National Divorce and the Federalist Papers

In the discourse of our national politics, there is the growing theory which lends credence to the idea that America is at least two separate nations, with divergent ideals and values, and the proper solution to our sustained political divisions should be to implement a National Divorce. In the past, we have discussed Christians fleeing Blue States in favor of Red States, but should we as Christians support the idea of National Divorce as a political solution to America’s problems?

Truthfully, there is little the Bible says on the subject. Loosely speaking, the Israelite government function in a quasi-federal structure where there was the King, the Tribal Leaders, and the Levitical Priests. All three represented civil authorities in the Old Testament. Obviously, the priest, under the law, had authority regarding cleanliness standards and were God’s instruments checking the kings, along with the prophets. When Israel went through her division during the early reign of Rehoboam, it was the tribal leaders who initiated the divorce, citing the high burdens imposed by Solomon as their primary grievance. This divorce was ordained by God, who raised up Jeroboam as a punishment to Solomon. Despite the immediate failures of the Northern Kingdom, it is reasonable to conclude that the motivations behind the National Divorce movement should be the primary concern rather than the actual policy itself.

While the National Divorce is motivated by the best and most honest of intentions, there are many elements of importance which are disregarded in the larger discourse from a logistical standpoint. Through wisdom, we should look to the past in search of answers to the future. This is not the first instance where National Divorce has been proposed as a solution to America’s woes. Under our first government, the Articles of Confederation, America successfully won her independence from the British, yet the governance in the aftermath was laughably ineffective, leading to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. In an ongoing debate between divorce, status quo, and ratification of the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers were penned to initiate this discourse and answer objections to the alternatives. It is from the minds of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay where we can glean reasonable objections to the proposed National Divorce of these modern times.

The first prevailing objection which must be answered is that of foreign policy concerns. A divided America would appear weaker on a foreign front, even more so than it is under the feeble Biden Regime. It is assumed that the military would be broken up amicably, so that will not be the primary focus of this point. Instead, it will be that of Red and Blue Americas’ ability to ward off foreign influence, which would seek to interfere in a quest for global hegemony. In 1787, America dealt with British occupation in her territories and Spanish interference of Mississippi River access. Other nations, including France, were economically threatened by the newly created American commercial engine. The contemporary powers of China and Russia would doubtless be emboldened in a National Divorce. Our corporations and politicians have long sold America out to the Chinese, and this would doubtless be furthered by divorce. The Blue America, which doubtless would include California and Silicon Valley, would be favorably disposed towards China. Such influence would inevitably seep between Americas economically, politically, and militarily. Likewise, Russia might actually become influential in American politics, perhaps as a buttress against China, but nonetheless a more prevalent force in the world, filling the power vacuum. Other contenders would include the emergence of the European Union and the Saudi’s as foreign influencers that the split America would have to contend with. A divided America would lack global hegemony and be subject to these interferences.

The second objection necessary for discussion of National Divorce would be that of America’s economic standing. For purpose of analysis, it will be assumed two things: that National Divorce would begin with a mutual trade deal and the US dollar, as it currently exists, would be the shared currency between the separate nations. Factors that determine the economic strength of a nation include its population, which for America would be split between multiple nations. The combination of our states grants us commercial power capable to a degree of self-sufficiency, as in with energy independence. On a global front, this American trade block would be weaker in competition with China, the EU, Japan, and India, along with other rising economic powers. The divided interests between varying capitals within this new trade block would invite a “divide and conquer” economic strategy. The corporations, already global to where they transcend national loyalty, would become more globalist in their operation, undermining economic strength of the trade block. It could be said that Red America would resort to actuating a trade war against China, but if only Red America acts against China while Blue America is embedded with Beijing, then the American Trade block would soon be at odds within itself. The economic concerns of 1787 are hardly shared with modern times, as most states are industrialized, even the most agricultural ones. At the same time, the competition between nations extends beyond America and Europe, magnifying the landscape. Then it must be added the multinational corporations, who would be disinclined to home nation loyalty, will impose globalist agendas upon the workforces of the divided America. Questions of sustainability of an American trade block or even the stability of the dollar, which would be scrutinized in favor of the Yuan, or the Euro are also matters of speculation to consider.

A seemingly minor third objection would be the repayment of debts. When the US Constitution was written, there was provisions established that the debt previously held under the Articles of Confederation would be honored by the newly formed government. Our outstanding national debt binds our nation together. Though a united America can spend endlessly with little consequence, thus amassing an illusionary debt crisis, how this debt would be divided, if at all, is unanswered. While it is assumed that the debt would be split amicably between the Americas, the risks of delinquency, default, or continued endless spending that has been experienced require address. Even if one America inclines itself towards fiscal conservatism while the other continues the pattern of deficit spending, this will destabilize the shared currency while pressuring the policies of the more fiscally responsible counterparts.

The most glaring concern our federalist forefathers wrote pertaining to National Divorce would be the amplification of hostilities between the states. In 1787, the concern was that the neighboring states would more likely war with one another as opposed to European powers. Although possible, the prospect of outright war between the divided Americas would be unlikely, as the people are currently disinclined towards endless wars. Furthermore, the National Divorce is a proposal meant to avert a second civil war between the states. Contrary to this expectation, the cultural wars of modern times would be escalated to higher levels than are presently experienced. A Marxist America would bode for a poor neighbor for Red America. Doubtless, the Marxists would enact extreme policies regarding immigration, abortion, sexual degeneracy, gun control, and censorship without any means of restraint. There would be no checks and balance to this radical agenda. Unfortunately, this depravity would not be restricted to simply the Marxist America. Red America would certainly enact measures protecting against the aforementioned issues, possibly enacting a truly conservative agenda for the first time, albeit at a slower pace than the Marxist would enact their vision. In the immediate period surrounding the National Divorce, they would be bolstered by patriots relocating to Red America. For a time, there might truly be an America that is recognizable to its founding constitution as written and separated by several hundred years of human development. Eventually, Blue America will seek to subvert Red America. The policies, both economic and social, would infiltrate Red America. Expatriates from Blue America would carry with them their political influence which in due time would inevitably plague the lands the which they relocate. The influence of Blue America is undeniable. They increasingly control the media, large corporations, academia, and sports. While measures in Red America might combat these forces, the walls erected would not impregnable. The people in Red America would still be exposed to the cultural exports of Blue America, which over time, would infiltrate and propagandize Red America into Purple America, and eventually Blue America with guns. Just as Republicans drift towards increasingly liberal and leftist concepts, so also would a Red America ideologically drift towards its Marxist neighbors. For a time, the National Divorce would reverse the leftist drift of Red America. Whether it be ten years or thirty, Red America would end up exactly where it started, contemplating another National Divorce, making the initial measure a stop-gap solution.

Ultimately, National Divorce may only amount to an increasingly believed fantasy designed to cope with the deterioration of our national identity. There is no sharing a culture between those who believe the truth that gender is biological and binary with those who believe it is a fluid spectrum. There is no sharing a nation between those who adore its founding with those who detest it. This nation is engulfed in Cold Civil War between two competing cultures. Instead of hoping for National Divorce to save this nation, perhaps a better solution would be to actually implement policies of cultural balkanization, or in plain speak, we the people force our current Red States to actually govern like their base constituencies desire. Start there, and maybe a divorce will become unnecessary.