Another writer thinks about mutual separation into liberal and conservative America

Jim O’Neil at Canada Free Press asks: “Time to Break up the United States?”

Here are highlights:

A little over two years ago I wrote an article in which I discussed the idea of letting the liberal elements in America go their way, and conservatives go theirs. At the time I felt that it was not a good idea, and that maintaining the union was the best way to go, all things considered. Link.

Recently Dave Hunter sent me an article that he wrote on the topic, and after considering his proposals, I found myself thinking “You know, this may be the way to go after all—sort of a Red-state/Blue-state separation—an amicable separation, instead of a civil war.” …

The infiltration, infestation, and indoctrination of America’s culture by elements inimical to decency, truth, and honor, has been going on for so long that a sizable percentage of the American public is, in effect, treasonous. I do not consider them to be my fellow countrymen, or women. I find listening to them a “fingers across a chalkboard” experience, and would just as soon live on a different planet, let alone in a different country. Compare the typical OWS mob to the people found at your average Tea Party rally, and you will have an idea of the sort of ideological divide that I am talking about. Link Link

I cannot begin to tell you how sick I am of the duplicity, phoniness, greed, and incessant whining of the liberal element in America. I am more and more tempted every day to simply say “Fine—you can have your country to run, and we’ll have ours.” …

The patriots in the Revolutionary War at least had an ocean separating them from the main force of their enemy. “We the people” have no such luxury—our enemies are firmly entrenched among us, and they will not miraculously become freed from their anti-American globalism and other liberal notions as the result of a conservative win in 2012, should we be blessed with such a result.

The times call for bold and innovative reforms—thinking outside of the box. The threats and troubles facing “we the people” are so dangerous, so numerous, and so multi-directional that radical conceptualizing must be the order of the day.

Some folks may say, wouldn’t it be less stressful to work within the system to change America? Not necessarily. In addition to a mass media, educational, and legal system that will need a massive attitude adjustment, there are any number of dug-in government bureaucrats, union leaders, and inside players who will fight tooth and nail to protect their various “kingdoms,” and meal tickets. There are ideological zealots and indoctrinated crazies who will throw all manner of wrenches into the works, and an army of “legal eagles” who will practice unceasing lawfare against any changes being made to the status quo….

All things considered, it might be more practical, and less cataclysmic, to separate America into liberal and conservative regions, than to attempt to fix a perhaps irreparably broken system. Of course conservatives, who comprise a substantial majority of the population, would receive the vast bulk of the land in such an arrangement. The details and particulars of the separation (referendums, etc.) can be worked out as the process moves along—but if such an undertaking is to be implemented, it should be undertaken soon. Time is not on our side….

One thing that any new republic will have a special need for, however, is a well defended border. In short order, people from the new liberal utopias will be clamoring at the gates for entrance—sure as the sun rises in the morning.

After mulling over the idea of separating America into conservative and liberal areas, what do I think? To be honest, I don’t know. Although I would not (yet) call myself a proponent of dividing up and remaking the United States, I no longer dismiss the notion out of hand. I’m thinking about it—seriously.

- end of initial entry -

November 22

Matthew H. writes:

What a tempting scenario: Let the OWS berserkers and the rest of the insane left have their own territory to run as they see fit and let the rest of us live in a free and orderly society. Heck, let them have the nice parts of the country just so they can’t wail that we weren’t fair to them. They can have California for instance. Let them establish “social justice,” free healthcare, abolish racial inequality, etc. Let everyone who thinks these are good ideas go and create their groovy utopia.

Meanwhile we will re-establish the rule of law, encourage business and nurture traditional families. And thrive.

I can think of two reasons right off why such a split will never happen on amicable terms (i.e., without major conflict):

1. OWS America will never just let Tea Party America go because it knows good and well that the Tea Partiers are the ones who pay the freight for the stupid “social justice” schemes so beloved of the OWSers. It would be like an adult spoiled brat demanding to be disowned by his hard-working, well-to-do father.

2. More significantly, the OWS crowd and the left in general are not, and never have been, about creating a functioning polity. Their only motivation is a perverse hatred of the good for being good and their only goal is the destruction of the good. With the nation split in two, Tea Party America could at last get on its feet again without the vampire of OWS/leftist America continually draining its life away. OWS America could never let that happen..

Richard O. writes:

Separating from the progressive fools and parasites and the need for a way to keep them from invading the conservative redoubt remind me of the experience of a Special Forces soldier in Vietnam. His camp was overrun and he managed to move to where he was within yards of an evacuation chopper. However, the Laotian troops with him held onto his web gear to prevent his leaving, hoping thereby to ensure that they would be airlifted out themselves. The man was captured and spent five years as a POW.

The parasites will be like that. Now they complain, sneer, and foul their own nest but they know darn well that without the hated productive types they will be in a world of hurt. The crabs in a bucket image works too.

The coming financial plate shift may make this all academic. Even our feminized leadership class will not tolerate widespread looting when the money for the food stamps dries up. The lumpen will revel in the looting but will overplay their hand. Some kind of a correction may still be possible afterwards, but I won’t be betting a lot of money on that number.

The problem with the conservative redoubt option is that it assumes that liberalism will be wrung out of all its occupants. Alas, any redoubt is likely to resemble Montana where the refugees from California go to live but carry with them the exact same political attitudes that made California what it is. Better the hard lesson in the current 57. We are witnessing the death throes of welfare state fiscal lunacy (on top of decades and decades of Fascism Lite). The hard times might be hard enough to effect a widespread mental reset.

James B. writes:

We tend to forget that most blacks and Hispanics are not really “liberal,” because they do not possess the intelligence to understand what the term means. Better that we separate the taxpayers from the parasites—that’s the ticket.

Rick Darby writes:

“Time to break up the United States?” No, because we have not even begun to work out the rules for devolution or secession. Talk about a third rail of politics!

Discussing the most equitable and practical means for separation doesn’t mean that it must happen, any more than having an insurance policy means a car crash is inevitable. But if the country is bitterly divided about so much, at least there might be a mutual recognition that we need a “Plan B” to forestall, in the worst case, a split involving civil violence or government suppression.

Should it eventually happen, a peaceful separation would present huge practical problems, as you and others have acknowledged for a long time. I don’t see those as insurmountable—we Americans keep telling ourselves we’re a practical people!—but two (or more) nations-within-a-nation, living side by side, permanently cross with each other, is worse than a practical problem. It’s an existential problem. Let’s get creative and willing to think about something that works better for people of most persuasions. Even liberals might feel relief at no longer having to put up with us.

Richard N. writes:

The problem with this solution has been highlighted by Ann Barnhardt (I think) who pointed out that the left-wing states would soon fail. Rather than change their ways to save the situation, they would soon appeal to Islamists and / or the Chinese for ‘assistance’. Assistance from these sources would soon follow, but it would be tied to concessions which would allow the Islamists and / or Chinese to move arms and armies onto the North American landmass, creating a hitherto unprecedented threat to the USA’s continued existence—that of invasion by an enemy power. In short, such a separation would only postpone the possibility of war for a few years whilst simultaneously making such a war much harder to win without enormous casualties.

LA replies:

That’s a scenario I’ve never heard or thought of before. It will have to be factored into our discussions.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 21, 2011 12:44 PM | Send