Marjorie Taylor Greene made headlines by suggesting that it may be time for a “national divorce,” with red states and blue states going their separate ways. She was roundly denounced in nearly all quarters, as though she had called for a civil war. But in fact, her point was the same one I have made more than once: disunion is a real possibility, and the alternative to disunion is a rebirth of federalism.
Rasmussen was first to go into the field to see what Americans think of these ideas. Perhaps surprisingly, the idea of a “national divorce” is by by no means beyond the pale:
Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene made headlines last month when she declared on Twitter: “We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government.” Thirty-four percent (34%) of voters agree with that statement, including 14% who Strongly Agree. Fifty-seven percent (57%) disagree with Greene’s call for a “national divorce,” including 43% who Strongly Disagree.
As you would expect, conservatives are most likely to think that “you go your way, I’ll go mine” is not a bad idea:
Forty-seven percent (47%) of Republicans at least somewhat agree that red states and blue states “need a national divorce,” as do 26% of Democrats and 27% of voters not affiliated with either major party.
There is more of interest at the link, including this remarkable data point:
Breaking down the electorate by income categories, 55% of voters in the highest bracket – earning more than $200,000 a year – rate Biden as doing a good or excellent job of uniting Americans….
Which goes to show that you can make a good bit of money, and still be utterly clueless. Either that, or be willing to lie to a pollster.
Back to the idea of a “national divorce”: in my opinion, disunion–which would not mean civil war, but rather a complicated process analogous to Brexit–would be a bad thing, but not the worst thing. I would rather see half of America survive, than see the entire country go down the drain.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.