Political secession looms on the American horizon.
The political phenomenon of secession is similar to an evolutionary phenomenon in biology. Throughout history, radical changes in the Earth’s geology have separated species apart to the point where new species emerged. For example, when the Pangaea supercontinent broke apart long ago, new oceans formed that separated fractured continents and species from each other.
Over time, each of the separated species evolved in different directions. Often, after millions of years of evolution, what used to be one species became two species in their separated habitats. At that point, they could no longer interbreed even if there was an opportunity to.
The same phenomenon happened if an island split off from a continent, or if tectonic plate movements pushed up a mountain range to divide a continent. Species were halved by these geologic changes, and then each of the halved species evolved into two different species. The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins called this process the “Long Goodbye”.
A political “Long Goodbye” is underway in America. It wasn’t triggered by a geologic cleavage, but rather by a philosophic upheaval. Americans now have two very distinct philosophies about the nature and role of government. The divide between the two perspectives has become unbridgeable.
In other words, we have become two separate political species, and we will never be able to become one again. Our philosophical differences are so stark that they can’t be reconciled. Here are some examples:
One side sees freedom as protection from aggression and coercion by other people, even if it means greater individual risk. The other side sees freedom as an escape from self-responsibility and risk, even it means aggressing against other people to gain protection and sustenance.
One side sees the role of government as a protector of life, liberty, and property. The other side sees government as a tool for imposing on the lives, liberty, and property of others.
One side believes that each person owns their self and what they produce. The other side believes that the collective owns each person and what they produce.
One side believes that you are responsible for yourself and not for everybody else. The other side believes that you are responsible for everyone else but not for yourself.
One side believes that moral virtue is necessary in order to make the right decisions in life, because you are responsible for the messes you create. The other side believes that moral virtue is unnecessary because the state will make your decisions and clean up your messes after you.
One side believes that our political structure should be a limited Constitutional Republic comprised of sovereign individuals. The other side believes that our political structure should be a centralized nanny state with unlimited and ever-expanding powers.
One side believes that wealth is created through individual initiative, risk-taking, and capital accumulation. The other side believes that wealth magically comes into existence and the only challenge is how to divide it up.
One side believes that justice is getting for your own actions what you deserve from your loved ones, your peers, and the world at large. The other side believes that justice is taking whatever you want because of class envy or some presumed grievances of the past.
One side believes in pursuing truth through honest inquiry, freedom of speech, and freedom of thought. The other side believes in imposing dogma through censorship, indoctrination, and a “cancel” culture.
One side believes that national borders exist to rationally assimilate legal immigrants into a society of laws. The other side believes that there should be a borderless one-world government so that there is no other rational society to flee to if the government becomes oppressive.
One side believes that each person is responsible for themselves and is entitled only to freedom of action. The other side believes that each person is responsible for nothing and is entitled to everything.
Take a moment to ponder the implications of the differences described above. In each difference, there is little possibility of reconciliation, even though we often express political urges to “unite”, “compromise”, and “work together”. When all of the above differences are considered together in the cold light of reason, the verdict is startlingly obvious – America is home to two separate political species. Neither side would freely choose to live under the philosophical premises of the other. Both sides are embroiled in bitter acrimony. Violence is already starting to erupt.
Our philosophies are diametrically opposed. There is no moderate position or middle ground to take between them, despite our good-willed attempts to imagine that there is. We call ourselves Americans, but that common descriptor lost its meaning at the same pace as the Constitution lost its sacredness. America’s demise can be mourned but it can’t be undone. Every attempt to merge the two philosophic camps into one only leads to more conflict, chaos, and violence. It’s like trying to blend oil and water – the two compounds will always separate from each other.
The Long Goodbye has already started in America, so there is no going back. Evolution only works in one direction. The best that we can do now is to amicably go our separate ways by turning the philosophic separation into a geographic one. Let the Great Sorting Process begin as people and families migrate to like-minded regions of the country. And then split the self-sorted nation in two as each half simultaneously secedes from the diseased central government. Each half can then adopt a form of government that is consistent with its philosophical and cultural underpinnings. That was in essence the great message of our Declaration of Independence. It is as relevant today as it was in 1776.
If we don’t find a way to do this peacefully, it will happen violently in the form of another civil war. We are now two different species that cannot coexist amicably in the same environment. The safest and best thing each side can do right now is to simply say “Farewell” to the other side.
It will be a sorrowful goodbye. All permanent ones are.
(Written by James Keena, author of the riveting new novel “2084: American Apocalypse”. Discover more of his works at www.jameskeena.com.)
I wish that I could foresee another way out of this quagmire, but your words ring true. They are both liberating and painful at the same time.
I feel exactly the same way.
This is not accurate. Evolution can span over millennia but it can also occur swiftly. Also, I disagree on the “Long Goodbye”. If this was truly the case, then the “Long GoodBye” would have occurred after the civil war. Your perspective is also one sided. You see the other “side” as some “bad or evil ideology who hates their country. Are you now the one causing the polarization? Your “side” is right and that is the only way to look at things? The world isn’t black or white. Most people live in the grey and tend to drift to black or white depending on the topic. The same with politics. Secession is for the weak minded who do not want to truly listen. It is only their way and them surrounding themselves with “like” minded individuals. I’m sure Kim Jong Un or Putin are fans of this thinking. If you form your own island, you might evolve to your own surroundings but eventually you will die out due to lack of diversity.
Hi David: I don’t agree with what you wrote, particularly the part about not being willing to listen. As the moderator of this site, I could have chosen to reject your post, but I didn’t, because I am not afraid of dialogue about any of these issues. When you say that secession is for the weak-minded, you are at the same time suggesting that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al, were weak-minded for seceding from the British Empire. At some point you have to stand up for what you believe in and do the bold thing. I don’t consider trying to reason with the statists in Washington to be a bold thing. Rather, it is a fool’s errand. I would rather follow in the footsteps of the Founders than in the footsteps of the Neville Chamberlain’s of the world.
You will die either way.
Excellent – great job. As a last-ditch effort, I’m proposing a mass movement to file our income tax returns with addendums that allow the taxpayers to pick and choose which government programs they want and don’t want to be funded and how much of their tax liability would go to them. It would force our representatives to represent us in helping us pick and choose the programs we want instead of special interests. The worst that could happen is the IRS refuses to accept our returns and we just remove the addendum and refile, meeting our alleged obligation. With over 130 different taxes and regulatory fees there is plenty of money to continue with their pork barrel projects so they have no excuse to deny us this constitutional “right”. http://rightofchoice.org We obviously now have the technology to easily accomplish this.
Thanks for the feedback. As you suggest, there are many opportunities for civil disobedience, and testing the limits of the IRS code is one of them (perhaps a risky one). But my perspective is that we have reached the limits of what we should tolerate from the extra-constitutional activities of the federal government, and we are on sound moral ground for resisting.
I don’t know that the your country (or mine, Canada) is as divided as you propose. I beleive there are many who are as libertarian in their personal interactions, who beleive thay are responsible for themselves and their actions, and would never commit aggresion against their fellow man. But they ask, “What about the poor?” They have empathy. Not only that, but they have been educated in government-run schools to obey authority and wear masks. And they probably haven’t memorized the Constitution and Bill of Rights or understand why they are so important. They beleive government is benificent, when in reality it is the legal mafia.
“If we assault, cheat, or steal from our neighbours, we create animosity and strife in our neighbourhood. Somehow we believe that these same actions will create harmony and abundance when undertaken for the common good in our community, state, and world.”
– Mary Ruwart, Healing Our World
The quote from Ruwart that you provided is very telling. America is more divided than most people think, only because they haven’t though deeply enough about it, down to the level of fundamental principles. But the divisions are becoming more apparent every day. We have two sets of media, two sets of facts, two sets of political wish lists, and two sets of values. We are growing farther apart each day.
First let me agree with your idea that there are “makers” and “takers” in our society.
My point is that we are not divided into two groups. There is a third group who have accepted the idea that the “system” is responsible for poverty, that poor people are not reponsible for their position. Instead, they are victims of “the system.” Thanks to the “War on Poverty” launched by the government, not just poor people accept this idea. The uninteded consequence was that there was no longer any incentive for those on welfare to try to better themselves.
The problem didn’t start with the war on poverty or drugs. I recall a story of Davy Crockett talking to a constituent when he was a member of congress. The constituent told Crockett that he could no longer vote for him because he had voted to provide $20,000 in charity to victims of a massive fire. “The money was not yours to give” he said. (https://fee.org/resources/not-your-to-give/) Was this the thin edge of the wedge that changed the philosophy of government to one of protecting citizens to “helping” them. Did this motivate some smart organization to send an executive to congress to lobby for ‘help’? Today the only ones closely watching and talking to our representatives are lobbyists. Maybe we need to question our “representatives” about why they support theft and robbery, and why they think they have a right to tell me what I may and may not do? Most effective if asked in front of an audience. Probably more effective than an addendum on your tax return.