A national divorce has been the topic of a lot of speculation over the last few years. It's kind of a sad thing to consider; a breakup, a Balkanization if you will, of the United States would effectively end the existence of a global superpower in the North American continent. It would be the work of decades to fix new borders in place, to establish trade that will make life at least tolerable in the new, smaller nations and city-states that arise, and to settle issues resulting from the millions of acres of land currently managed by the federal government — not to mention what will happen to the American military.
It's not something we want to consider lightly, even though there are those on both left and right who have been calling for it for many years now. But until now, it's just been a thought exercise; there hasn't been any indication that we are about to cross that Rubicon. But forget for a moment the implications of such a Balkanization and how it would take place; let's instead consider the possibility of the initiation of such a break-up. Specifically: Could the election of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in November lead to such a national divorce?
Short answer: It's not impossible. Let's take a quick look at some of the Harris/Walz team's proposed policies and see just how damaging to national unity these might be.
First, the economy. Kamala Harris has proposed plans that would explode the national debt. While to many, that's kind of an arcane issue that doesn't affect their bank balance — it does, but that effect isn't readily visible to most — some of her other plans would be, to say the least, damaging. She intends to go after "price gouging," including in grocery stores; that's an interesting proposal since grocers make their profits on volume, not margins, and if a supermarket chain was "price gouging," it's hard to credit their profit margin would still be at the 1-3 percent on which most of these businesses operate. But how would this measure work? Would the Harris administration place an army of kommissars in the nation's grocery stores? Imagine each American business having a federal apparatchik in place to monitor profit margins — and how those people would leverage that power. "Nice little business you have here, Mr. Smith. Shame if anything... happened to it." People — especially the small business people who drive economic growth and jobs — won't put up with that.
Second, energy policy. In this, Tim Walz is even more extreme than Kamala Harris.
Climate change has been a consistent theme throughout Walz’s political career. Last year, he signed a law requiring all Minnesota power plants to transition to 100% climate-friendly energy sources, such as wind and solar, by 2040. As a member of Congress, he voted in favor of the 2009 cap-and-trade bill, which would have capped emissions economy-wide. That legislation could have constrained the shale boom that has helped keep energy affordable by increasing extraction costs for oil and gas producers.
This slamming of the energy sector would hit the nation's rural and suburban areas even harder than the (blue) major urban centers. Not only will the chilling of the energy sector and the imposition of inefficient and unreliable "green" energy systems raise the costs of, well, everything, but the necessary increase in gasoline and diesel will hit the red areas much harder than the blue; those of us who live out here in the environment must, by necessity, drive farther in the course of our daily affairs. And, it's important to note, the red states and red areas in blue states are where most of the energy production takes place.
See Related: Substantial Percentage of Democrats Back MTG's Call for 'National Divorce' Between Red and Blue States
Our National Divorce May Already Be Quietly Happening
Finally, the Second Amendment. Kamala Harris knows nothing about firearms, and her running mate, while he claims to be familiar with "weapons of war," has shown that he is willing to dissemble on not only the weapons themselves but also on his history of handling them. Both candidates are in favor of "assault weapon" bans when they have not and can not even define the term. Nobody who understands firearms or the meaning of the Second Amendment thinks they will stop there; sooner or later, the information will sink in that handguns are used in crime more than any rifle, meaning the Harris/Walz administration and their allies will target those, sooner or later. And just wait until they discover that a typical bolt-action hunting rifle with a good scope is orders of magnitude more accurate and powerful than, say, an AK-pattern rifle, and then the cry will come to ban "sniper rifles." This, again, is an issue that carries a lot of weight in red states — and in the red sections of blue states. Talk to anyone in northern California for evidence of that.
Yes, we've seen all these things proposed before, and here we are, in an un-Balkanized United States. But it's also undeniable that a Harris/Walz administration would take these policies harder, faster, and... left-er. Kamala Harris shows no hesitation to double down on failure, and her policy proposals so far have shown a level of willingness to interfere in the daily affairs of the American people that is, frankly, disturbing.
Could a Harris/Walz administration lead to a national divorce? I think the odds are less than even — but I also think they would be higher than they have ever been. Remember that in November, folks.
