belief that the adoption of their policies will make life better for the average American. The only way to make people see this is to get them to leave their ideological echo chamber for a little while and interact and engage with those of a different viewpoint in a friendly, respectful manner. Trust that the other person’s intentions are pure and be willing to expose your own beliefs to honest intellectual challenges. If more Americans did that, then perhaps Kelly might reconsider his assertion that there is no common ground with people on the other side. And maybe it would be enough to dispel him of the notion that America needs to be divided. United we stand, divided we fall.
RSS Feed
