America is going to split up sometime in the future. We can deny it all we want, but our disagreements are oftentimes rooted in completely different views of reality and that’s nearly impossible to overcome. The reasons for this separation in reasoning is rooted in a variety of different places ranging from media to education, and it’s nearly pointless to try and dissect it all. Everyone has metaphoric blood on their hands (and some have literal blood, but we’ll save that for another discussion) and we simply choose which one we think is evil. Those who speak about the reactionary dangers of referring to those we disagree with as “Nazis” seem to forget the nearly three-decade history of Rush Limbaugh referring to various women as “Feminazis.”
When the intellectual left looks back on decades of their failed predictions and doomsday warnings, it’s no shock that there is a rejection of intellectualism running throughout our society. As the religious right studies its own past, hopefully they understand that by failing to promote love, forgiveness, and understanding, they created the decline in the number of believers in this country. We are our own worst enemies, because when you combine dogmatic beliefs with American arrogance, you end up with a society which lacks the humility to reverse course by acknowledging its mistakes.
I’d love to say we could fix this toilet of irrational thought and hatred, but I’ve grown to become realistic. “Realistic” is neither optimistic or pessimistic, it just is. Being a realistic person is the acceptance that people are collective in nature and that – if we must obsess about geography and lines – we need to agree to shake hands and let some agreeable regions come together to write their own constitutions. Let’s put a three-year window on moving after each region (new country, whatever word you must apply) codifies their new constitutions. We can set up house swaps. “Liberal and live in Alabama?” Well, someone in San Francisco wants to get the hell out. What if we, “Trade the Tide for the Trolley?!”
As far as geography goes, let your imagination run free. Texas will probably just be Texas. I could see the Northeast staying together in some form, but why couldn’t New Hampshire and Maine do their own thing? For that matter, why can’t the French people in Northern Vermont have a place which is their own? They can be part of Quebec, for all I care. Not my circus, not my curiously weird mimes selling baguettes. You do you, Vermont.
Now, those in the interior might have a bit to be concerned about, and given voting trends, my assumption is they don’t quite understand shipping and trade. With the Jones Act going up in long overdue flames, they’re far more boned than they even know if they don’t address this, but we’ll let them deal with it themselves as well as that runaway territory knows as the “Westboro Free State.” I’m just happy to know that when the inevitable slaughter happens, it won’t be my Janet Reno calling the strike and I won’t have to worry about Christian fundamentalists trying to legislate because they believe the siege to be a sign of the end times. I’m selfish, I know.
The West Coast could be curious in that there might be a geographic split between east and west. Asian shipping being done through a new, lefty state, could have curious results for all involved and will definitely increase the price of yard rakes in Bakersfield since they won’t be part of California or Oreforniaton or whatever. No worries, though, because if the right side of the left states hook up with Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona, they’ll control an absurd amount of our former nation’s minerals. If they can extend their reach to include Wyoming, Utah, and Western Colorado, the New West could become an economic powerhouse devoid of environmental concerns. Think “Alaska in the 70s” or North Dakota during their 1980s oil boom. So, ya know, peace and prosperity, because that’s what happens when roughnecks drink together and do uppers to keep up with 12-16 hour days. (I could barely type that last bit without busting out laughing)
Or we can have Civil War II!
I don’t find it particularly appealing, but there are enough dingdongs with 10 boxes of ammo and a $300 rifle who have spent the last decade playing Call of Duty to at least make for a few hours of good blooper reels. With the military overseas and an absurd number of veterans being of the non-combat variety, either the attack of urban communities against rural or vice-versa will make for a high body count of incapable combatants. Environment is everything, and a country boy can’t handle warfare in Detroit the same way a city boy from Portland would be up Shit’s Creek in the forests of Northern California. Ask a Vietnam vet about those pesky jungle tunnels or the Vietcong who worked on bases in the cities. We were screwed on both fronts because we didn’t know our enemy, and frankly, most Americans don’t know each other, either. Not environment, struggles, hopes, fears, or anything. We assume a lot, but we know very little.
And, considering there will be an elected government at the time, one can only assume that the United Nations would join in to help “bring peace” to our nation and there would obviously be a side of rebels and a side of patriots.
So, yeah, if you want World War III to actually start on American shores, keep it up. That’s how a Civil War ends this time.
We are beyond the days of wooden boats crossing an ocean to help, and it’s rather ignorant to believe war won’t come to our shores. Mutually Assured Destruction still exists, though, so I wouldn’t worry about a nuclear assault. The instinct of self-preservation is pretty solid around the globe, so we probably won’t have to replicate Fallout. Considering this, give yourselves a regular two-handed applause, because you probably won’t have a third arm anytime soon. The only thing we’ll lose are a few million people and any sense of sovereignty we once had, as we’ve proved we can’t effectively manage the simple task of governing a country which is roughly the size of a continent. At least we have that excuse, as opposed to Balkanization basically being the equivalent of losing control of Ohio.
Since the latter scenario sounds like a nightmare which would be a dream for the dude who wrote The Turner Diaries, why can’t we agree to an amicable split? It seems like there would be far less blood and everyone has the chance to get to experience the life they imagined. Then, in 15 years, when we realize that one party rule and cultural-intellectual homogenization leads to crappy results, maybe we can offer everyone free visas for a one-time-only, final swap? Pick your final American remnant carefully because that’s where you’re stuck. Unfortunately, that could very well lead to the region which chose to embrace trade, diversity, charity over violence, and conversations which create positive outcomes being overrun with a bunch of people who embraced the opposite, which begs the question: Should we let them in?
Latest posts by Matthew DiGiallonardo (see all)
- How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Landlords – Opting Out - March 5, 2020
- Secession: The Lost Aspect of Federalism - April 16, 2022
- Sympathy & Empathy & Hierarchy - April 15, 2022
- Biden Announces Treasury Will Print Other Countries’ Currencies - March 18, 2022