Sometimes secession works: Why it won’t work for the US

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) February tweet calling for “a national divorce” to “separate by red states and blue states” was widely criticized, with Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) calling it “insanity.”

Nevertheless, the pronouncement does resonate with a sizable percentage of the American electorate. Recent movements like Yes California have called for a national divorce along political lines and Frank Buckley’s “American Secession” argues that it’s the right solution to growing polarization. A March Axios poll shows that 20 percent of Americans favor a national divorce.

While this sentiment is largely the result of pronounced political polarization, it is a bad idea. It is the wrong solution to a real problem.

Advocates of secession in America typically make one of two arguments. The first argument stresses irreconcilable differences in ideology. So-called red state and blue state Americans take fundamentally opposed positions on matters such as abortion, gay rights and the environment. Rather than work through these issues, it is best if the two sides acknowledge the cleavage and separate.

The second argument is that smaller states are better because they are more ideologically and culturally homogenous. In their 2003 book, “The Size of Nations,” Alberto Alesina and Enrico Spoloare contended that the main benefit of smallness is that it brings the center of decision-making closer to local preferences.

In my book, “Secession and the Sovereignty Game: Strategy and Tactics for Aspiring Nations,” I argue that it is a difficult and sometimes tortured process. Most secessionist efforts fail and many of them result in violence.

Secession can be a good solution in the right circumstances. South Sudan joined the international community after decades of conflict with Sudan. Bougainville may become the next sovereign state in the coming years, a happy outcome for the Bougainvilleans who fought a brutal civil war against Papua New Guinea in the 1990s. There are roughly 70 contemporary secessionist movements in the world, and some percentage of them will achieve their goal.

But to propose secession as a solution to American polarization is to misdiagnose the problem. In every contemporary secessionist movement, from the Catalans to the Kurds, there is a distinct nation or ethnic group that is regionally concentrated. These nations can differentiate themselves from the majority nation of the state by pointing to linguistic or religious or historical cultural differences. This is not the case in America.

Consider the first argument regarding ideological differences. Although many Americans do identify strongly as blue democrats or red republicans, these individuals are not neatly sorted into specific regions. Many Americans hold moderate and somewhat flexible political views. And there is no ethnonational divide that corresponds with partisanship.

A secessionist divide into a larger blue and larger red state would therefore require an unmixing of the two populations in which dissatisfied families would have to relocate to their preferred state. This is called partition, and it only happens in war-torn societies such as India/Pakistan and Cyprus, which were imperiled by ethnic cleansing.

Simply put, secession is a political solution for an ethnonational problem among regionally concentrated populations. The problem in America is one of political polarization.

Now consider the second argument on the virtues of smallness. It is true that smaller political units can bring decision-making closer to home. But this is one of the key arguments for federalism, one that was highlighted as early as The Federalist Papers. The United States Constitution provides a mechanism for determining at what level — state or federal — decisions should be made.

There is already a system in place for striking a balance between the powers of local and national governments. Why not work within that system rather than go down a path that is uncertain and full of peril?

Additionally, although marital divorce is often compared to secession, it is a poor analogy. Whereas the process of divorce is controlled by domestic law, there is no decided-upon law that governs secession. There is no worked-out procedure, let alone precedent, for dividing the estate. How should national debt be distributed? What about Social Security? What about national defense and the American military?

A pernicious problem with secession is the “minority-within-minority” problem. Since not everyone will be happy with the state they are seceding into, should they not be given the right to secede themselves? There is a recursive character to secession, one that was noted by President Abraham Lincoln when he criticized the Confederacy. To paraphrase him, it was better to choose blood than risk continued dissolution.

Secessionist ambitions produce further polarization. A common refrain from Scots and Catalans in recent years is that the loudest voices on both sides of the debate are typically the most radical and that they have lost friends and family members in the resulting polarization.

Finally, secession regularly produces violence. Political scientist Barbara Walter claimed that secession is the chief source of violence in the world today. It is a divisive process full of uncertainty.

There are strong arguments for why America should stay together. The country is a global leader, an advocate for democracy and individual freedom and a military power that can deter foreign aggression. These capabilities would all be diminished if the country split up.

The current polarization in America is a problem, but it is one that needs to be worked out through dialogue. Frank discussions and counseling are a far better solution than divorce.

Ryan D. Griffiths is an associate professor of political science at Syracuse University who studies secession movements.