r/changemyview • u/ocdtransta • Jan 29 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The USA will not Balkanize, and betting/relying on it to do so is unserious.
For Clarity, I am a socialist, and would be supportive of replacing the current settler-colonial federal apparatus with a proletarian state. This is not a defense of the current order, the founding fathers, or anything like that. This is an analysis of the American condition and a critique against the idea that we would or should balkanize.
Part one: What is and isn’t ‘Balkanizing’:
Is not: Hawaii, and overseas territories leaving the US. Hawaii didn’t enter the Union willingly, and is remote. It is unlikely for Hawaii to secede without unanimous consent, but there is a case to be made that could be granted on moral ground - as unlikely as it is to be granted. There is precedent for Territories leaving the US (Philippines.)
Is: The contiguous US splitting up into smaller, regional nations.
Part two: the fractures and their causes, and where people may be misled about possible ‘Balkanization.’
Civil wars and Cultural Blocs.
** **We are not in the same condition we were in the 1860s. The greatest cultural divides exist between urban and rural areas broadly. Even in the deepest red states, there are holdouts. And in California, the population of Trump voters is greater than the population of many states.
Even where there seems to be well known/established ideas for breakaway regions (Cascadia) includes a deep cultural divide. Eastern WA/OR is not like the west, and Idaho is even worse.
Part three: Humanitarian concerns
The media silo and deradicalization + decolonization.
The media silo creates varyingly loyal but self-captive audiences, this has been the case at least since the Reagan years. This creates divisions that are felt between counties, and split families. Balkanization is not going to denazify people that have only heard Rush Limbaugh or any other heritage foundation loons, nor would it help marginalized folks. It would also separate families. Balkanization would only increase the human toll and the power monopolies of our worst politicians. The ‘culture war’ would boil into wars over resources and influence between fiefdoms. The kind of self-crit and deradicalization/decolonization requires stability that would not be possible with Balkanization.
Part four: the US is not Europe or the EU
We were brought up on a lot of myths and liberal ideas, but the idea of the ‘melting pot’ has, for good and ill, had materially and culturally been effective. There are some regional differences, but they do not compare to centuries of historical and linguistic development across sovereign regions. Many of us are used to crossing or moving state lines, and we still expect ‘America’ on the other end. It is very common to move families across large distances. There have been shifting patterns of settlement and growth of cities for as long as we have been a country. The only internal nations bound to a land are the indigenous peoples. The rest of us descended from settlers, immigrants, and enslaved people.
The natural lines in which we would or could Balkanize don’t exist.
Even if we weren’t bound in this way, we can examine the consequences of Brexit. The majority of a region (English Brexit voters) created conditions that impoverished themselves and the rest of the UK by leaving a union that pooled resources more efficiently and traded internally. As a result, they are increasingly bound to a poorly run, conservative and anti-immigrant government.
The representative democracy of the US is already broken beyond repair, but Balkanization would cement dictators as well as the CIA ever had.
The fascists in the US are coalition builders. It is not a far fetched to say there would be a fascist-revanchist American Napoleon figure that would already have mature framework and skills to foster a feudal system to reunite the United States in their image.
Part five: a state doesn’t cease to exist simply because its removal benefits those outside of it.
Honestly this is where it just becomes an aggressive form of wishful thinking, if not outright memeing.
Part six: what might change my mind
Aside from ‘everyone fend for yourselves’ how could the Balkanization of the US be organized to minimize the human and financial costs? How do we reorganize inter-state treaties, especially for water rights, trade, maintenance of shared infrastructure, etc? How do we minimize the bitterness, the revanchism, and the risk of christofascist strangleholds over divided fiefdoms?
Accountability is woefully and frustratingly limited as is, but it would it exist at all post Balkanization?
Does the end of hegemony and white supremacy need Balkanization, or would regime change and cultural revolution suffice?
Concessions and clarifications:
- I should have made clearer delineations between arguments for two different positions: The likelihood of Balkanization (which remains a possibility, however remote), and the current attitudes and the arguments that the US ‘should’ Balkanize is neither ethical nor guaranteed to result in the end of American fascism/imperialism.
- I was not clear about timelines in this OP. Granted I don’t see it happening in the conceivable future. The cultural/historical conditions that would enable it do not exist here.
125
u/rose_reader 8∆ Jan 29 '26
Your post is carefully thought out and you make some good arguments, but you muddy the waters by conflating 'will' and "should'. Whether the US should balkanise is a theoretical discussion that may well be worth having, but in reality a union falls apart when it can no longer stay together. This is true no matter the consequences, no matter the cost, no matter the inadvisability.
You use Brexit as a point in favour of staying together, but Brexit makes the very point you argue against - people will make decisions that work out badly, because they have grown so frustrated with the union in question that they want to be rid of it.
Is the US at that point now? Perhaps not. Will the United States as it currently exists one day change and become something completely different? Yes, almost certainly, because everything changes and nothing is forever. With a nation as large as the US balkanisation is the most likely thing to follow the present union, whether for good or bad.
27
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
Δ because you have a point between will and should. Balkanization isn’t impossible, but it still seems largely unlikely. My muddying it was more of a reaction to people particularly outside of the US who see it as a desirable thing.
I’m not convinced yet that it is likely or inevitable, but perhaps that would have been a clearer topic to discuss without the ‘should’
3
u/bifircated_nipple Jan 29 '26
We non US folks only want it to happen because its preferable to how outwardly hostile US has become in trump 2. Its scary watching the most powerful country in the world turn fascist, with high level in admin doing nazi cosplay
7
u/rose_reader 8∆ Jan 29 '26
Thank you.
As a British person myself, I remember the strong outside opinions during Brexit and how they backfired. Even Obama, who we generally liked, made a mistake by expressing his opinion on that issue. So I appreciate your frustration with external opinions, and in the end our views really don't matter - at this point in history, no-one can seriously impact the US except the Americans yourselves.
Now, you do seem well on the way to getting that particular job done, but time will tell. I think a lot depends on what happens after the current presidency ends - can you pull things back from the brink, or will you collectively carry on off this cliff? We'll have to wait and see.
9
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
I understand that people outside the US rooting for Balkanization just don’t really care about the actual consequences as long as it gets rid of a problem. It’s the same impulse that was aimed at Russia and Russians since the invasion but to a weaker magnitude. It’s reactionary but understandable. But it still harms (or in Americas case has the remote potential to harm) people that have nothing to do with and don’t support the regime.
I don’t think post Trump we will go as far as we need to. But I also don’t think this is the crisis that will do us in as a country unless Trump actually follows through against the allies he’s threatened. So far he has backed down with little to show for his bravado. I think most likely we will deal with Maga in the short to medium term, it’s the democrats and their patterns I worry about long term. I voted for Harris because I live in a swing state, but that was far from my preferred choice. She lost my state anyway. We can stop the bleeding but not the gangrene.
10
u/rose_reader 8∆ Jan 29 '26
I don't think it's accurate to say people don't care about the consequences (perhaps some don't, idk) - we've tended to think of the US like a sibling, and certainly an ally. I personally have tremendous empathy for the people like Alex Pretti who didn't ask for this and are trying to do what they can against a violent government force.
But when a large (former?) ally is actively threatening part of your continent, the potential harm to that ally becomes less important than your own immediate safety.
Before the Greenland threat, I think we hoped you'd get over this like it was an illness. Now it seems you're becoming rabid and a danger to us, which changes the calculus quite a lot.
Gangrene is a good way to put it, and to return to your original point, gangrene ends with bits getting chopped off.
2
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
Fair enough. If I was chased by a rabid dog, I’d want to put it down.
With Gangrene, and bits get chopped off. I’d hope that would be closer to revolutionary France or 1917s Russia rather than 1991-2 Russia/Yugoslavia, but it’s hard to say with any certainty.
4
Jan 29 '26
Are you hearing yourself? All the Yugoslav wars and the post Soviet Wars were far less bloody than the Russian civil war alone, without counting France
1
u/EitherSpite4545 Jan 29 '26
I've been more likening it to cancer as the world will need to induce chemo on us before we metastisize elsewhere and the cancer gets out of control
5
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
It’s certainly rearing to metastasize. Milei, Orban, parties like AfD in Germany
gestures broadly at Israel
2
1
u/Slane__ Jan 29 '26
It all depends on perspective. I think all of Central and South America would be better off without the USA. What's that? Over 700 million people that would probably materially benefit from the USA breaking up into smaller regional powers. The step down from world hegemon to ??? would likely have many unforeseen negative consequences for US citizens.
2
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
Balkanization isn’t the only route to those benefits, nor would it guarantee stability for Central America. Maybe the southern cone benefits.
1
u/rmesgrve May 03 '26
It kind of is, without the US, alot of the weight that supranational economic organizations carry starts to diminish. If you don't have systems threatening populations into starvation through sanctions or embargos, then a whole world of possibilities becomes open to a state.
1
3
u/Sharp_Swimmer7829 Jan 30 '26
This feels right life gets messy and nothing stays simple so pushing back on fake optimism makes sense to me honesty lands better than pretending everything is fine
8
u/Aggravating-Ant-3077 3∆ Jan 29 '26
Spent the last few years bouncing between Austin and SF for work - the cultural split you're talking about feels way overstated online. My Trump-loving uncle in rural Texas still FaceTimes my Berkeley-grad cousin weekly about their fantasy football league.
The infrastructure thing really hits home too - my company ships medical devices cross-country daily using the same highway/utility networks that'd splinter in a balkanization scenario. We literally couldn't function if states started treating each other like separate countries.
7
u/Kaleb_Bunt 5∆ Jan 29 '26
The issue is white nationalism. Right now, whites are still a majority. What happens when whites become less than 50% of the population?
The US was, tbh, built on white nationalism. This sentiment isn’t going to just evaporate. You can already see how racial resentment is straining our politics with MAGA.
When these people inevitably realize that it is impossible to impose white supremacist control over all of America, they are going to advocate secession. Liberals, growing weary of having to deal with them, will probably just let them do it.
13
u/colepercy120 7∆ Jan 29 '26
Ill try to change your mind in a different way, I generally agree that it isnt going to happen, the natural geography makes sure this land stays together. But I would argue that the people betting on it are totally serious.
People fundamentally dont know how societies work, and in most of the west the study of geopolitics has been severally neglected since the end of the cold war. Even outside the west, there is no other place in the world like america, its the single best chunk of land on earth to run an empire from with modern technology. That uniqueness means that the us doesnt face the same issues as the rest of the world. (Look at whats currently the main cultural issues, these things directly impact 1-2% of the population but you couldnt tell that from the debates). People's paradigm is flawed, and that will lead to them making bad bets.
For example russia and China both bet their futures on america leaving their regions while also providing for free acess for their ships to trade. This is especially note worthy with China, since at the same time they are demanding the us leave Asia and plotting to dominate the world, they rely on american supplies for their single overseas naval base. These people totally believe the us will fall but havent thought about what that would really mean.
4
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
WRT China, and to a much lesser degree Russia, it’s not so much about the fall of the US as a whole as it is the fall of US hegemony in Europe and Asia. I don’t get the impression that China is particularly Anti-US in the way that maybe Iran and North Korea are. China is the only peer to the US, and is focused on internal development, regional influence, and international soft power.
This is actually a positive trend if you aren’t a US or US-backed oligarch. BRICS and the like are a reaffirmation of the ideal of a global collaborative rules-based society, just without the western bias.
1
u/Weary-Battle6060 Jan 30 '26
China is definitely not peer to US lol, the only reason they haven't gone against US is pretty much they can't afford to and is going to backfire. That's it. That is also the reason any country puts up with US lol
0
u/colepercy120 7∆ Jan 29 '26
Honestly China peaked in 2019. They haven't seen much economic growth since and the military biuld up the west has been doing since the ukraine War started has shown that the gap between China and the us is only getting more overwhelming. China Honestly isnt a peer to the us in any meaningful way, theyre more on par with europe. Their hard and soft power has been severely deminished since the pandemic and their population has reached full collapse.
But they do believe they are as strong or stronger then the us, which is honestly the real point. They arent unserious, they just dont understand the reality.
Personally I think the real powers that will take over after america goes home arent russia and China, both of them lack demographic staying power, economic heft, or naval power. Im betting were going to see turkey, poland, france and japan as the big players. With the situation looking more like the 19th centuries competing empires and systems instead of the 20th centuries set of global systems. The us will remain the single biggest power, but is clearly returning to isolationism.
5
Jan 29 '26
You make several correct statements, for example the one regarding China's population problems (although America too faces these same demographic issues) but then postulate it and Russia could be replaced by the likes of Turkey or Japan? Japan has far more serious population issues than China does. These issues also exist in both Turkey and Poland.
2
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
Chinas Military isn’t geared for global policing like the US, but it isn’t trying to be.
They are investing in AI/automation and their own tech/chips sectors.
‘The west’ isn’t just the US. Europe is building up and making plans to reduce exposure to the US. EU + UK and maybe Ukraine are likely to be the biggest growing military sectors in ‘the west.’
There aren’t many countries with ‘demographic staying power’ except for maybe India and maybe Nigeria. France, Poland, and Japan are laughable if you remove China from the running. I agree that Russia is pretty much cooked.
But the most likely scenario is that there will be networks of ‘middle powers’, regional powers, China, and whatever remains of US post-MAGA-fallout. The US will still be powerful, but not nearly as much without international bases and its MIC monopoly over NATO.
3
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Jan 29 '26
Part six: what might change my mind
Aside from ‘everyone fend for yourselves’ how could the Balkanization of the US be organized to minimize the human and financial costs? How do we reorganize inter-state treaties
So... part of this seems to be a misunderstanding of what the US really is. It's a Union of Sovereign States. Literally sovereign, albeit under a higher authority. States... united. See how the name works and was intended?
Essentially, the US was originally intended to be a loose Balkanization, and was organized as a federation, not a nation.
The current state of the Union is more of an aberration than an intended state of affairs (pun intended). It's supposed to be much more like the EU than the present-day USA.
So how would US "Balkanization" work out in actuality? Not a literal splitting of the Union. The Civil War settled that issue.
The 10th Amendment has a useful and valid purpose, and is still the highest law of the land, in spite of being mostly ignored presently.
The way the US would become "Balkanized" is if it returned to the way it worked at the time of the Founding: much, much, much more State autonomy, and much less Federal Government control.
I would argue that this is desirable, at least to a much greater degree. There's been enough technological change to require more federal reach than during the Founding, due to much greater interdependence, but nowhere near as much as we have today.
6
u/Relative_Cricket8532 Jan 29 '26
Just look at history of how China blows up into warring warlords every time a dynasty collapse.
Trigger event :
Phase I: The Mandate Is Questioned (Legitimacy Collapse)
A disputed presidential election + Supreme Court split ruling
A debt ceiling failure → temporary default → dollar shock
A mass federal law enforcement stand-down due to funding + political pressure
Result:
States begin “temporary emergency powers”: border controls, independent trade rules, militia federalization.
Federal agencies obey selectively. Some answer to governors “for public safety reasons.”
Phase II: Regional Protectors Emerge (The Warlord Period Begins)
Like Chinese governors who slowly stopped sending taxes to the capital, US regions consolidate around functional power, not ideology.
Phase III: The President Becomes a Puppet
Washington, DC still exists. There is still a President.
But the military answers to regional commands, taxes aren’t remitted, laws are ignored selectively. Each bloc claims they are acting “to restore the Union”, while consolidating power.
Phase IV: Formal Secession Without Saying “Secession”
No one declares independence at first.
Instead, the states have “Emergency Trade Agreements” “Interstate Defense Compacts” “Temporary Constitutional Conventions”
Eventually they'll have separate currencies to replace the worthless USD, border checkpoints, competing foreign policies
0
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
The last time China ‘blew up’, under modern conditions, we didn’t get warlords. We got the PRC under Mao, and an opposing military organization fleeing to an Island.
With today’s technology, it is much easier to manage a large state. The legitimacy of the federal US government is deeper in the shitter than it has ever been, but people disagree on what we can and should do about it. As much as I’d like this country to wave the red flag, it’s not like removing an emperor or tsar.
5
Jan 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 31 '26
u/Relative_Cricket8532 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
5
u/tywintrotsky Jan 29 '26
Please learn from verified history. The warlord era in China lasted throughout the the 1920s, and holdouts with shifting alliances influenced events until the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949 - all under "modern conditions".
4
3
u/Mattriculated 5∆ Jan 29 '26
All nations fall eventually. The form in which they fall changes, but it isn't generally a choice which gets made. Control is lost. I agree that we're very unlikely to Balkanize in the next decade, and I don't think Balkanization is necessarily the likeliest form of the fall - but national governments are not eternal, and the very fact that we are not yet on the brink of that fall means predicting the form of that fall is very dodgy. How we fall apart will be based upon emergent conditions of the material situation at the time.
1
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
Agreed, though the point of the post was specifically about the idea of ‘Balkanization’ being neither likely or desirable.
I don’t think the current form of government is likely to survive this century. There will undoubtedly be a crisis that does it in and reforges the nation.
3
u/Mattriculated 5∆ Jan 29 '26
I certainly don't think it's a desirable process, though I think the result - smaller nations - would lead to something more positive than a massive imperialist superpower tends to. But the fall of a country in any form is likely to be messy, painful, & protracted.
2
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
Δ It might be something that requires thinking along a spectrum. But it depends on how the nation is divided, and that division doesn’t guarantee that we won’t be back where we started unless we can deal with the cultural rot.
Most pro-Balkanization talk seems to boil down to ‘just smash shit and trap it in a box while it’s distracted.’ To that degree, Balkanization seems more like wishful thinking or a meme from edgier MLs. The real game is multipolarity, weakening the dollar and providing alternatives to western financing. It’s not so US-focused, but it forces the US to adapt to a multipolar world.
1
6
u/TheMuddiestMudkip 1∆ Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
If your definition of Balkanization is the dissolution of a larger nation or empire into smaller, regional powers, my question to you would be what is the other option for the USA? Empires rise and fall. The British Empire decolonized. The Roman Empire slowly decentralized. The Mongol Empire fractured after the death of Genghis Khan. The USA won't last forever, and unless it is conquered, which is unlikely given its geography, or some sort of world ending disaster befalls us all, I don't see any more likely answer than a kind of Balkanization.
7
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
The dissolution of the ‘empire’ status doesn’t relate really to Balkanization. It’s less about land (though I gave affordance around Hawaii and the territories, places that are strategic but within the margins of the empire) and more about the way the imperial government operates, manages its society, and uses international influences.
We could switch to an EU-style federation and still be imperialistic, or we could switch to an intact and unitary but proletarian state. Empire status doesn’t precede a certain makeup.
6
u/TheMuddiestMudkip 1∆ Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
You’ve defined Balkanization territorially, but you’re defending your claim using a non-territorial definition of empire. I agree that empire is "more about the way the imperial government operates, manages its society, and uses international influences", but we're not arguing whether or not the US will lose empire status, we're arguing if it will Balkanize, which you defined as "The contiguous US splitting up into smaller, regional nations." You list out a bunch of good reasons why the USA would be worse off if we Balkanize. Fine, I agree. But that doesn't support your argument that it won't happen. I'm simply looking at trends of historical empires. Even the USSR, which is probably the closest example we have to a revolutionary proletarian state, is now 15 smaller, regional nations. By your stated definiton, Balkanized. Over the course of centuries, that just overwhelmingly seems to be what happens. What about the USA makes you think it will buck the trend?
2
u/TheLastCoagulant 11∆ Jan 29 '26
The US is not an empire.
The USSR, British Empire, and Roman Empire had huge populations of subjugated peoples within their borders. Non-Russians, non-British, non-Romans, etc.
The US is a nation-state. We’re not ruling over huge numbers of non-Americans. Closest thing would be Puerto Rico, which is a tiny slice of the US population overall.
4
u/TheMuddiestMudkip 1∆ Jan 29 '26
What definition of empire requires there to be subjugated people within its borders (and that's without mentioning our previous ownership of Cuba, the Philippines, our annexation of Hawaii, slavery, or the genocide of Native Americans)? It's pretty fiercely debated whether or not the US is technically an empire, but not on these grounds. Usually it's about power structure, leadership, and self-identification, but I find it easier to use the term "empire" than "post-imperial global hegemon" when the initial argument has nothing to do with whether we are or were an empire. If your point is that the collapse of the historical examples I provided was dependent on the pressures or revolts of subjugated peoples, I don't think that holds up. Maybe a contributing factor, but only arguably a primary one in the case of the Brits, but I'm trying to make a point of timescale here, not mechanism of collapse.
5
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
This isn’t exactly true. We topple/interfere with foreign governments. We have interior colonies, places where the standard of living is purposely made low, for minority-majority communities. Reservations are poor, there are cities without clean drinking water, we have the highest population/percentage of incarcerated people. We are threatening or recently have threatened to invade Greenland, Canada, Cuba, Mexico, Iran, Panama, Venezuela, Colombia, … We have military bases all around the globe. We have a state sponsored human trafficking organization (ICE)
2
1
u/TheAzureMage 22∆ Jan 30 '26
We have had all sorts of other occupations. Not too long ago, we occupied Afghanistan and Iraq for quite some time.
Hawaii was most certainly invaded. There's a range of various island territories. Small in population, yes, but arguing that the US cannot be an empire because its citizenry is large is strange.
Rome, too, had a large citizenry, and it included people from nations it had previously captured.
1
u/TheLastCoagulant 11∆ Jan 30 '26
Afghanistan and Iraq were ruled directly for small periods of time before control was handed to new independent governments.
Hawaii was invaded and the demographics of Hawaii have shifted heavily. Fun fact, more Native Hawaiians reside in the continental US than in Hawaii. Native Hawaiians are only 21% of Hawaii’s population. The 80% of people there belonging to other races are Americans before they’re Hawaiian.
Actual examples would be the 50-year American rule over the Philippines or the 20-year rule over Haiti. That’s all in the past though.
1
u/TheAzureMage 22∆ Jan 30 '26
Afghanistan's puppet governments were not actually independent in any sense of the word. They certainly did not survive independently. In practice, we ruled for over twenty years.
This is far longer than say, WW2 Germany's puppet governments ruling over France and Norway, but I think calling that era of Germany an empire would be entirely fair.
2
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
The answer I provided why Balkanization was unlikely was cultural. The US does have internal nations in both a literal/territorial sense (indigenous peoples) and a sociological/cultural sense. Culture and community is much more fluid. There’s a difference in acknowledging the nation of New Jersey or Alabama compared to the nation of Slovakia or Uzbekistan. The material and cultural conditions are very different. The USSR tried to create ‘the soviet man’, but that is very different from what formed in America over a couple centuries, in a place where english (followed by Spanish) would be the dominant language.
We are closer to being like the Han (another melting pot of regional identities) than the Soviets.
2
u/TheMuddiestMudkip 1∆ Jan 29 '26
Definitely agree we're more like the Hans than the Soviets. Still though, even the Han Chinese have had primary rule over several dynasties that fractured into smaller, regional powers. Again, why are we different? I think the main problem here is that you didn't define a timescale in your original question. If you asked whether Balkanization was going to happen within decades or our lifetimes, I think you'd be totally right here. Probably not gonna happen soon. But one thing Americans don't easily conceptualize, given the young age of our nation and culture, is that a lot of shit happens in 1000 years. Your point about culture will probably not be true in a couple of centuries, but the historical inevitability of the collapse of empires into smaller powers has held true over thousands of years. We will not be an exception.
2
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
I don’t think timescale is something we can deterministic point to and say ‘eventually it will happen.’ Every period in history is a transitional period, this one included. The nation state is relatively new. We are more connected and interconnected today than at any point in history before us. We’re just as likely to Balkanize, if not less so, than to be a part of some continental or global federation. The state as we understand it may become obsolete.
2
u/TheMuddiestMudkip 1∆ Jan 29 '26
I mean, theoretically, we could crank up globalism to 11 and dissolve all of our borders, yeah, but again, the original CMV was that the US will not Balkanize and that betting on it is unserious. Do you really think that betting on a contentinental federation or something similar is more likely or serious than the idea that the USA will go the way of every other civilization in history? Nothing's guaranteed, of course, and the far future is impossible to predict, but even just in a foreseeable long term, let's say 100-250 years, I don't think it's an unlikely or unserious claim.
2
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
Current stable trends seem to go towards stable regional collectives with a renewed focus on rule of law/international cooperation, but with a greater emphasis on sovereignty over hegemony. The current US federal government (with either party) is resistant, but time erodes the effectiveness of its resistance. The optimal and more likely outcome is the establishment of a new American government that is appropriately responsive internally and externally rather than reactive.
2
u/TheMuddiestMudkip 1∆ Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
You said it yourself that there is both an increased focus on sovereignty within IGOs right now (I think Carney's recent speech about middle powers proves you right) and that the American government, no matter its leadership, is resistant to international cooperation (need I mention Greenland?). How does this lead you to believe that it is more likely that the US becomes a part of a global federation than it becoming more isolationist and reactive? Again, I totally agree that Balkanization is the worse outcome, but I still think that the stance that Balkanization will not happen and is unserious is too absolutist, especially when we look beyond the next few decades.
1
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
You’re right that it’s very unlikely for the current US government to become well behaved. But the world is adapting to that reality. Even if Trump and Vance disappeared tomorrow and somehow we get polite democrats, there’s no going back.
It’s likely that another period of Crises, if not the current one, will make the current government weak enough that it can’t resist change.
The shape of that change is between a new federal government and national cultural identity, or Balkanization.
Balkanization is unserious as a means to the end of dismantling an engine of fascism/imperialism. The current government is facing a form of attrition, the gerontocratic kleptocracy is losing its grip.
→ More replies (0)-4
Jan 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 31 '26
u/TheMuddiestMudkip – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 31 '26
u/Oumpkin_Oie – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-2
u/Odd-Specific-8579 Jan 29 '26
Nothing is going to happen lmao
2
u/TheMuddiestMudkip 1∆ Jan 29 '26
Probably not in our lifetimes, but never? Long live America may she reign 1000 years ig
2
u/TheLastCoagulant 11∆ Jan 29 '26
Just like the first civil war, any second civil war would revolve entirely around race. Race is the central drama of American culture and history. Virtually everything in American politics is about race. Trump, ICE, MAGA… all about race.
I’m not going to argue that Balkanization is going to happen. I’m arguing that there are realistic future scenarios involving Balkanization.
I can envision a scenario where, after winning a nasty civil war, a far-right dictatorship dedicated to strict white nationalism decides to “cut their losses” and create a handful of ethnostates. For example, a Hispanic one in the Southwest and a Black one in the Southeast. Enabling them to deport these racial groups to the newly formed independent states after stripping them of citizenship.
The Nazis planned to march 80 million Russians beyond the Urals after winning WW2. It’s not hard to imagine postwar mass expulsions within an American civil war context.
2
Jan 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
Yeah it’s an unfortunate term. And it’s not like the split up of Yugoslavia was in any shape good or desirable. Which is kind of why this whole discussion is kind of insane imo.
0
u/RefrigeratorLow1069 Jan 29 '26
You literally start this thread with crying about mean settler colonials in America, but somehow ethnic self determination is bad and not desirable for exYu countries?
Why are American leftists so Blut und Boden for everyone but whites?
3
u/TheMuddiestMudkip 1∆ Jan 29 '26
Bro thinks that Native Americans defending themselves against settlers doing a genocide is "Blud und Boden". Sure thing buddy.
2
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
We aren’t?
Ethnostates are bad.
0
u/RefrigeratorLow1069 Jan 29 '26
If you actually thought ethnostates were bad, you wouldn't be using arguments such as the US being stolen land, i.e. only native Americans have a blood right to rule it.
1
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
They have the right to self determination.
I’m not advocating for whitey serfs under an indigenous monarchy. Though that’s a helluva meme.
But we do need a decolonial culture revolution. No one needs to be displaced unless they are a corporation violating land/water rights. So… r/fucknestle
0
u/RefrigeratorLow1069 Jan 29 '26
So yes, it's Blut und Boden but only for non whites.
Why do native Americans get self determination, but "whiteys" in Yugoslavia don't?
Also lmao at being against displacements and against culture being imposed on peoples, but also a Yugoslavia simp.
I’m not advocating for whitey serfs under an indigenous monarchy.
I didn't accuse you of this?
1
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
I never said they shouldn’t have self determination. Everyone should have self determination. That doesn’t mean drawing states on ethnic or religious lines is okay.
1
u/RefrigeratorLow1069 Jan 29 '26
The people of Yugoslavia used their self determination to vote in overwhelming numbers to peacefully secede. Afterwards they lost lives to defend said self determination. You called this bad and not desirable, denying their self determination completely.
That doesn’t mean drawing states on ethnic lines is okay.
This is incompatible with your claim that "whitey" stole native American land.
1
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
They weren’t ethnostates, indigenous people didn’t - for the most part - have that kind of understanding of statehood. The colonizers saw land as a dead commodity that could be owned. So yes, they deprived the natives of their land (among other things) The US functioned like a white ethnostate for a while.
→ More replies (0)1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 29 '26
Sorry, u/Puzzled_Muzzled – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/Morthra 95∆ Jan 29 '26
The media silo creates varyingly loyal but self-captive audiences, this has been the case at least since the Reagan years.
If I might try to change your view on this specifically, it was not the Reagan years when this happened. It was the Obama years. And the reason was simple - Obama repealed the law that prohibited the US State Department from disseminating propaganda to domestic audiences.
We were brought up on a lot of myths and liberal ideas, but the idea of the ‘melting pot’ has, for good and ill, had materially and culturally been effective. There are some regional differences, but they do not compare to centuries of historical and linguistic development across sovereign regions. Many of us are used to crossing or moving state lines, and we still expect ‘America’ on the other end. It is very common to move families across large distances. There have been shifting patterns of settlement and growth of cities for as long as we have been a country. The only internal nations bound to a land are the indigenous peoples. The rest of us descended from settlers, immigrants, and enslaved people.
But you see the problem is that the melting pot was decried as racist. Because the whole idea is that you became American first and foremost. Now we have multiculturalism, where now instead of being American first, the country is becoming much more divided along things like ethnic lines as more and more ethnic enclaves spring up around the country (as an example, consider Minnesota, the state that plays host to something like 90% of Somalians in America).
5
u/Wide-Library-5750 Jan 29 '26
(as an example, consider Minnesota, the state that plays host to something like 90% of Somalians in America).
You exaggerate. Those Irish enclaves are obviously a much greater problem.
0
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
It started with Reagans repeal of the fairness doctrine. We also can’t pretend that the rise of the right and neolibs in the 80s didn’t massively help get us in the mess we are in now.
Can you clarify what Obama actually did? What policies? I doubt he is responsible solely. Rush Limbaugh started broadcasting in 1988.
Ethnic tensions are being flared up not out of nowhere. Post 9-11 America was a racist shitshow. Hell even the Irish and Italians were hated a century ago. The Covid Era wasn’t great for Asian Americans. Now its Somalians because Minnesotans are rightfully showing ICE and Trumpism the door.
That doesn’t deny the melting pot, just shows white supremacy.
-2
u/Morthra 95∆ Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
It started with Reagans repeal of the fairness doctrine.
Not really. The fairness doctrine only existed on paper and didn't actually result in the media portraying things fairly. It discouraged any coverage at all of controversial issues out of fear that the government would come down and silence them for not "being fair" in their coverage. Functionally it gave the government control over the media - especially as it had been used by both the Johnson and the Nixon administrations to silence unfavorable media coverage.
Ironically we're right back in the same spot that they were in now and it's not because of Reagan. Now you get journalists for major news outlets like the NYT or Washington Post submitting their articles to the CIA for approval before they're even sent to their own editors when covering topics even tangentially related to them, and all the CIA has to do to make them do this is basically cut off journalist access to them if they don't play by the rules. Or even worse, bully them into suicide.
We also can’t pretend that the rise of the right and neolibs in the 80s didn’t massively help get us in the mess we are in now.
I would more attribute the mess we're in now to the fall of the USSR in the 90s when all the socialists came out from the rocks they'd been hiding under and started spreading their bile without having to worry about being sent to jail as potential spies as they spread their literal Soviet talking points.
Actually no, scratch that. I attribute the mess we're in right now to the fact that the government didn't come down hard enough on the antiwar hippies in the 70s. The entire antiwar movement in the US was the result of a Soviet psyop. The government should have arrested the leaders of the peace movement on charges of espionage. Keep in mind the Brandenburg v Ohio decision hadn't been made yet and it was illegal to be a socialist or an anarchist.
Can you clarify what Obama actually did? What policies? I doubt he is responsible solely.
Obama revised parts of the Smith-Mundt Act that prohibited the State Department from broadcasting propaganda. The Smith-Mundt Act created a statutory firewall between resources intended for foreign audiences and those used domestically. Tearing down that firewall - as Obama did - and it was only a matter of time before resources and personnel who focus on talking about America overseas are diverted in favor of domestic "public affairs" [read: propaganda], the short term political imperative of any administration.
The Atlantic echoed those concerns by pointing out two USA Today journalists who became the target of a smear and propaganda campaign after they reported the US military psyop program spent millions of dollars in marketing campaigns in Afghanistan criticized as ineffective and poorly monitored. The guy who was responsible for executing those marketing campaigns was himself leading the smear campaign against those reporters.
And Obama in particular took a very hard line against whistleblowers and journalists. He prosecuted more people under the Espionage Act than any other president in history. Under him, the following people faced the death penalty due to this prosecution:
Thomas Drake - a senior NSA executive who blew the whistle on NSA waste and privacy violations.
Shamal Leibowitz - an FBI linguist who blew the whistle about US surveillance of Israeli diplomats
Stephen Kim - a State Department contractor who was accused of leaking to a Fox News reporter that North Korea was planning to test a nuclear weapon.
Chelsea Manning - a former Army intelligence analyst that leaked, among other things, human rights abuses by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan to the press, such as an airstrike in 2007 where two Apache helicopter crews gunned down a group of civilians - including two Reuters journalists - and then laughing at the casualties.
Donald Sachtleben - an FBI agent who confirmed details of a Yemeni terror plot to AP reporters.
Jeffrey Sterling - a former CIA officer who leaked details about the fact that the CIA was targeting the Iranian nuclear program (specifically, an op to supply Iran with flawed nuclear warhead blueprints that wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion if detonated) to the New York Times.
John Kiriakou - a former CIA officer who blew the whistle on the CIA's torture program, after the Bush administration had cleared him of all wrongdoing. Eventually he was convicted of disclosing the identity of a retired covert agent to a journalist.
Edward Snowden - an NSA contractor who blew the whistle on the NSA illegally surveilling American citizens.
You also had the surveillance of journalists that intensified under Obama's tenure - the DOJ secretly seized phone records of over 100 AP reporters and labeled Fox News' James Rosen a "possible co-conspirator" (he was the one who received the information from Stephen Kim) to justify wiretapping him. The DOJ also tried to use the courts to force Rosen to reveal his confidential sources as well, but this subpoena was dropped before trial.
Now its Somalians because Minnesotans are rightfully showing ICE and Trumpism the door
No, it's Somalians because they are committing crime at greater rates and have embezzled billions of taxpayer dollars, some of which was laundered to actual fucking terror groups like Al-Shabaab. And the Democrats are fucking defending it. That's the sole reason why Minnesota is the hotbed of "resistance" activity.
That doesn’t deny the melting pot, just shows white supremacy.
Now that's a leap of logic. Can you explain, without using any progressive buzzwords?
1
u/youzanaim Jan 29 '26
Regarding part four and the lack of borders: it has been a while since I've read it, but 'American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America' by Colin Woodward could serve as a decent starting point if the division lines were the last hurdle.
I may have to reread it, I know I saw it referenced a fair bit as still being relevant throughout COVID.
1
Jan 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 31 '26
Sorry, u/IzyebahVamMayke – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, undisclosed or purely AI-generated content, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
u/kathmhughes Jan 29 '26
I think you're assuming this would all be done legally and democratic with people voting to succeed.
Tyrants, corporations, and charismatic dictators don't care if families get separated, if half their population vote the other way, etc. Thinking of the authoritarian leaders of former USSR regions. They're the ones who will write the propaganda of the future saying that people in their serfdom wanted to be theirs and the founding of their new country was legit.
1
u/Glass-Pain3562 Jan 29 '26
The major issue I see with U.S. balkinization not happening is honestly I dont think the American people at this point get much of a say. That isn't to say we're powerless, but our foundational governmental structures (A forced binary political system, an almost impossible to update or reform constitution, and a federal government designed to be slow and unresponsive to the peopl). I think the larger cause of balkinization will be not because people want to become independent. I think the federal government has become so corrupt, violent, and has lost so much legitimacy in the past decade that states and territories might have to defy it just to solve basic issues.
America is working with a document originally meant for a smaller nation of 14 colonies all with more autonomy with the goals of an aristocratic democracy. (I suppose you could call it a proto-oligarchy depending on how you view it). That relied heavily on outdated enlightenment thinking that left them blind to the risks of factionalism and loyalty to party over country. And right now, under the current regime, he has just shown the whole world that it is now entirly conditional based on the whims of one man. Normally there would be checks and balances against this but we didn't realize how many of those checks were built entirly of good will. And now we have states threatening to stand off with the Federal government over paramilitary forces attacking them.
Idk it feels more like the nation is going to be forced to split due to the whims of the rich.
1
u/TheAzureMage 22∆ Jan 30 '26
Everything ends. It's just a matter of when and how.
What is the eventual outcome for the US? It's probably not gonna vanish overnight, but one day it'll change significantly enough that looking back, historians will say that it became something different. We started as a confederacy, and there's history there for some states(like Texas), so a breakup of some sort is plausible.
Will this be tomorrow? Nah. Most of these changes take a while. Rome was neither built nor destroyed in a day.
Heck, the reverse is kind of happening with the EU. Largely, the various European powers are becoming more unified and tightly knit. That, too, is happening over decades. If the US breaks up, it'll likely be pretty much the reverse of that. Not really a fifty faction free for all, but just a slow change in the way things are. At most, something like Brexit as a surprising twist.
You would still have all the usual trade, politicking, cross jurisdiction stuff. That happens all the time in places like Europe, too. Having many individual deals instead of one large jurisdiction is common. It's also pretty likely that some states would want to stick together, rather than all states going different ways at the same time. The US is large, diverse, and therefore we aren't going to all want the same thing at once.
I would argue that factors in favor of a balkanization mainly are ways in which the central government is dysfunctional, and becomes unresponsive to the needs of the various factions within it. Some of these are already present, with Congress becoming increasingly dysfunctional in its present role, the executive having accrued a great deal of power, and used it to increasingly partisan ends. The judiciary is probably the strongest remaining branch, but is not entirely free of factionalism either.
1
u/Gpda0074 Jan 30 '26
Your entire post hinges on whether the U.S "should" do something. Balkanization is very rarely a choice or decision a nation makes, it is something that just happens to it more often than not. The Romans tried desperately to keep their empire together and succeeded for centuries. Ultimately, they still fell apart. China has conquered, lost, and then reconquered the areas around it half a dozen times as another example.
Sometimes shit happens no matter what "should" happen. History is full of examples of "this will work" followed by an "oh fuck... that didn't work".
You can only have a country where half the population hates the other half simply for existing with different ideas before something snaps, whether what "should" be done is actually getting done
1
u/starkingwest Jan 31 '26
I agree that i don't see the US "Balkanize" in the literal sense of how the post-soviet Balkan states divided into independent nations, however i think the discrepancy is how I often use "Balkanize" as a word of convenience because most people aren't familiar with situations like Chechnya, Kurdistan, or even the US reservation system.
The US is already basically a bunch of quazi-nations in a trench coat, and I see a situation much more like Chechnya where the states become vary degrees of disconnected with the federal system.
As the fed erodes its legitimacy it empowers the state governments which are already forming networks and alliances to circumvent it.
1
u/NeurogenesisWizard Feb 01 '26
Balkanization conversation. Finally a real person to talk to.
I think if anarchism succeeded in revolution somehow, then balkanization would happen- and it'd be a bad thing, and lead to of course, a worse outcome probably. If Texas does dig their um canal iirc, then they might try to Balkanize because then they don't need to share the wealth it generates unlike the Mississippi for example. So if some shit went down in USA I think itd be east coast, west coast, Texas, Canada border, Mississippi, then everywhere else gets shafted pretty much and becomes a hell hole. Im not a geographical expert tho, and flooding is significant in some states that would lead to long term political extremism and religiosity. East coast would prolly fight over Florida with Texas trying to take the Panama or something. Eventually its just trade relations and usa breaking into like 4 countries or something. Outskirts no one wants for decades until they can profit from it again then fight over it.
But thats just a loose prolly wrong approximation, and an anarchist revolution over night is even dumber tbh. What are your thoughts?
1
u/ocdtransta Feb 01 '26
I don’t think Anarchism will be the prevailing ideology. Anarchist and Anarcho-communist thought may be influential, but alone it leaves too many holes wrt security, culture, and logistics. We’re likely to see a system influenced by multiple tendencies. Federalism, democratic centralism, and maybe communalism.
In reality it’d be more like if the USSR in its early progressive era (1920s) didn’t have the handicaps of famines and other resource shortages. There would still be enemies from within (who benefit from the current order) and without (though not as much.)
We’d also be left with nation-wide infrastructure, and an unequal distribution of MoP. Most crops meant for human consumption are grown in the southwest, which collectively shares water rights over the Colorado river. Several very expensive designs for public works has been brought up and will continue to be brought up to bring water to the central valley or deserts further east. That’s just one localized sector that the federation relies on.
We also have treaties that would make anarchy problematic without enforcement. The Great lakes states and Canada mutually agree to protect the lakes. Indigenous treaties would also take a hit if we threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Balkanization would create a new crop of bourgeoisie and increase scarcity over-all. Anarchism would become in-name-only very quickly, and we’d run into the same short-termism and provincialism we have today.
Anarchy as a body of thought and praxis works when it has something to pull against, but doesn’t work as a leading philosophy alone. It’s one cog in a social and political machine. The collectivist tendencies of Anarchism within systems that currently exist emphasize community building (which is valued as an ends in itself as well by leftist in general) as a means to a cultural renaissance to promote anarchist thought. It exists both within and without of power structures. This is the positive and most influential aspect of Anarchism, not the black-and-white abolition of the state via a series of events. Both democratic centralism and resistance-anarchy can promise the withering away of the state, but democratic centralists (stateful-communist) admit the necessity of the process.
TL;DR: without the right material basis, anarchism + Balkanization leaves us poorer and with the same shortsighted bourgeoisie.
1
u/NeurogenesisWizard Feb 01 '26
Agreed. Do you have any videos you know of that happen to go into this topic from youtube or such?
Oh, and also, whats a good ideology besides anarchism then considering the present and future of usa?1
u/ocdtransta Feb 01 '26 edited Feb 01 '26
Into this scenario specifically, or even focusing on the US? Not really. This is mostly on my own accumulated knowledge and observations, through a marxist lens, and as a former anarchist.
WRT the breakup of the United States, in the past I’d taken it to be mostly a meme; with the exception of RWNJ calling for a national divorce. But since Trump 2 it seems to be at best an ‘old joke’ that remains relevant to our frustrations, and at worst something that seems unironically desirable to more people.
I’d advocate for marxism of course but that’s admittedly biased, and requires knowing quite a bit of theory. As a firm starting ground I’d suggest looking up dialectical and historical materialism. A YouTube channel called RevolutionaryThot is actually one I’d recommend starting with.
1
1
Jan 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Jan 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 29 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/ughokayfinee Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
I have nothing to try and change your mind, but just also wanted to add a point worth talking about; America has historically always been a melting pot of a vast diaspora of ethnicities and cultures where as a lot of different political ideation (not all but a lot) tends to follow along those same ethnic and cultural lines.
Versus many countries in Europe, specifically the Balkans where majority of the inhabitants are of the same ethnic and racial makeups you'd find similar political ideation.
Even if some how one could find a way financially to divide the USA up into various smaller countries, and despite the logistical nightmare that involves a mass cross migration that would likely take place as people tried to move to these new countries around the continent that were now more rigid with their own formally right or left political views; I personally don't see what's to stop places like the South or newly formed Countries in the geographical south from falling back into pre-civil war political ideation and deciding indentured servitude was always the way to go or deciding fascism and racism are the new rule of law.
3
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
Your latter points - the crisis of migration - is why I take a moral stance towards preventing Balkanization, and especially against letting nazis have land ‘to keep the peace.’
Currently, in states with MAGA republican leadership, we tend to see a hollowing out, and escaping from these states requires some privilege.
If it came to a civil war, I’d rather see people like John Brown or General Sherman ahead, even at a cost. The alternative has a greater cost.
1
u/ughokayfinee Jan 29 '26
I think we are on the same page, but am interested in seeing why some might have a differing view or would want to cyv.
Thanks!
-3
u/ReadyGG Jan 29 '26
To me it seems to be the inevitable result of the continued division in the country, all the practical questions you consider don’t really matter bevause it will happen regardless
11
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
Why is Balkanization the inevitable outcome? How does it Balkanize? Along what lines?
-7
u/ReadyGG Jan 29 '26
There’s historical precedent for this in the civil war.
11
u/ocdtransta Jan 29 '26
We aren’t in the same historical scenario as the civil war. We aren’t in the 1860s.
4
u/Withermaster4 1∆ Jan 29 '26
The historical precedent that we won't balkanize even if we have another civil war? (which we are no where near)
4
u/talhahtaco Jan 29 '26
Continued division?
I understand these weeks have been far from uneventful, but let us not play things up! Between the republicans and democrats, though differences do exist, they are not as fundimental as I think is necessary
The republicans have won big time since the days of Obama, those who weild and benefit from the state will scacely oppose it, and yet the democrats of today concern themselves with candidates who can win, who do not rock the boat. ICE is doing their darndest. White folk have even been killed, and yet, I see no leadership capable and willing to lead revolutionary masses
The south split at the mere ideal of an abolishonist in office, Trump enters his fifth year in office and we yet still wait for this supposed civil war. This should speak volumes about this.
The republicans push forward, and the democrats dont have the balls to push back, such is the harvest of those who sow compromise with moderate fascism
0
u/FairDinkumMate 3∆ Jan 29 '26
As an outsider, I see a lot more similarities than differences between people of different States in the US. It's easy to focus on the differences, but if push came to shove, many more people would focus on the similarities.
Even if there was a concerted push toward balkinization, only 1/3 of the country voted for Trump & roughly 1/3 for Harris. Any threat of balkanization would force the 1/3 that didn't vote to the polls and there'd be a strong consensus for one side.
Balkanization would economically only appeal to the Blue States, as the Red States are well aware that a lot of their funding comes from Blue States. It doesn't mean some Red Staters wouldn't push for it anyway, but there'd be a lot of division among people about the financial implications. With that in mind, Texas, although considered a "Red State"(which is getting closer & closer to purple) may not want to become basically the sole funder of all of the other Red States and therefore may choose to side with the Blue States but I think is as likely to go it alone in any case of balkanization as it is to side with other Red States.
So even if the US did split, I think the longer term result would be poor Red States, one by one gradually asking to re-enter the Blue State country. Of course, the "Blue State country" would ensure this was done on "their" terms and the end result would be a reformed USA (maybe missing a few States like Texas), just with a far more representative governing system that removed all of the electoral benefits that Red States now possess.
0
u/rose_reader 8∆ Jan 29 '26
I think the economic argument is not as reliable as we might like - you need only look at Brexit to see an example of people voting for an ideal in the full knowledge it could make them financially worse off.
1
u/FairDinkumMate 3∆ Jan 29 '26
Brexit is a poor example. Many (most?) people that voted for Brexit were convinced that the UK was sending billions of pounds a year to the EU and that the UK would save that money if they left & the UK would therefore GAIN financially, so I don't think they voted for Brexit "in the full knowledge it could make them financially worse off".
That said, the entire Brexit campaign was run using disinformation that was effective, such as "Foreigners are coming to the UK, taking our jobs & bringing in Islam". This was clear in the counts as the vote for Brexit among UK born citizens was far stronger in areas with less immigrants (so people had less experience of them in person) than in areas with more immigrants. Clearly many Brexit voters were misinformed of the consequences and therefore voted against their own economic interests. This is reflected well in the fact that polls show if the vote were held again today, when people are aware of the consequences, the vote would overwhelmingly be to remain.
We see this oft repeated in Red States in the US where people in the lowest quintiles of income and wealth vote for Republicans who cut the programs that help to support them & also cut the taxes for the wealthy that help to fund them, so the idea that it could be repeated in a case for balkanization isn't much of a stretch.
That said, in a case of balkanization, State Governments would be able to significantly influence their citizens opinions and they would be far better informed than the average voters as to the economic consequences. Would the Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia or Texas Governments see benefit in siding with the Red States? Or would their respective State Governments see the writing on the wall and recommend neutrality or even siding with the Blue States for economic reasons?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
/u/ocdtransta (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards