Red States Would Benefit from Secession

Balkinization Symposium on Secession

(Cross-posted from the Neo-Ciceronian Times’ new Substack)

Yesterday, Twitterer “A New Radical Centrism” (@a_centrism) made a few waves with this tweet below,

Obviously, he is responding to the on-again, off-again talk about a possible future breakup of the American union of states via secession, something that more and more people in this country are starting to realise could actually happen as the current Regime continues to bleed legitimacy. Certainly, when the Oklahoma governour last month challenged the Pentagon’s authority to require mandated vaccinations for Oklahoma National Guard personnel, this was seen as a shot across FedGov’s bow by an official state-level authority. Recent talk that Florida governour Ron DeSantis is planning on reviving (not “creating”) a World War II-era civilian military force that would be outside of the Pentagon’s control has had the Left all hot and bothered. This recent op-ed by three retired flag-rank military officers, while not directly related to the issue of secession, certainly indicates some legitimate fears on the part of The Powers That Be that their own military might not be as reliable as they could hope for should something like secession start to take place as a result of a future crisis of legitimacy.

So yeah, the issue is one that is on more radar screens than anyone since 1866 would have thought it could be.

Radical Centrism’s tweet shown above, however, rests on an interlocking set of assumptions that don’t seem to be grounded in reality. A few months ago, I wrote about the self-deception that the Left holds whereby it believes that progressivism will magically create this shiny secular sciency future if only progressives were relieved of the encumbrance of all those Red state hillbillies and rednecks. There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that this would actually happen. However, the tweet in question relies upon the mirror image assumption, which is that if those same Red state hillbillies and rednecks tried to separate themselves from the presumed thaumaturgical society of Blue state soyboys and pink-hairs, they’d quickly find that their new nation (or nations) would devolve into economically and technologically depressed failed states. It’s essentially the same basic assumption, so the same basic failure of the argument applies.

What we need to understand is that at this point in the evolution of American society, when you talk about “Red” people, you’re basically talking about anyone and everyone who is not some kind of left-wing wackadoodle. It’s not just people who might actually fit the stereotype of “backwoods racist hillbillies” or whatever. You’re talking about millions of working and middle class people who basically just want to live their lives in peace without being fired for holding opinions their parents held and who don’t want their kids turned into trannies by publik skool offishulz behind their backs. This includes a huge number of people that progressives imagine “should” be on their side – scientists, engineers, programmers, lawyers, doctors and nurses, and any number of other professions – but who most definitely are not.

What the Left doesn’t understand is that even though they’ve captured institutions, they haven’t captured many of the people who make up the rank and file in those institutions. While Google may be fully converged at a leadership and policy level, this doesn’t mean that there aren’t many in the ranks (and likely the more competent of such) who would love the opportunity to be free of the petty, everyday henpeckery by obese pink-hairs that modern progressivism represents.

And in many ways, the impulses that are driving the increasing polarisation in American society are that henpeckery on one side and the desire to not have to deal with it on the other. Millions of regular, everyday Americans have found themselves thrust into the position of being “right wing extremists” whether they asked for it or not. The Left is rapidly creating the conditions for revolt and secession – the logical conclusions of ever-deepening social divides and the loss of social cohesion that come with them – by its own inability to rein in its worst impulses and excesses. As such, Radical Centrism’s whole twitter personality is a farce. At the stage of our demographic-structural secular cycle that we are in, there is no such thing as an actual “centrist” anymore, if indeed there ever truly was.

It’s not at all apparent that Red states, if going it alone (or more likely, as one or more regional confederations), would find themselves at a disadvantage compared to the Blue states that choose to remain in GAE. As I’ve illustrated in my post linked above, the Left certainly isn’t going to be able to make good on the sciency Star Trek world they’ve convinced themselves is their birthright. But for a number of reasons, a Red state breakaway – cast as “extremism,” but really just representing civilisational normalcy – also would not fail as expected. Indeed, without the encumbrance of progressivism’s dead weight, Red states probably would be able to gin up as much stability and prosperity as our point in our current secular cycle would allow.

One thing that Red states would have going for them is that they would be likely to return to a set of more rational economic policies than we currently have. Let’s be honest – while we all make fun of Boomercons, when it comes to basic economic truisms such as lowering taxes and reducing regulatory burdens on small businesses, they do actually have a point. It is really true that when you let business owners and workers keep more of their income then they both save and spend more, which increases overall economic performance and stability. Same with reducing expensive and often unnecessary regulatory weight. Even more authoritarian systems such as I would prefer should mostly keep their noses out of the everyday business affairs of their citizens to the greatest extent that good order will allow.

Of course, where good economic sense breaks with Boomercon sensibilities would be on things such as reining in “free” trade and reinstituting tariffs, bringing massive multinational corporations to heel, and restricting immigration (even “legal” immigration). Red states that were cleared of Blue interference would be more likely to start returning to these types of sane policies, but would still have to deal with naive libertarian impulses among a chunk of their populations. Annoying, but at least those being the centre of political debate would still indicate a huge shift in the Overton Window. Nevertheless, a lesson in the difference between the genuine free market and transnational corporate capitalism should be in order.

Red states would also be able to free themselves from superfluous, and indeed destructive, DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusiveness) protocols and other elements of the overall progressive cultural Marxist program. Much of the time when progressives talk about things like “innovation,” what they really have in mind is the creation and implementation of ever more epicyclic programs for DEI and related topics like critical race theory and other projects designed to appeal to their grand intersectional alliance of bioleninism. So when they pat themselves on the back for being innovative and creating wealth, what they actually mean is that they’ve created new ways to appropriate government money or to extort it from private citizens and smaller businesses. Red states that no longer had a set of radicalised federal agencies interfering in their affairs would be able to eliminate those programs and focus on actually doing whatever the specific goals of their institutions actually are.

Similarly, private firms and individuals in Red states would find themselves in the position of being able to utilise their “human resources” in more effective and efficient ways. What I essentially mean here is that the many deleterious effects arising from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – such as affirmative action and the increasingly legally actionable effects of “disparate impact” could be dispensed with. It would no longer be legally required, for instance, to set aside a certain number of positions for unqualified Magic Americans. Businesses could hire who they want and find the best workers, whoever they might be. A more natural and rational economic hierarchy might shake itself out, which might not be to the liking of progressives and their pets in the PoC coalition, but it would remove several artificial barriers to both smooth economic functioning and greater social cohesion.

Lastly, Red states would probably benefit from the large population transfers that would presumably take place were such a “national divorce” to occur. Essentially, there’d be a trade of our Blue individuals for their Red ones. We’d be getting, for the most part, hard working, salt of the earth types who’d contribute to society. They’d be getting much of our welfare burden and make-work job occupiers from HR departments. Essentially, we’d see a net increase on those who contribute to a healthy, functioning society while they’d be getting a population which destabilises and drains the health from a nation. Just in terms of human matériel, we’d be getting the long end of the stick.

Given our country’s polarisation and the fact that the Woke Left seems to be dead set on making it worse and worse, I view it as a given that there will be a breakup of the American union, perhaps within two decades or less. Certainly, if past demographic-structural cycles that we can observe from history are any indication, this type of decentralisation is the most likely outcome. But I don’t think it’s going to work out the way the Left thinks it will.

2 thoughts on “Red States Would Benefit from Secession

  1. I do not think the Blue states can allow secession, in any shape for form. Their only source of legitimacy is their democratic-progressive-socialist ideology. If the states within the union reject that ideology, then it delegitimizes the Blue, all over the world, not just at home. Then they start having even more problems. How this plays out will be interesting.


  2. When looking at more granular data, it is not as much Red vs Blue States, but Red vs Blue Counties. At that level, Red vs Blue looks like Rural vs Urban – and this is probably not surprising to most people. A Red state seceding is difficult because the Blue urban voters predominate in a system of universal suffrage. Rural secession, however…

    In other words Rural Independence!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s