Divorce, American Style

Spend time online in conservative or libertarian spaces, and you will soon encounter the notion of a national divorce, often proposed as a reasonable alternative to civil war - which some fear, but others eagerly anticipate. But even a cursory think-through reveals the concept to be totally unworkable. If even attempted, the result could well be the very civil war, or national meltdown, which its proponents wish to avoid.

First, does the paradigm of divorce usefully apply? Marital divorce involves only two people. But we are a nation of c. 350 million, all on a broad political spectrum, including a great many agnostic or moderate types. Divorce advocates are a tiny fringe, resigned to the idea because they’ve failed to win enough Americans over to their ideological side. How then can they possibly convince a majority to dissolve the union altogether?

In a divorce, the couple’s lawyers appear before a judge, within an existing legal framework. But there is no National Divorce Court or law code. There is no higher authority to appeal, should the terms be violated, because there exists no authority above the United States powerful enough to enforce the terms of a deal. The inability to enforce any settlement would incentivize, for both parties, the violation of it.

If despite these initial hurdles the aggrieved parties agreed to meet, what kind of negotiators would they choose to represent them? Not courteous, diplomatic types, but partisan “fighters.” What are the odds that such people (MTG vs. AOC?) would agree on anything? If they did, wouldn’t their most vocal clients denounce them for giving ground? Both lawyers would be incentivized to be maximally uncompromising.

Regarding the terms themselves, the most important are, first; how would the vast assets (natural resources, federal lands, mineral rights, power plants, transmission lines, pipelines, ports, transportation networks, military installations and hardware, etc.) and liabilities (enormous federal debt) be divided? The debts might prove even more challenging than the assets. Conservatives would try to disavow as much of it as possible. As champions of small government, they never wanted to incur it in the first place! Progressives would counter that more federal dollars are sent to red states than to blue states, so they should accept their fair share. Neither claim withstands scrutiny particularly well, but don’t expect good-faith discourse of subtleties in National Divorce Court.

Second; what about the borders? There’s no geographical separation analogous to the colonies from Britain, the North from the Confederacy. Even the red/blue state divide is misleading. Texas, for example, is a red state with a very blue capital. Electoral maps reveal an urban/rural divide, with most of the coasts, ports, and cities--with their crucial road, rail, and air hubs--held by the blues. The Reds dominate the farmland, but while the Blues could access foreign sources of food via their ports, the Reds would (at least initially) have a hard time getting their product to, and through, those ports for export.

How can we even be sure of only two aggrieved parties, red and blue? What’s to prevent factional subdivision, with moderates splitting from their more radical comrades, on either side? Such features in every national upheaval, from ancient Rome to Revolutionary France (Gerondins vs. Jacobins) and Russia (Mensheviks vs. Bolsheviks). It would be unprecedented if our breakup somehow avoided this, and instead of mere division, possible Balkanization.

Assuming the case ever progressed to National Divorce Court, expect a breakdown of negotiations—probably quickly, possibly after some progress and raised expectations. What then? Handshakes all around, and “Well, we tried. Guess we’ll just have to coexist, despite our differences?” More likely, both parties will storm from the table, back to their respective camps to advance their goals by other means. A negotiated separation won’t work because we despise and distrust each other. We can’t agree on how to coexist, much less how to separate. That’s why we’re in divorce court in the first place—again, with no judge to impose a settlement. Marital divorces often conclude with neither side happy with the results. But conclude they must, when a judge has heard enough and bangs the gavel.

If it did conclude, what would follow? In the best-case scenario - two stable nations, not devolution into small, weak statelets - both nations would presumably write constitutions, form governments, and establish trade relationships--both with each other and with other nations. Both would jockey for advantage over each other, increasing tensions. The process of divorce plus rebuilding and recovery might span decades, and the short-sighted hotheads who initiated it would have to hand this debacle off to their children and grandchildren.

If divorce were concluded - or even begun - who would gain? Most obviously, China. The breakup of the US is beyond the wildest dreams of the CCP. It would render China virtually unopposable (then there really would be an entity more powerful than the United States to enforce the terms of a divorce). Other major beneficiaries include Russia, Iran, North Korea, terrorist organizations, etc.

With our enemies the big winners, our allies - especially, any bordering those listed above - would necessarily be losers. But surely the biggest losers, by far, would be we Americans. Even in a peaceful breakup, our standard of living would plummet. Think the economy is bad now? That supply chain woes, inflation, and interest rates are intolerable now? The creation of new borders and ports of entry and disruption of established transportation routes; mutual imposition of duties, tariffs, and punitive regulations between the demi-nations; unforeseeable currency issues and a generally unsettled climate for capital flow/investment, etc., would plunge the economy into such an abyss that the COVID lockdowns would be fondly remembered as the good ol’ days. The rupture of the world’s largest economy would surely trigger a global recession. Our diminished ability to support maritime trade by protecting shipping lanes--an implicit if not widely appreciated role of the US Navy--would exacerbate all this.

People often make the mistake of applying a familiar paradigm to circumstances where it doesn’t apply. The constant demand that politicians “fight” is a prime example; in a system like ours, durable results are accomplished by majorities passing laws, which means winning elections, convincing more people to vote for you. You win by selling or persuading. Being combative may please your existing base, but it turns off moderates. The advocates of national divorce seem to be making a similar conceptual mistake. Divorce is a sadly familiar and well-understood phenomenon, but the paradigm won’t work for splitting up the country. That’s a good thing, because it's difficult to fathom how anything gained from a national divorce could possibly be worth what was lost—the greatest, richest, most powerful, and arguably freeest country on earth. Never in human history will so much have been thrown away over so little.