The United States is too large to form a coherent country. We have no sense of shared cultural identity or common purpose. Coastal citizens view the inhabitants of “flyover states” with suspicion or disgust, and many of the latter see the former as cultural imperialist invaders.
Republicans and Democrats fundamentally disagree on far too many issues. Not only is there simple disagreement, but an actual lack of a common frame of reference to even begin discussing issues seriously. In Congress, this leads to approval ratings as low as 9%.
Coastal liberals imagine that the inhabitants of central states will eventually become “enlightened” just like them, but they will not. Conservatives and liberals disagree on issues as basic as the role of government, the value of the family, the acceptability of abortion, the nature of the relationship between races, and so on. Each side is mutually unintelligible—and downright hostile—to the other.
Conservatives loathe liberals because of their views, their complete control of the education system, especially the universities, and the majority of the media. Liberals loathe conservatives because of their views, the way they make up a large portion of the “one percent,” and how they are over-represented in corporate America.
There are about 8 million registered Democrats in California, but the real center of liberal power is in the northeast, with New York City acting as the de facto capital of world liberalism. Ever since the North won the Civil War, this geographic area has been acting as the preeminent force controlling the destiny of America.
Secession has become a theme of discussion in the last few months. “Secession fever” has hit Maryland, Colorado, and California. Texas even wants to become its own country. Given how polarized the country is, maybe it would be better off splitting into multiple pieces.
Here at More Right, we discuss the possibility of secession often. Reactionary author Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddhin wrote:
What we must avoid is turning humanity into an ant-heap; instead we ought to create small, individual “kingdoms.”
The cultural uniformity of the United States is appalling. We ought to expect more cultural diversity from the raw material of 314 million human beings. This diversity can only be achieved by splitting up the United States into pieces and allowing each of these pieces to chart their own path.
Though many different patterns of deunionification are possible, I propose the above map as a starting point. It seems to track the cultural thedes of the states fairly well, and while it could certainly be split up further, there are many practical benefits to countries being as large as possible. These include economies of scale, military strength, bargaining power in the international arena, and so on.
To preserve freedom of movement, these new countries could have relatively open border policies with respect to one another. This would allow people to move if they thought they ended up in the wrong country. The capital of the West would be Sacramento. The capital of the South would be Washington D.C. The capital of the Midwest would be Chicago. The capital of the Northeast would be Boston or New York City.
Here is another map, of the “American nations,” which is even more accurate:
As realistic as this cultural map is, it has several problems which make it an unrealistic candidate for splitting apart the United States. First of all, the bulk of California, Oregon, and Washington are culturally consistent with the Left Coast. Second, the Midlands is not a realistic shape for a country, it is too thin and long. Thirdly, the Far West would need sea access to be a viable country, as landlocked countries are economically doomed.
The most useful part of the map above is showing how Yankeedom ranges into the northern Midwest. Because of this, it might be better for the Midwest and the Northeast in the topmost map to remain the same country. In that case, the country would split into just three pieces.
Going on these three pieces, several other splits are possible:
1) Texas might want to be its own country.
2) The Southwest, which is relatively progressive, would probably want to be separate from the northern part of The West, which is more conservative. In which case the West would actually consist of two countries.
Taking all this into account, my proposal is this:
1) A country called Cascadia (or Greater Cascadia) which consists of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, northern California, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and Montana.
2) A smaller country yet to be named which consists of southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico.
3) The South as its own big country, possibly including Texas, but possibly not.
4) The Midwest (as delineated in the top map) and the Northeast as one big Yankee country.
It doesn’t matter if this wouldn’t split up Republicans and Democrats perfectly, that isn’t the point. The point is to split them up somewhat more than they currently are, not for the split to be perfect. Furthermore, Republicans and Democrats cohabiting a smaller area, like Cascadia, will have more common interests and a greater incentive to leave one another alone. The current political structure of the United States gives a very strong incentive for the Northeast to culturally invade the rest of the United States. This dynamic would be removed under this deunionification proposal. Removing the homogenizing cultural influence of Yankeedom is a primary aim of this proposal.