Red states are building a nation within a nation
BY Herschel Smith
2 years, 3 months ago
CNN.
It was a revealing sign of the times when the Supreme Court last week, in response to a lawsuit from the Republican state attorneys general in Texas and Louisiana, blocked President Joe Biden’s administration from changing a key element of federal immigration policy.
The case was just the latest example of how red states, supported by Republican-appointed judges, are engaging in a multi-front offensive to seize control of national policy even while Democrats hold the White House and nominally control both the House and Senate. The red states are moving social policy sharply to the right within their borders on issues from abortion to LGBTQ rights and classroom censorship, while simultaneously working to hobble the ability of either the federal government or their own largest metro areas to set a different course.
Right out of the gate, the author makes the same mistake all progressives make. Since they are mostly comprised of flunkies and lackeys who await instructions from their “leaders” on what to believe, what to say and what to do, they assume the entire world behaves that way.
The problem the author never points to because of his bias is the root of the issue. More on that momentarily.
To a degree unimaginable even a decade ago, this broad offensive increasingly looks like an effort to define a nation within a nation — one operating with a set of rules and policies that diverge from the rest of America more than in almost any previous era.”
The only time I can recall in American history even remotely like this [divergence] was after the Civil War when the separate but equal doctrine began to emerge” across the South as a backlash against the attempts of the 13th, 14th and 15th Constitutional amendments to ensure equality for the freed slaves, says Donald Kettl, the former dean of the public policy school at the University of Maryland and author of the book, “The Divided States of America.” He added, “It’s a multifront war with very sharp swords.”
The elements of the red state offensive include a flurry of lawsuits seeking to block actions from Biden’s administration on issues from the environment to civil rights to immigration; other lawsuits, such as the case around a Mississippi law that prompted the Supreme Court to overturn the right to abortion, aimed at providing states more leeway to deviate from previously nationally guaranteed rights; a flurry of red state laws that advance the cultural priorities of the GOP’s predominantly White Christian electoral base; and a steady flow of red state statutes blocking Democratic-leaning large cities and counties from setting their own policies on everything from police budgets to recycling.
The willingness of so many red states to adopt these common approaches testifies in part to the energetic organizing efforts of many conservative groups, from Heritage Action and the American Legislative Exchange Council to the Republican Attorneys General Association. But even more profoundly, the alignment of so many red states behind this shared agenda and strategy underscores how many of them are being shaped by a common set of economic and demographic trends.
You see, by finding no right mentioned in the constitution to abortion, the Supreme Court is denying “civil rights,” while failing to mention the one most significant right discussion, that of the RKBA which underlies all of the others.
And don’t fail to note that the author mentions formalized groups such as the AG association. He fails to understand that these AGs are elected and are doing the bidding of their constituency. In other words, this is as grass roots a movement as any in the history of the country. The people are deciding to seek distance from FedGov. The author doesn’t like it, but cannot seem to understand the root cause.
On everything from gun ownership and religious affiliation to reliance on fossil fuels and participation (or not) in the 21st century information economy, most red states are following similar tracks, while diverging more sharply from the experience in blue states. Broadly speaking, blue states are more heavily exposed to the big demographic, cultural and economic forces reshaping American life, while red states are less exposed, and to the extent they are, those changes are centered overwhelmingly on their large metropolitan areas, which are trending Democratic and often — like in Austin or Atlanta — are a target for the Republicans controlling state government.
“It’s not at the level of Jim Crow, or certainly the difference between slave states and free states, but the differences are major,” says Jake Grumbach, a University of Washington political scientist who studies divergence among the states. And like Kettl, Grumbach believes the economic and political differences between the red and blue states are on track to only widen.
Once again, those concerned for sovereign borders and the RKBA are compared to Jim Crow. In other words, they are racists.
Yet the real threat in the red state effort to set their own course may be less an advantage for one side or another than a challenge to the nation’s underlying cohesion. As red states grow more aggressive about going their own way, while working to preempt challenges from above (the federal government) or below (blue local governments), they are testing how much divergence the nation’s fundamental cohesion can take before it begins to unravel.
“You have a very dangerous situation,” said David Leopold, a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and legal adviser to the immigration advocacy group America’s Voice. “This is a direct threat to the nation as a unified entity. This is one step closer to the country dividing into two separate countries.”
It isn’t the progressives pushing open borders, spending money we don’t have, engaging in globalism, pushing worldwide wars, pushing fake pandemics, and pressing for abortion on demand, who are “testing how much divergence the nation’s fundamental cohesion can take before it begins to unravel.” In their world and life view, it’s anyone who doesn’t share their goals and seeks others. You see, it’s your fault, not theirs.
And finally, note that the author and his “experts,” while laudably noting that there are massive problems afoot, still miss the boat on the magnitude of them. They see the current events as a precursor to the beginning of the unraveling.
Here’s a news flash for them. The great unraveling began long, long ago, and is proceeding apace today. It has just become so obvious now that they cannot ignore it.
Yes, the country may divide into two separate countries if the opposing forces seek a peaceful divorce. That would be best for all parties. Without that, their worst fears will obtain.
My money is on the fact that they don’t even having an inkling of what that would look like. That doesn’t bode well.
On July 29, 2022 at 12:41 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “Red states are building a nation within a nation”
The left is always outraged – or pretends to be – when their very own tactics are turned against them. They’ve apparently never heard the old folk saying: “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”
Christopher Caldwell, the author of the book, “The Age of Entitlement” (2020), puts forth a thesis which explains much about the bifurcation of the United States since the 1960s, namely that the cultural left has been busy since that time constructing what amounts to a parallel society or state within a state, since that time. One which exists and functions according to its own rules, imperatives and values – right alongside what remains of the America of the Founders.
The inflection point, according to Caldwell’s hypothesis, was the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which served as a cultural and legal/judicial jumping off point for those who wished to reshape the U.S. into something else than the Founders intended. He also mentions the passage of the Hart-Cellar Act, also known as the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, which was passed in the same euphoria (if that is the proper term) high-hopes surrounding the civil rights act.
The late great economist, author and thinker Dr. Walter Williams used to publish every year a column in which he called for the peaceful separation of the United States into two (or more) separate entities.
Williams, a genuine patriot with a penetrating intellect, did not like the idea of abandoning the Founder’s vision of a United States, but felt that in view of the evidence, a mutual parting of ways was preferable to a horrible conflict of the kind fought 1861-1865. Williams saw, as many others have now seen, that these United States have not been one nation and one people in a very long time.
Many have noted that one of the defining features of the communist worldview is that to a communist ideologue and true believer, all must join their movement. None must dissent, none must be permitted to go his own way. In light of this fanaticism, it will be fascinating to see if a peaceful separation is even possible, to avoid something far worse.
Of course, the best outcome would be to find a way to make our country whole again, one nation and one people, but prudence and our knowledge of history tell us that is probably wishful thinking at this juncture. The only way that they – the communists – will consent to being “one nation and one people,” is if it is done their way. And roughly half of Americans won’t consent to that.
The answer to this impasse is right in front of the radicals, but they either can’t or won’t see it: A return to federalism as the founders originally wanted. A decentralization of national life back to the level of the states, cities, counties and townships. Political scientists call this principle “subsidiarity,” which simply means pushing agency and power down as far as possible towards the people who will be most-impacted by policy decisions.
That notion runs against the grain of the entirety of leftist doctrine and habit of the last half century or more, though, so good luck getting them to sign on to it.
They’re like the Borg in “Star Trek: The Second Generation” … ‘All must be assimilated…’
Re: “Yes, the country may divide into two separate countries if the opposing forces seek a peaceful divorce. That would be best for all parties. Without that, their worst fears will obtain.”
Regretfully, that is how I see it also. I never thought I’d live to witness the break-up of these United States, but history tells us that no nation and no people are immune from such events and historical forces.
On July 29, 2022 at 12:48 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “‘You have a very dangerous situation,’ said David Leopold, a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and legal adviser to the immigration advocacy group America’s Voice. ‘This is a direct threat to the nation as a unified entity. This is one step closer to the country dividing into two separate countries.'”
Given the fact that immigration lawyers are, as a species, de facto parasites grown fat and happy off the destruction of the country and the usurpation of our laws and customs, Mr. Leopold isn’t worried about the health of the United States, a nation he probably disdains or even hates… rather, his concern is probably for his “rice bowl,” i.e., the lucrative little racket he has going.
If the dark cloud of our nation cracking up has a bright lining, it is that flim-flam men like this clown will be put out of business and be forced to seek honest work for a change.
On July 29, 2022 at 3:57 am, RomeoCharlieWhiskey said:
Eight and a half years ago, Colin Woodward in column titled “Up in Arms” (see: https://now.tufts.edu/2014/01/27/arms) summarized his book “American Nations”.
He asserts that “there’s never been an America, but rather several Americas—each a distinct nation. There are eleven nations today. Each looks at violence, as well as everything else, in its own way.”
I think he was/is/will be proven to be right; there may be even more nations now with immigration trends the past two decades. Of course, the devil is in the details of how these “nations” (mis)behave/interface and what happens when the differences are irreconcilable?
On July 29, 2022 at 4:38 am, Joe Blow said:
The sheer hubris….
Why aren’t these people doing what we tell them they need to do!!!! What is wrong with THEM?
On July 29, 2022 at 5:02 am, Fred said:
The left won’t allow peaceful separation. Their desire to control others combined with know-it-all hubris will lead to war.
On July 29, 2022 at 6:17 am, Nosmo said:
To reinforce the point, our country is “The United States of America,” not “An All-Powerful National Government With Fifty Insignificant Subdivisions.”
The founders, in their wisdom, chose to create a structure in which the individual political, social and economic units – states – were assured independence and liberties within a larger, minimally constrictive political, social and economic environment which also provided for mutual support.
As for the “national divorce” recommended, or accepted, by some, that comes with its own severe problems. First, giving half of the country to those who neither built it nor currently support it is anathema – they have not earned it. Second, the nature of leftists is to never be satisfied with less than the whole; giving them half will only make them want the other half more, a condition which guarantees strife.
It would be very much preferable to reach peaceful accommodation but I suspect that is unattainable; the inevitable result will be difficult but necessary.
On July 29, 2022 at 8:06 am, Bill Buppert said:
Government supremacists assume that the threat and use of violence is the only means to bind people together hence they are puzzled by those unwilling to submit to their schemes of creating Homo Sovieticus.
Newton’s Third Law always has a vote in mass human relationships.
On July 29, 2022 at 9:20 am, George 1 said:
@Fred
Agreed. The left won’t allow for a peaceful exit.
Also how will the great replacement affect the outcome? It looks right now like the vax is causing about a 10% additional excess death rate. In a few countries where the birth rate was measured against norms the vax seems to cause a drop of about 12%.
Since the millions of Obama’s and his puppet Biden’s new “Americans” will most likely not be getting vaxed, you will have a greatly increased rate of replacement even when compared to the already disastrous replacement levels pre vax. How will that bode for any succession movement in the long run?
Or it might be that the Blue Hives have a much higher vax rate and that it works to our advantage. Anyway, we live in interesting times.
On July 29, 2022 at 9:41 am, Blake said:
The communists do not like the idea of federalism. It takes more time and money to get the results they’re after if they have to fight on multiple fronts. Hence their efforts at creating law via the judiciary and push for a more powerful central government.
On July 29, 2022 at 12:27 pm, Paul B said:
The only divide right now is the part that thinks the rule of law applies to all and those who don’t.
Anyone who supports Biden on the lawless side.
On July 29, 2022 at 2:17 pm, Rick said:
RE: end of.a nation
‘History tells us …’ (all nations fall) as if the end of America is a forgone conclusion.
Yet is every other aspect when ‘history tells us …’ is it then perceived as, with the knowledge gotten by history, we may act to change the outcome.
Here I ask yet again (since none in favor of breakup have provided a satisfactory answer):
How a we become stronger, or, not suffering the loss of vitality by ceding lands and infrastructure to the enemy?
How do you propose to maintain peace in coexistence with your adversary who is and has been noted as aggressive and demanding?
On July 29, 2022 at 3:48 pm, Fred said:
I don’t need to be stronger; I need to be honorable before Jehovah. Having no part with the unclean thing is the peaceful solution, bringing honor in separation and in righteous living thereafter. I don’t need them or their government; I have my King, my Law, and my kingdom. I need just enough government that I never come into contact with it forever.
Being “stronger” by making war for fun and profit? I can only imagine how the wrath of God is kindled.
On July 29, 2022 at 6:55 pm, Fred said:
@George 1, many think that those being imported under the great replacement are a single entity, but they are not. The Mexicans hate the Central Americans, and the Columbians and Venezuelans don’t much care for each other either; those are just two examples. There’s a reason central and South America isn’t one big happy country.
On July 30, 2022 at 11:21 am, William said:
Nation: “an historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity and/or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture”
(Nation derives from “natal” (“of birth”), thus with an emphasis upon common ethnicity)
State: “a group of people with a collective identity, who are organized by some form of institutionalized social relations, and have a capacity to mobilize resources within a defined geographic territory”
The USA began as a nation (of free white people of good character (see Naturalization Act of 1790)) but has since devolved into a state, a hodge-podge of competing, antagonistic groups inhabiting the same geograhic area, bound together only by economics. For example, see Pramila Jayapal, Rashisa Tlaib, Kshama Sawant, Ilhan Omar and many others like them – born abroad or first generation: how and why are they here? Are they here for the Constitution (that they tear down as their life mission), or did they arrive for the economics, the good life? Are they able to sustain this civilization created by white men?
Economically-derived bonds won’t last once the economic reset occurs. One day, this state will spin apart into tribal nations, and this will be a good thing, having been the way the world has been organized since God first created the nations at the Tower of Babel.
On July 30, 2022 at 11:58 am, MTHead said:
This nation was given to us by God. We have refused to protect it. We did the work of building it. But we didn’t keep our swords handy.
God is always willing to turn back to us, if we will turn to him.
And we should no longer be willing to tolerate the evil that turned God’s blessing hand away from us.
They don’t get part of OUR country. God gave it to Christ’s believers. A moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to any other.
If you don’t understand that, or just can’t abide it? You have no place here. You will not be allowed to stay. Nor live off the blessing God gave our children.
War is coming.
And justice will be served. Very cold if necessary.
On July 30, 2022 at 9:46 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Fred
Re: “@George 1, many think that those being imported under the great replacement are a single entity, but they are not. The Mexicans hate the Central Americans, and the Columbians and Venezuelans don’t much care for each other either; those are just two examples. There’s a reason central and South America isn’t one big happy country.”
What you’ve just described is called by historians “Balkanization,” after that region of SE Europe famous in history for its instability and almost constant tribal-ethnic infighting.
A nation of people who share a common ancestry, culture, language, and borders are less-likely to need/want a large and powerful government to keep things together and running smoothly, but heterogeneous states in which dissimilar peoples share little other than living in close proximity to one another, they tend to “need” large and authoritarian governments to avoid going to pieces.
The de facto Balkanization of the U.S. therefore, serves the interests of the statists, those who want large and powerful government. The turmoil, chaos and unrest which seem to characterized highly-Balkanized societies serve as a ready pretext for the expansion of government power, especially the power/scope of central government.
Turning once “high IQ – high trust” societies into “low trust – low IQ” societies serves the same purpose, which is another reason for the – shall we say – “darkening” of the North American population. The America of the Founders was largely populated with people from northern and western Europe, but the “Great Replacement” allows them to substitute in peoples from places accustomed to strongly authoritarian, even tyrannical, governments.
If you are a hypothetical newcomer from certain parts of the Middle East or Africa, all you’ve ever known in your former homeland is the ‘strong man on horseback’ figure. The ruling class believes that such imports will be less-likely to complain if that’s what they find here in the former USA.
On July 31, 2022 at 9:39 pm, Fred said:
@GB, agree in all points.