In a recent tweet, US Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene called for an American “national divorce” (read: secession), citing irreconcilable differences between the political left and right. According to Greene, the right is “absolutely disgusted and fed up” with the left’s lack of “respect for [the right’s] religion/faith, traditional values, and economic and government policy beliefs.”
Bipartisan pressures have indeed been mounting, to the effect of a tense political climate. The natural solution, according to Greene’s hasty clarification, is not actual secession, but to create two separate constitutional and economic structures under a union with mere nominal value. And to diminish the already quite minimal reach of the federal government.
The US indeed hosts a great deal of political polarity and fragmentation, but pluralism is a virtue of democracy, albeit an inconvenient one at times. Greene and her supporters’ grievances boil down to an objection to democracy.
No matter how many times we bisect a region and shrink the size of the political community in question, opposition will exist within it, insofar as democracy is allowed to persist. The purpose of a democratic structure is to channel this multiplicity into a just and coherent system.
Further, Greene’s proposal is theoretically inconceivable. It hinges on the false assumption that red and blue states exist in pure, highly saturated shades that can be sorted into two neat piles. But the reality is that a blue state is really blueish and a red state is just reddish. Even in the most Republican state,Wyoming, where 67.4 percent of voters voted for Donald Trump in 2016, there are blue pockets. Ironically, Greene’s home state of Georgia voted blue in 2020 and is currently represented by two Democratic senators: John Ossoff and Raphael Warnock.
And a constitutional mechanism for secession simply does not exist—the 1869 Supreme Court ruling of Texas v. White cemented the indestructibility of the Union. It is possible, however, to transfer more competences from the federal level to the state level, for federalism to be stretched to extremity.
Greene’s notoriety for conspiracy theories makes it easy to dismiss her current bout as just another one of her ravings—this is the very same Congresswoman who attributed wildfires to Jewish space lasers and was a devout QAnon supporter. However, she is now part of the House of Representatives majority, part of the Homeland Security Committee’s majority, and is a close confidante and advisor of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Never before has she had so much political influence. Regardless of their nonsensicalness, her words carry weight.
Greene’s proposition echoes sentiments that are rampant in the modern American political scene and in broader society. She is certainly not alone in her thinking. Over 34 percent of American voters agree with her stance, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll. Widely held policy preferences, ludicrous as they may be, are not negligible in a democracy.
The January 6 Capitol attack looms in recent memory as a stern reminder of how much the US is still susceptible to partisan unreason, rage, and hysteria. Civil War tendencies have not been abandoned centuries in the past. While the term “divorce” insinuates a legal, even amicable separation, it would be nothing of the sort. Divided as the US may be, the semblance of American unity is a binding force. Although an American partition would take place under a frail “union,” any current illusion of togetherness would dissolve. It only takes a glance at the bloody, decades-long fallout of India’s 1947 partition to see how dangerous “national divorce” can be, especially when infused with such vehement antagonism.
Greene’s proposed schism, then, ought to be regarded as a dire possibility. But states’ existing abundance of power is problematic and need not be augmented. Rather, the US would benefit from more federal oversight.
Many prominent topics in American politics run parallel to a conversation about the interplay between states and the federal government. Abortion, gun laws, public education, marijuana legalization—all of these issue areas call into question the merit of states’ current autonomy. The debate over federalism is indeed an incessant theme in American politics.
For example, the 2022 Supreme Court decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was one of the first steps in Greene’s scheme of radical federalism. The ruling upended the long-held system that safeguarded the right to abortion across the country. States’ individual policy preferences could not curb women’s bodily autonomy. Prudent federalism once protected women’s rights.
States have since been granted the right to strip their residents of reproductive rights. In the mere months since the ruling, thirteen US states have instituted abortion bans, most of which include clauses of “no exceptions for rape or incest.” Federal curtailing and that of reproductive rights went hand in hand.
The American public education system is also defective, largely to the credit of federalism. It was designed in the Reconstruction Era with two founding principles: racial segregation and funding by local property taxes. White schools were, in effect, well-funded, whereas black schools tended to be dismally financed.
The Supreme Court decision of Board v. Brown ruled segregation unconstitutional in 1954, but de facto segregation with unequal funding persisted because the federal government lacked the mechanisms to enforce the ruling, as well as direct control over local finances and politics. Six years after the decision, only 6.4% of Black students attended school alongside white students.
Due to a tethered federal government, states and polities with racist policy preferences were able to uphold racist practices, even when doing so was technically illegal. Distributive measures have since been implemented in a corrective effort. However, these are superficial, as the basic structure remains. While the specific ratio of state to local funding varies by state policy, the federal government covers a scant ten percent of the funding. Public schools in wealthy, generally white neighborhoods are still endowed with superior resources, infrastructure, and opportunities. The truly equalizing solution would involve a lessened reliance on local property taxes and an extended reach of the federal government.
It is virtually impossible to locate a golden age of American unity. Fractures are endemic to American politics, as are secessionist impulses. But it is not disunion or heightened federalism that will solve the US’s political woes. Greene’s proposal would only amplify them.
Commentaires