I’ve just read an engaging pair of articles at Asylum magazine: an item by Michael Anton on the possibility of “national divorce”, in which he makes the case for breaking up the United States, and a rebuttal to Anton’s position by an anonymous author. (You can read Michael Anton’s original post here, and the response from “Anonymous” here. Apparently Mr. Anton has posted a reply of his own in the latest issue, but I haven’t yet been able to find it published online.)
I’ll say up front that I’m an admirer of Michael Anton: he’s one of conservative America’s most important thinkers, and he writes as well as he thinks. (I was flattered to have Mr. Anton respond to a post I’d written here a few years back, and to have exchanged some correspondence.) He understands the severity of the crisis we face in America, and he doesn’t shy away from engaging with serious thinkers whom mainstream pundits would consider dangerously radioactive (such as Curtis Yarvin and BAP). I respect his steadfast commitment to the principles of the American Founding, even if we may disagree about some (rather important) technicalities.
In his Asylum article, Anton presents a dialogue between two ex-friends in diametric political and axiomatic opposition: a conservative, “Tom”, modeled after himself, and a condescending Blue-state left-wing intellectual (who is, it pains greatly me to report, named “Malcolm”).
Tom tries to make the case for a peaceful and mutually agreed-upon breakup of the United States, on the wholly sensible grounds that a) the Left despises us and everything we believe in, and b) that it is unjust for the Blue ruling class, who have managed to put in place an unbeatable electoral advantage by way of mass immigration and shameless election-fudging, to rule us forever without our consent. Why, he asks, would Blue even want to continue sharing a nation with us, if we’re so awful?
Malcolm, of course, is having none of it, on the wholly sensible (to him) grounds that a) such a breakup would be costly and inconvenient; b) it would be wrong to give evil people like Red-state Americans a free hand to oppress women and minorities, and c) it’s good to be the King.
My sympathies, of course, are with “Tom”. Surely the most gentlemanly and civilized way to resolve this crisis (and I flatter myself that I am both of those things) would be an amicable parting of the ways, however difficult that might be to arrange (and Mr. Anton does a remarkably thorough job of enumerating the many difficulties it would involve, and honestly acknowledges that some of them may be impossible to overcome).
That said, though, I feel that there is something craven about Tom’s side in this dialogue. Both he and Malcolm acknowledge that Tom’s faction (our faction!) has no real leverage, and so Tom’s case begins to sound like nothing more than begging for mercy. It’s clear that Blue holds the whip hand: as long as we play by the rules, we lose (and there’s an asymmetry there: Tom’s side, which is loyal to the Founding, to law and order, and to what shreds remain of the Constitution, is clearly the one that cares the most about “the rules”). Given the demographic replacement that has already happened, the total victory of the Left in their half-century “long march” through all of our institutions, and the irreparable loosening and corruption of our electoral system, it’s hard to imagine any scenario in which Red can save itself, by purely political action at the ballot box, from permanent subjugation. So why would Malcolm, or any other conqueror, simply give away the spoils of victory, merely to avoid the nugatory ill-will of the conquered? It makes no sense, and is almost unexampled in all of history. The tyranny of the majority is precisely what the Founders feared most about democracy, and they did their best to keep democracy tightly laced up — but they knew well that democracy is a powerful acid, and difficult to contain, and they knew well that things might come to this. (“A Republic, if you can keep it!”, said Franklin.) And here we are.
The Founders also knew well that the only remedy for tyranny, in the end, is what they called at the time “an appeal to heaven”: you screw your courage to the sticking place, and fight, and you win or you die.
“You have to know that if you tried it, you’d be crushed,” Malcolm said.
“Totally,” Tom replied. “And, to be clear, I’m not calling for anyone to take any action, much less a suicidal action.”
Well, then, Tom, given the concessions you make in this dialogue, I think you might as well resign yourself to subjugation. (As noted above, tyrants don’t just let go just because you’ve asked them nicely.)
In the anonymous response, also published at Asylum, the author raises solid objections to optimism about the success of national breakup: the lack of a coherent political theory on the American Right, lack of political will, imbalance of power, headwinds the new Red nation would face both here and abroad, etc. He asks a simple question:
All of this brings us back to the original question: Why? Anything close to a National Divorce would require a truly Herculean effort, a level of national political organizing not seen in America in hundreds of years. If this were to be achieved, why not simply take power in the United States using something resembling the normal process?
The objection to that, of course, is that the “normal process” — that is, the political process, involving winning elections — may already be foreclosed to us.
Our anonymous respondent closes, though, on an upbeat note:
As bad as the situation is, there is a lot to be positive about in America today. The grassroots protests against lockdown policies had a massive impact on bringing them to a close. Parents have taken a much more active role in fighting back against dangerous ideologies pushed in their children’s schools. Even the chaos and surrender that defined the Floyd Riots was contrasted with the enormous personal bravery of citizen groups and impromptu law enforcement formations, people who just wanted to help. It seems like many more people are paying attention now. This is truly great, but it is very important that that massive energy be harnessed into something productive, that can last for decades, as opposed to ultimately empty rhetoric about a potential suicide run against the US military.
What do I think about all this? Like “Anonymous” (why can’t people come up with snappy pen-names?), I think the project of actual breakup — the division of the United States into two geographically distinct nations — is a non-starter; it is simply too complicated and difficult. There may be, though, some sort of middle way: a Great Sorting of the citizenry into Red and Blue states. This is already beginning to happen, as people leave places like California to move to redder states like Florida, and to the extent that strong local governments in these places manage to push back on wokeness, it will also drive Blue-team folks out of those places. We may, over the next few years, see the “purpling” of states like Florida and Texas begin to reverse itself. But even if that happens, I doubt that the blue Leviathan in Washington is going to let up the pressure, and it will simply do with Federal law what Red states try to resist locally. The relentless concentration of power in the central managerial behemoth is going to make it hard for any real subsidiarian shift — any centrifugal dispersion of sovereignty — back to the States.
What’s left, then, if we can’t divorce, and we can’t make our abusers leave us alone? The only alternative to humiliating subjugation would be, as noted above, the civil war we all hope will never happen. We might very well lose; we would certainly bleed. (And the lack of cohesion on the Right would be as much of a problem in this scenario as in the purely political one; such a conflict would likely just consist of an irregular, if popular, resistance.) But at least we’d go down fighting.
Am I hoping for this, or advocating it? Emphatically not. As I’ve written elsewhere, civil war is a thing that nobody should wish for. A great political reversal, or failing that, an Anton-style national divorce, would be far better outcomes. But standing on one’s feet with dignity, even in a lost cause, is better — and more patriotically American! — than humiliating subjugation as a tyrannized minority.
As Jefferson said:
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Perhaps Macaulay said it best of all:
And how can man die better,
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his Gods?
10 Comments
If the Taliban and the Viet Cong could give the most powerful nation on earth more than a run for its money, I’m not sure why conservatives keep talking themselves into potentially losing some sort of civil conflict.
That kind of defeatism assumes conservative people remaining passive in the face of escalating leftist despotism, which is a big assumption to make, and considering the sheer number of guns in the country, as well as literally millions of ex military and law enforcement who are already seething and chomping at the bit, I think progressives should rethink their assumed victory.
Honestly, who exactly would be fighting for the urban leftists in a general civil conflict?
Which side owns the vast majority of guns and lives outside the major urban transport hubs?
Leftist fantasize about poor blacks and Hispanics being their soldiers, and I can assure you that is nothing but pure fantasy.
Urban leftists and the laptop class will be the first ones chewed up in a civil conflict.
I think that a second American Civil War would look more like the Argentine Dirty War of the 70’s, with targeted assassinations and neighborhood skirmishes, which in an American setting, would favor the well armed and well trained.
We should all try to avoid any such scenario, but playing along with Leftist assumptions about total victory is just goofy.
If goat herders and rice farmers using bolt action rifles can beat the U.S. military, or at least grind the war machine to a halt, then the 45% of the adult population that owns at least one gun can do a hell of a lot more.
Right you are, Dave. God knows what the endgame would look like, and we can be sure that if it does come to civil war, a 21st-century American version would make all previous instances look like tiddlywinks. With any luck we’ll find another way. I certainly hope so. (There is so much here that is worth preserving, and so much of inestimable value would be lost.)
But these things, sadly, do happen, again and again, throughout history. And the United States of America owes its very existence to revolution.
“WHEN in the Course of Human Events…”
Conservatives are lazy. This is why they did nothing while the left conquered all the institutions and imposed its morality. A lot of posturing and rationalizations to do nothing. Now, you want them to engage in a civil war? Don’t make me laugh. Good luck in creating your army.
“If the Taliban and the Viet Cong could give the most powerful nation on earth more than a run for its money”
The Taliban and Viet Cong were/are real fighters. They are willing to die for their cause Conservatives shudder if they are called racist, sexist, or similar. And don’t make me laugh with the weapons thing American government has restricted weapons multiple times and conservatives have accepted.
Here, in Central America, which is much more conservative than the US, my university announced its first LGBTI program. They asked for opinions and I gave my opinion against the program while the other conservatives kept as quiet as a rock. I was fired, by the way.
Only a collapse can save us.
imnobody,
Brave of you to get fired like that. I hope you can find another job.
There are certainly Americans who could do what other guerillas have done in asymmetrical wars, if pushed to it. (I know more than a few of them.) We’ll see. But you’re right: it won’t be Rich Lowry or Jonah Goldberg.
Well, that’s the accelerationist position, which we’ve discussed here at some length. But if what you say is true, how will that even help? By suddenly creating a newly awakened thumos in our exhausted citizenry, where none currently exists? Why wouldn’t we just cower amongst the rubble, waiting for the government to save us?
We’re in a bad situation, and no mistake. But it would be wrong to counsel despair.
“But if what you say is true, how will that even help?”
I am not an accelerationist. I don’t think that it is good to speed up the decadence. This means to do evil. I think our first duty is with the moral law rather than with a political strategy, whether you believe in God or don’t.
A collapse does not get me excited. It will be awful. But it is the only option to save us. I am saying this as a matter of fact. I describe how the world IS, not how the world OUGHT to be. David Hume: IS – OUGHT.
I don’t doubt that there are Americans that would make excellent soldiers, sergeants and generals. But, with honorable exceptions, the will doesn’t exist.
What else are you waiting to start your guerilla? Your country has been invaded for decades now. You are second-class citizens in your own country. LGBTI is mandatory. Your children are being castrated and sterilized. Your elections are a fraud. Your social networks and mass media censor conservative views. Some of your cities (San Francisco) compare to Third World cities. Anti-white racism is mandatory in schools, politics, corporations, etc. I could go on and on.
Given this state of affairs, how many conservative guerrilla people are in the States, a country with 300 million people? How about O? I think the Unabomber was the last one, with a number of 1, but he just died.
It is easy to take shelter in fantasies. When the things are bad enough, a group of conservatives will raise. Nonsense. The things have been unimaginably bad for years and years. We are on uncharted territory. Here there are dragons. If the things happening now had been explained to us ten years ago, we would have thought they were produce by an insane person on LSD. The Left keeps on pushing, pushing, pushing while the Right dreams of a war while sitting on their La-Z boys.
imnobody,
I’m not inclined to disagree with much of what you say here, but I don’t think there will be any sort of well-demarcated “collapse”, unless there is some catastrophic failure of infrastructure (such as a breakdown of the power or communications grid). The most likely scenario is probably a gradual decline in quality of life, with rising crime, squalor, and disorder, and increasing isolation of the ruling class from those being ruled.
Civil wars, when they happen, tend to coalesce around some charismatic leader, and the appearance of such a person is, to some extent at least, a matter of chance (though some would say that the times produce the man).
All that being said, things also depend on the overreach of tyranny; intolerable acts can produce sharp reactions, while careful frog-boiling can take advantage of the natural tendency of people everywhere to endure what can be endured rather than stake what little remains of their comfort and security on a daring gesture. Eric Hoffer pointed out that those immured in misery tend not to rise up; they have so little already that they are afraid to risk what’s left. It is often only when a tyrant loosens his grip a little, in the hope of placating the sullen and grumbling masses, that the people are encouraged to demand more and more. (We saw this, for example, in the collapse of the Soviet Union.)
Conservative types by nature are the last ones who are likely to turn to violent revolution; they’d rather be left alone to grill, and people who are obsessed with winning have an advantage over those who just want to be left alone. Once roused to fury, though, there may yet be something left in the traditionally minded American nation that would surprise you. What will it take to arouse that passion? I don’t know, but I’m not prepared to say it can’t happen.
Best of all, of course, would be to avoid this disaster altogether, by some kind of geographical sorting-out and some return of local control — though there are powerful central forces opposing that, and so it may not be possible.
Ultimately we must remember always that civilizations live and die, in great cycles, and that there was a very good reason why the Founders, like all students of history for two thousand years, feared democracy. If nothing else, the ruin of the American nation will provide another cautionary example of why they were right to do so.
This has been around before. It need not be directed at the Federal Government. Even conservatives get enough. Same with Christians.
‘The Men Who Wanted to Be Left Alone’
“The most terrifying force of death comes from the hands of Men who wanted to be left Alone. They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love. They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it. They know that the moment they fight back, their lives as they have lived them, are over. The moment the Men who wanted to be left alone are forced to fight back, it is a form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these Men who wanted to be left alone, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives. They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror. TRUE TERROR will arrive at these people’s door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy… but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the Men who just wanted to be left alone.”
– Author Unknown
I think one look at the skyrocketing rates of first time gun ownership in the U.S. in the wake of the Summer of Floyd should tell us that many millions of people know something is very wrong, and they are preparing accordingly.
Literally millions have left California and New York over the last 3 years, moving to red states like Texas or Florida.
A mass exodus, combined with mass gun purchases, is a sure sign of forward thinking and preparation by a significant percentage of the population.
A lot of people feel both demoralized and abandoned by traditional authority figures, so they take the only legal steps open to them, which is moving to more conservative states and arming themselves.
Violent action will be the absolute last resort for the masses, as most people are still comfortable enough that they don’t want to do anything to jeopardize their own safety and stability.
And also remember, less than 10% of the populace actively participated in the American Revolution, and I think similar numbers hold for the Russian revolution.
A society only needs a highly motivated minority to take control of or destroy existing power structures, which is how the left hijacked ours.
We don’t need hundreds of millions. Even 1% would be more than 3 million people in the U.S, and that 3 million can do a lot with proper leadership.
Anton’s response here: https://asylummagazine.ca/HOW-TO-READ-DIALOGUES
Thanks, Jason – I was just writing a new post about Anton’s reply when you posted this comment.