Should the U.S. break up into smaller distinct nations?

Differences are too sharp to foster progress

Question: Should the U.S. break up into smaller distinct nations?
Position1 of 2›: Yes, the US should break into smaller nations
Argument‹2 of 3›: Differences are too sharp to foster progress

With the nation more divided than ever, especially visible by the nail-biting closeness of the 2020 presidential election, it seems that progress may be a thing of the past. With such different visions on how the country can improve, and a political system committed to running back the previous administration’s efforts, America may just be treading water by sticking together.

The argument

Our current situation leaves us with a feeling of futility as the ground constantly changes beneath our feet. Americans, on either side of the aisle, are powerless to the whims of party politics, which have thoroughly flipped again and again since the start of the 21st century. The problem is not that one side wins and the other loses — that is ordinary democratic life — but that no result holds long enough to become settled policy. Climate agreements show the pattern in its clearest form. For instance, President George W. Bush did not like the Kyoto Protocol and pulled us out. Barack Obama believes in climate change and supported the Paris Accord. Donald Trump does not and pulls us out. Joe Biden will make us reverse course and support it again. The next Republican will most likely pull us back out again. Is this any way to fruitfully initiate change? Each administration spends its term undoing its predecessor's work, so the country's actual position on a question of this scale is whatever happened to win the last election, and everyone planning around it knows it will not last. The oscillation happens because one national government has to produce a single answer for populations that want different ones, and the margin between them is narrow enough that the answer flips with each cycle. If the country were to break up, for example, along the lines of the Midwest, the East Coast, the West Coast, the Sun Belt, these various "countries" could decide for themselves what is appropriate, and each answer would rest on a settled majority rather than a reversible one. These populations overwhelmingly seem to agree and could initiate overwhelming change in the way they desire — change that would outlast the next election instead of being unwound by it.

Premises

[P1]Party politics flip national policy back and forth, as with the US repeatedly joining and leaving climate accords under each new president. [P2] This leaves Americans powerless to enact lasting change as the ground constantly shifts beneath them. [P3] If the country broke into regions like the Midwest, the coasts, and the Sun Belt, each could decide policy its own populations overwhelmingly agree on. [C] Therefore, because the differences are too sharp to foster progress, the US should break into smaller nations.

Counter-arguments

Differences aren’t entirely regional, so the solution may not be a breakup. For example, if Pennsylvania was to become its own state, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are undoubtedly “blue” while the rest of the state is firmly conservative. Pennsylvania as its own state does not solve the issue and it may well exacerbate it. America appears divided on a large scale, yet if one zooms in, the problem is not necessarily solved. Furthermore, diversity is a strength, not a weakness. Countries have thrived on homogeneity (i.e., Japan) – yet is this the kind of country the United States aspired to be? Hearing different voices, balancing the needs and wants of many, that is what solidified the United States as a world leader in the first place.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Policy reversal between administrations is a feature of elected government and does not establish that the differences are unbridgeable. The argument's own example concerns an international accord the country has joined, left and rejoined while remaining one country. [Rejecting P2] Feeling powerless describes a mood rather than a structural impasse, and it is compatible with any level of disagreement, including quite ordinary levels. [Rejecting P3] That regions agree internally is the claim the counter-argument refutes directly: the divide runs between cities and countryside within states rather than neatly along regional lines, so the proposed borders would reproduce the disagreement rather than resolve it.

Proponents cited

YesCalifornia
“(1) California is a distinct society with its own unique history and culture, (2) California as the world’s fifth largest economy has what it takes to be its own country, and (3) The best people to govern California are the people of California.Our effort for full independence was launched in 2015 during the midst of the Scottish independence referendum. We took such inspiration from Scotland that we reorganized Sovereign California, an effort to pursue partial autonomy from the United States, into the full California independence secession campaign known around the world today as Calexit.”
Damon Linker
“Who are these people? What do I share with them? Aristotle suggests that at its best, citizenship can be a form of friendship. But America is nowhere near its best right now. These people may be my fellow citizens, but they aren't my friends. Sometimes they feel like my enemies.”