Should? the American Right and American Left separate?

Question

It appears America has reached the point where our differences cannot be reconciled. Although I could attempt to delineate them, this article describes them better and what a separation might look like. For those of you who have short attention spans, limited by phones and video games to that of a goldfish, you'll never get past page three. But give it a try.

Should? the American Right and American Left separate?

Something should happen before we start shooting, other than AntiFA and BLM, that already are. So the following poll. Amicable separation, civil war, acquiescence and submittal or your better idea. I support the first with the second as back up if the other guys need persuasion.

nightdrot · Accepted Answer

Voted "something else." They are separate, but the issue is that the pedigree of ideas in the United States is largely rooted in a divide within liberalism as it developed in the 17th century. To which is added, at the moment - and has happened in the past - a populist interregnum.

To start, the terms "right," "left" and so forth, are not terribly helpful. The usage comes out of the French revolution, when supporters of a republic sat to the left of the Speaker's chair in the National Assembly, while supporters of the Church and the monarchy sat to the right. While these are common usage in contemporary politics, they actually don't say very much.

Second, conservatism is not what Americans typically call conservative. Because what Americans call conservative is, historically speaking, not conservatism but is, rather, classical liberalism.

(As an aside, what Americans call "liberalism" is actually "radical" liberalism. "Radical," here not meaning as we use the term today, i. e., extremist, but rather as the ancient Greeks used it, meaning "to the root of." The radical liberals agreeing with the classical liberals that liberty is the purpose of government and politics, but arguing that differences in wealth and power in society make that liberty problematic.)

Historical conservatism, which for convenience I will call classical or Tory conservatism, traces its intellectual pedigree through Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas - and probably most importantly - the 18th century British statesman and political philosopher, Edmund Burke, and also the British Prime Ministers Benjamin Disraeli and Lord Salisbury.

In an American context, it shows up in the thinking of Alexander Hamilton and then - almost by historical accident, the American Whig Party, and the former Whig turned Republican, Abraham Lincoln. (It is a great historical "what if" as to what the GOP would have looked like had Lincoln lived and the radical Republicans not gained the ascendancy.)

Classical conservatives believe, unlike American conservatives and liberals, that the purpose of government is to answer Aristotle's first questions of politics, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?" To which classical conservatives respond that the purpose of government is to nurture civic virtue. To reinforce those habits and customs that make a harmonious and stable social order possible.

Classical conservatives believe in the free market as a tool, rather than an end in itself. They recognize that it is a powerful wealth creator, efficient to some degree, and a guard against an overweening state. However, they believe, as Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."

Consequently, classical conservatives support an ameliorative welfare state. (The welfare state was invented by two conservatives - Disraeli and Bismarck.) In this they differ from American liberals who see the welfare state as a lever to engineer social transformation.

Tories believe that political philosophy should take as it starting point not human reason, but human nature. That political rights are developed through historical usage, and are not abstract pre-existing.(They don't deny that such abstract rights don't exist. Merely that they are of no practical benefit or use in civil society and law.)

The reason there is a confluence between American conservatism and liberalism is that they start from the same theoretical point. In the theories of John Locke and Adam Smith. The split coming with American liberals who - again, while not necessarily being aware of it - derive their ideas from Rousseau.

The former believe that if man conforms the law to "natural rights," harmony follows. The latter believes that society has corrupted man and therefore the law must reform man to bring him into conformance with natural law.

To all this, finally, there is a periodic recurrence to populism. Populism is not a schematic philosophy. Rather, it is a cultural attitude rooted in the idea that institutions are corrupt, that the "common man" is basically good and that he must be able to give full freedom to his basic goodness.

This split within liberalism - and the populist turn of the moment - explain the convergence of American liberalism and conservatism that you have rightly identified. However, it is not simple to solve it as the philosophies that govern and - at times - divide America are deeply rooted in the culture and cannot simply be changed at will.

DeviousD · Accepted Answer

Absolutely not, our power resides in our ability to uphold whichever point of view & ideal we care to hold & that is our right. We've existed peacefully across ideals for hundreds of years. It has only reached this level of bleakness because of how it is being weaponized against us for evil purposes. The fact of the matter is we are too great, too strong as we exists in peace upholding such vast differences, & the powers that be, those drunk on greed & manipulation, those dead set on regaining concepts of monarchy & descendants. Those so scared of the potential power that can be welded by a society who lives on their own terms & in tandom with those of different views, so they prioritize division, & they thread this division by creating groups, & more groups, by providing us with a never ending scheme of adopting title's. Men, women, trans, straight, gay, black, white, left, right the truth is we are all HUMAN & that by far is the greatest most powerful title we could ever hold dear to identify with. Unfortunately those whome control this power I speak of have strictly observed human history while they themselves do whatever they can to destroy our ability as common people to observe the same comprehensive history. They burn books while maintaining their private libraries, they absorbed history & understand it's ability to repeat & they use this against us wherever they can. In fact they've utilized this same history to familiarize themselves with the greatest means of creating conflict, they've researched & have become fully aware with the rise & fall of every great human civilization before us, & they possess the knowledge, the power, the will & the means to destroy everything good we possess to maintain success living in content having our own opinions while at the very same time living next door to another content man whom holds a whole other set of values & understandings. We as a people need to wake up & see the scam being implemented right under our noses with the intent of creating our own demise. As we face off & fight each other, we miss the true puppet's whom hold the strings of manipulation & who are the villains in this tale. The truth is we can succeed & thrive & hold dear to our own hearts what's important to each & everyone of us, even if our own neighbors see differently, for it is this very difference that maintains the checks & balances of the other's & can create that means of everlasting peace & acceptance. We must remember that war is money, money is power, & power taints & intoxicates, & can strip the very humanity away from a person to a point that they will do absolutely anything to maintain & increase that power once they have it, & case in point we are left with these fruitless differences you speak of, & as long as you speak of them evil consumes, evil wins, & humanity loses. So, I absolutely dispell any inkling of such an idea that we as human beings even in a state of passion can't ascertain a common ground, we absolutely can & we absolutely shouldn't give up realizing the greatest prize humanity could ever wish for, all encompassing world peace. That is all.

Aerissa_Jade · Accepted Answer

I've said this for awhile now, there is no reason there even needs to be civil war.

Example is red states and blue states could simply leave and become their own countries. At the same time treaties could be signed allowing for open borders and free trade.

Peaceful co-existence. Let each side do what they want, rather than trying to subjugate the other side.

Right now Democrats are subjugating Republicans/conservatives and they don't see a problem with that. If the other side is in power they can do the same and don't see a problem with it either.

People like it when their side is not being subjugated by the other. Rather than switch back and forth, simply separate.

Then again, 90% of this could be resolved simply by giving states back the power they had at the founding for state rights. Issues handled on the state level, following the 10th rather than the Federal government having too much power, that it does now.

If you think about virtually every hot topic issue, it would be better handled on the state level or lower.

Don't like that something is legal or illegal in your state, it is far easier to fight to change it on the state level, than the federal level. That or you can simply move to an area that better suits your beliefs.

No one is going to change the minds of the other side, the internet had allowed people to simply block those they disagree with and censor those they disagree with, then get them fired from their jobs. They are silencing people, so either give back state rights or separate through a peaceful split and stay close and friendly.

Gummy_Cluster · Accepted Answer

First of all, this is the first intelligent question I've read on this site in days. Yes, it's being called "the national divorce." It has to happen. Both sides would be happy, but we would need a 200 foot wall separating the right and left.

The left could have...

No police.

No prisons

Pedophile teachers

Schools teaching pronouns, toxic masculinity, CRT and gender studies.

Joe Biden as their president.

Open borders

Lots of free fentanyl

No guns for law abiding citizens. Only criminals get to have guns.

Free heroin for the homeless

MSNBC

Free needles for junkies

No second amendment

No first amendment

All government schools

Soros appointed DA's who love criminals

Lots of Chinese products

A corrupt FBI

_____________________________________________________________________

The right could have either Trump or DeSantis

Tons of police

Tons of prisons

Qualified teachers

No government schools

Strong first amendment

Strong second amendment

No free drug needles

FOX NEWS

DA's that do their job

Closed borders with armed military

Math, science, reading and writing taught in schools

No Chinese products

China couldn't buy land on our side

An FBI that wasn't corrupt

RolandCuthbert · Answer

Well, let's just say that you are actually genuinely concerned about separation. It wouldn't be over political ideology. I want a nation where Conservative and Liberal beliefs are allowed. Where there is reasoned, rational debate. I just don't want a nation where extremists are allowed to dictate discussion. Where insults, violence and insanity becomes the method for discussing differences. And believe it or not, many folks share that view. They do not want to be in a nation that is intolerant of political ideology. The only intolerance should be that of the intolerant.

So this this "division" you speak of, is only for those who can't live in a nation where folks have the right to form their own opinions.

In that light, I think state referendums is the way to go. You guys should create your Constitution for the New Confederacy you want to create. Then state by state, there should be a referendum to cede and join your Confederacy. Because these suggestions about amending the Constitution are hogwash. To amend the Constitution, you need two-thirds of Congress. You can't get two-thirds of Congress to agree on the color of a blue sky.

But creating a new Confederacy and giving states' the ability to opt in might be the best way to go. Some of the stuff she says can stay intact, like the liabilities/obligations the states have with respect to the Federal government. But all of that can be resolved in whatever tax liability the state agrees to with its new Federal Government.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

The Confederate Constitution was adopted by the Confederacy in opposition to the Union and the United States Constitution. The prominent differences between the two were that the Confederate Constitution sought different guarantees of states' rights and protected slavery as an institution.

BCA6010 · Answer

I'm assuming this subject is coming up because even though it was talked about months ago, now MGT has said the words "national divorce" so it's hot again.

The most immediately obvious problem with the idea is that the geography doesn't actually work: this isn't a split between north and south, or east and west; it's basically inner cities against everyone else, consistent across all states. Even if you tried to divide by political leanings in existing states, you'd actually wind up with no less than three countries. This is also before taking into account the utter debacle that would follow as each new country has to overhaul their federal governments and large chunks of their infrastructure from scratch. The ONLY part of the country capable of quick self-sustainment is Texas, but it would take years to prop up anyone else.

There is a zero percent chance of "separating amicably" under any conditions. It does not happen historically, and the interdependency of the states makes it so most of them are too vital to just let go of. Even in a snowballs chance in hell that officials were to formally sign some kind of mutual agreement, the leftist-globalist side would immediately begin a psyops and unconventional warfare campaign, and war would break out anyway.

NaultD · Answer

I'm a leftist to be upfront about it.

You say something about food and where it's grown. Who determines the price of any commodity goods, or services? Is the person providing that service or the person willing to buy it?

A leftist communist would say the person providing the labor as their own work. A capitalist right wing society would say the buyer determines the price because they are the one with the final capital paying out.

Yet here you are saying "we are the bread box of America and we demand respect" but by capitalist right wing society gets what it gets from its buyers.

Compared to unions that unify and gather strength as a whole. Divided we beg, united we bargain. That's the whole leftist montra. From basic rights to marginalized groups any gap threats the whole.

United States of America is one of the greatest things to ever exist and thrives to be greater but the thing holding back this garden of eden is the snake in the grass called right wing politics. I still say we are all in this together.

loveslongnails · Answer

The differences could EASILY be reconciled if the right would just stop being fascists and trying to inflict their own beliefs on everyone else.

Damn near EVERYTHING the right wing nuts want to make into laws and regulate are "choices" they don't have to make in their personal life, but they want to take that choice away from everyone else. Book banning is a great example, as are reproductive rights, gender affirming care, to name a few. On top of it, they lie about it too.

Take gender-affirming care for example. They put out campaigns that make it sound like a 12 year old girl can go to a doctor and say "I've decided to be a boy, cut out my uterus and remove my breasts, please", and the doctor would "compelled by law" to do so, without ANY parental involvement. It's a scare tactic, and it COULD NOT BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH !!

So what do they do? They get their nutty legislature to pass a law restricting insurance companies from even offering ANY kind of care of gender questioning to care, and make it a crime for the parents to try and get it! Meanwhile, confused kids are attempting suicide in their state, or becoming isolated and depressed.

Anyway, it's a stupid idea. A state can be 50.1% on one side or the other, and what's the 49.9% supposed to do - pick up and move to the nearest other state, and have everyone from that other state move somewhere else too? It's a typically stupid idea from the right's new blabbermouth moron, MGT.

Anonymous · Answer

Don't really need to leave the union to do this, it can be done by simply following the limits of the Federal Constitution.

The real problem is many if not most people are not interested in said limits they are interested in the dreams of power over everyone sold to them by their political leaders who share those dreams.

Most people have yet to imagine the idea of just ruling themselfs, and leaving others alone to do the same, as they would the people of the world.

Hence why many see independence as the only option as to give us defensible borders in place of the seemingly non-enforceable limits of Federal Constitutional law.

There is however far more that can be done to enforce the Federal Constitution, to compel people and their leaders to focus upon governing themselfs not their neighbors.

Our founders were smart and learned men who studied the history of goverment and as such knew this day would come. They created checks and balances, as well as interdependence, so that a wise people knowing their constitutions could prevent anything from happening without consent.

All we have to do is stable the system at the highest level to force leaders to refocus on ever more local levels and with such regain the vote of our feet.

abc3643 · Answer

RESPONSE TO UPDATE:

A major problem the Right would encounter is... food. They don't grow it. They think it's grown by mom and pop farmers in red states. It's not. It's grown by large industrial corporations like Archer Daniels Midland.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/09/american-food-giants-swallow-the-family-farms-iowa

Soteris · Answer

This is dumb and would never work.

First of, you can not geographically separate the country in a satisfactory way. There are conservatives in liberal areas and liberals in conservative areas. There is no line you can draw that would neatly separate this so if we resolve literally every other problem you would still not resolve the original problem of division making the whole process moot.

Secondly, this is just losers acting like losers. The right wing lost the war and now they are trying to knock over the chess board and eat the pieces to avoid accepting a loss. Grow up.

EricBooth999 · Answer

The left and right are two sides of the same coin, both controlled by the same people without even realizing it, and both forced to be at odds to keep people divided and distracted. Separation is not the answer, open dialogue, kindness, and respect is. In a violent separation the right would most certainly defeat the left but we don’t want to reach a point where we slaughter our neighbours.
The left needs to return to god, and the right needs to remember the message of the god most of us tend to worship. Whether you are a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, peace is the answer.

Heterosketero · Answer

We should all stop being led by the nose by classist cunts we should all subjugate together. Save your blood and fire for the rich who racebaited us. I as a now right wing person by way of division, was center left, invite the left to stop lactaiting over every percieved injustice in a shitshow world and roll up their fucking sleeves and pitch in. This mess won't clean itself up, belt up bitches. And that means both sides. That should be the message of 2023, time for the RUDE AWAKENING.

Oh, and if I offended anyone, FUCK YOU, go save a dying child from a cobalt mine. It was never all about me or you.

MrCommodore · Answer

The extreme right and left are minorities, however the US two party electoral system has forced a lot of people right or left.

The US needs a Centerist middle ground option, who can erase the sharp edges of both extremes and find a more sensible common ground.

WindAtMyBack · Answer

There is realistically no way to separate. In my opinion the US should split into at least three countries. Not by political ideology but geographically. The US is suffering under it's own weight. It's gotten too big and bulky. It's utterly broken. But of course that's not realistic either.

That leaves bloodletting. It's actually the most realistic scenario I see. Because it can't keep going down the road it's currently going down. Sooner or later it's going to blow.

Breanna_nonbinary · Answer

I heard MTG suggest that. We tried that once before. It was called the Civil War. Seems to me that the solution to that was more tolerance and less FOX news. The one thing that people seem to lack these days is tolerance and that’s the one thing Fox News doesn’t preach.

Astarlessnightsky · Answer

The devide is an illusion, It only exists as you got no other 3rd/4th/5th party to offer a wider spectrum of opinions and agendas, and also fueled by the common "the other one" sentences.

NewsReader · Answer

No. What MTG said is absolutely ridiculous. There would be too much chaos and confusion. Maybe not to the extent I'm imagining right now, but still. What we need is to find a way to destroy the extremists. The far left and far right are the drivers of all political problems in our country.

CateM · Answer

Nobody is all one party. If you go too far left, that's where the commies are. If you go too far right, that's where you'll find the fascists. Neither of those have ever worked out, and this isn't a black or white thing. So I think they shouldn't be entirely separate

genericname85 · Answer

that's nonsense. cause then within the "only left" people there's gonna be a separation between who's more left" and who's "less left". same vice versa with the right of course. right and left aren't absolutes. and just cause you're left doesn't mean you agree with everyone on the left.

findacure4wokeness · Answer

Diversity is Divisive, The time for talking was over when freedom of speech was replaced by woke cancel culture. People got offended by speech. It is acceptable to become violent if your a offended POC. These unchecked double standards will divide a nation and only one side want to do something about it.

exitseven · Answer

A separation makes the most sense. The conservatives will have to build a wall to keep the liberals out after they print so much money to support all the non working classes and the useless social programs they will soon be bankrupt

007kingifrit · Answer

separation implies that i can't just take everything. the left lives stacked ontop of eachother in cities. can't feed themselves, no clean water and requires constant shipments of chlroine to recycle sewage into drinking water.

why not just run them over?

Precipice · Answer

I get the idea. But it would not work in practice. Luckily the earth has a way of resetting everything for people globally. Only then will everybody be equal. Until then, live your life to the fullest 🙂

Should? the American Right and American Left separate?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should? the American Right and American Left separate?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.