
The Man Who Thinks the U.S. Is Better Off as a Bunch of Separate Countries - smacktoward
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/political-confessional-the-man-who-thinks-the-u-s-is-better-off-as-a-bunch-of-separate-countries/?ex_cid=538twitter
======
turc1656
Honestly, I think the real underlying problem with America's politics is that
the Federal government has grossly overstepped its intended scope. The federal
government frequently tries (and many time succeeds) to impose laws on the
entire nation (which of course is the result of any federal law), when many
times such issues/laws should remain with the states. Doing this creates
resentment and frustration. What's good for one area may not be good for
another. Or, if we're talking about moral, hot-button issues - this becomes
even more serious as it is viewed as the imposition of will of some group's
morality upon some other group/region.

The scope of the federal government should be very limited. But all too often,
the immediate response to any problem is to get the federal government to pass
a law to solve it across the board for the whole country. Many times that just
doesn't work. This approach also goes against the concept of the 50 state
laboratory where we can see the outcome of certain laws and whether or not we
want to adopt them based on the results they produced. Or maybe we don't care
about the results because we are morally opposed to whatever the change is and
therefore the economics are somewhat irrelevant because it's more of an issue
of principle/value. Having federal laws in those instances removes the ability
of a state to choose to be different, for better _or_ worse.

It's much easier to live and let live when those you are letting live aren't
actively trying to force rules upon you, which is exactly how most of the
nation views the political climate right now - i.e. "the [dems/reps] are
trying to force us to [x] by passing that new law!" When people view things
like that, it pisses everyone off. Let the states be in charge of as much as
they possibly can.

~~~
jadell
There are some issues that don't fall neatly into the "50 laboratories"
theory. We tried that with slavery, women's suffrage, civil
rights/desegregation, gay marriage, and a host of other things. California or
New York banning housing discrimination based on race doesn't help me if I'm a
poor black family living in Georgia and can't afford (or other reason) to move
to one of those places. Hence, federal housing discrimination laws that apply
everywhere.

The problem is identifying _at the time_ which issues fall into that bucket.
Sure, any of the ones I mentioned are obvious to contemporary sensibilities in
hindsight. But at the time they were being argued, people were making the same
argument you are making. That's why the phrase "state's rights" has lost
meaning as anything other than a dog-whistle for "the right to discriminate
against people we don't like." It used to mean what you are arguing.

I don't disagree with your point, I've just never seen heard a reasonable way
to distinguish which issues fall into the "50 labs" bucket vs. the "federal
responsibility" bucket without the benefit of decades of hindsight.

~~~
turc1656
It's not easy. But a good starting point would be anything that falls within
the bounds of the constitution is clearly a federal issue, essentially be
definition. If it's an issue of basic human rights which are protected within
the constitution or anything else covered within it, then it has to be a
federal issue.

Once we are outside of that, I think the default should be to have it be a
state decision unless a strong case can be made for things that affect others
crossing state borders or a common good/service that federal taxes pay for
(i.e. externalities related to dumping, environmental regulation, borders,
immigration, interstate trade, roads/infrastructure, military, etc.)

That should cover the majority of cases and we can argue about the rest as
they pop up. As for some of the examples you listed - I get your point but two
of those ended up gaining enough support such that there were constitutional
amendments put in place to make those even higher than federal law. So maybe
if we gave the other two enough time we would have had a self-adjustment
through legislation on the state level due to changing opinions or enough
support to warrant the supermajority required for a constitutional change.

The other part of this is identifying and viciously pursuing laws that are at
odds with each other within the legal system. For example, the bill of rights
existed and supposedly protected all persons (citizens or not) within the US.
And yet at the same time, those rights were ignored for nearly all of an
entire race of people. For that to be consistent at the federal level, one
would have had to argue in court that these were not human beings. They didn't
do that - they merely declared them as property, but never actually stripped
them of their human status, as far as I know.

Reading your comment over again, I realize the first paragraph effectively
falls into the same category as the problem I am pointing out, in a way. The
implication of _" we tried that with slavery, women's suffrage, civil
rights/desegregation, gay marriage, and a host of other things"_ to me reads
as "a bunch of people were clearly doing the wrong thing and were given a
chance to correct it but they didn't, so they obviously had to be forced to do
the right thing." And that's precisely the issue I raised. If someone in
Alabama was prevented the right to marry because they were homosexual, but no
laws were actually being violated (the supreme court ruling changed that),
then should I vote to try to force them into submission if it doesn't affect
me or anyone in my state? I'm not sure the answer to that should be yes
because it results in the kind of issues we face today. I do realize that
"your rights are my responsibility" and all that, but I'm referring to the
pre-USSC ruling where it wasn't a _federally_ defined right that required
protection.

~~~
nerdponx
_If it 's an issue of basic human rights which are protected within the
constitution or anything else covered within it, then it has to be a federal
issue._

 _Once we are outside of that, I think the default should be to have it be a
state decision_

I don't think anyone who understands and appreciates federalism disagrees with
this. The problem is that we all disagree on what those terms mean (read: most
of us agree most of the time, some people have legitimate disagreements, and
others disagree in bad faith and stir up populist movements against
consensus).

------
uncletaco
My one reason for not agreeing with dividing the US is that most southern
states (one of which I live in, happily) still have lots of black people who
will lose federal protections from Jim Crow era laws that have not been
enforced since the 60s. So the US staying together is a deterrent to, say,
Alabama, enforcing some of its segregationist and racist laws that are just
sitting there.

Now, I know the first answer to this is for black people to just pack it up
and move somewhere else, and the guy in the interview glossed over it by
saying people should "self sort". However large migrations almost always bring
with them instability and sometimes war. I think of India and Pakistan as the
most egregious example of what happens when populations are told to "self-
sort" into separate countries that were once unified.

~~~
murph-almighty
I would argue that basically all of the recent migrations are self-sorting:
you're saying "I can't stay here out of fear for my safety" and doing
something about it by removing yourself from that situation. "Self-sorting" is
almost a disservice to the amount of effort it takes to remove yourself from a
suddenly created situation past your control.

This is also why I hold general antipathy towards the sentiment "move back to
your country"\- clearly they left because something was deeply, utterly
fucked. And it's awkward/cognitively dissonant to watch my family, a product
of exactly this sort of immigration (context: Hungary and Russia in '55/'56)
exhibit that sentiment in the modern day when people are fleeing gang violence
in Guatemala and civil war in Syria.

------
hprotagonist
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White)

 _The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary
relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual
sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations.
It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received
definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation.

By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these
Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the
Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union".

It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by
these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect,
is not?

...

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an
indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the
guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the
State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something
more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the
political body. And it was final.

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual,
and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no
place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through
consent of the States.

...

The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give
effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without
operation in law. _

We killed 620,000 american soldiers proving this point about 160 years ago.
Let's not go relitigating that.

------
rramdin
Who is this guy and why is this website spreading his opinions. Nothing he
says is based in facts or data. All of his conclusions begin with "I feel" not
"The data indicate."

He says, "I’m sure the British Empire in the 1700s and 1800s always thought
they would have a toehold in different parts of the world." How is he sure? Is
there data to support this claim? He doesn't even cite a primary source. What
is "the British Empire" even? The common citizens? The intellectual class? The
monarchy? He's just saying things.

"The U.S. has always been, I would say, on the right side of the bell curve
when it comes to jingoism — a little bit more patriotic than most countries."
Is there data to substantiate this claim?

"I feel like the U.S. peaked in the ’90s." How is this defined? The US economy
is bigger; the military is stronger; its foreign interests are more secure. It
just happens to be this guy's childhood when America peaked. This is just some
guy inventing some narrative rooted in his own nostalgia.

This is just some guy blathering. He should rightfully be afraid to share
these beliefs, because they are completely unsubstantiated and not based in
reality. It's just what he "feels," which should be uninteresting to anyone
else. It is journalistically irresponsible to spread such misinformation
without at least some fact-checking.

------
SnacksOnAPlane
We may be better off as separate countries, but the divide isn't red state vs.
blue state. It's urban vs. rural.

I'm in Atlanta, and most of us here wouldn't be happy at all living in a "deep
south" country.

~~~
turc1656
But once you surpass roughly 4,000 people per square mile, things inevitably
turn blue. Any political heat map shows this. There's a heavy correlation.
Surely, urban vs rural is related to red vs blue, no?

~~~
SnacksOnAPlane
Absolutely, which is why breaking up the country geographically wouldn't work.
And breaking up the country based on population density seems like a
logistical nightmare.

------
howard941
Short of us sharing a military and state department, Chris almost had what
he's asking for. The latter Clinton years and up through first few Bush II
years had the states holding the their preeminence with a Congress that was
loathe to step on states by way of preemption/supremacy clause. When the
branches all flipped and the more liberal states starting feeling their oats
the Courts shifted and were more eager to find in favor on Federal preemption
in conflict cases. FCC actions upheld as they pertain to preempting state and
local ISP regulations come to mind as the most egregious of recent flip-flops
but I'm sure there are others.

We'll probably drop back to a more federalist state of affairs once the
branches flip again.

------
non-entity
Obviously this is something that's impractical, would leave a lot of people in
poverty and won't happen, but I've thought about this a number of times
myself, and I've always wondered if it would rock regions so hard, their
entire ideals would be shaken up. For example if a hyper individualistic
population would slowly lose that trait because poverty forces them into a
more empathetic, community focused view.

------
doctoboggan
> We’re so polarized that the federal government doesn’t really work.

I think this idea is best captured in the following chart of the "mitosis" of
the congress:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stu...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stunning-
visualization-of-our-divided-congress)

------
devoply
It's obviously true that consolidation of power by empire-like nation states
was always a stupid idea. Power should always be distributed, countries with
too much power act as ass holes around the world and are not needed.

~~~
mythrwy
I've always thought the most efficient setup would be two levels of
governance:

1) Global Governance. Sets regulations on trade, basic human rights (i.e
locals can't hang gay people etc), environmental policy (region A can't send
pollutants down stream to region B). Things of that sort.

2) City/County level governance. Mosques can only be 10 feet tall and motor
vehicles are not allowed. Or whatever the cultural preferences are.

However, an argument for nation states might be, they allow some level of
selection. If nation A becomes corrupt or refuses to embrace science, nation B
overcomes it. But this does cause a lot of suffering and war.

~~~
usrusr
I think you are underestimating just how "provincial" those sub-provincial
governments could become. County level is where the professionalization gap
between ruling ideas and opposing views is the largest.

~~~
BuckRogers
Every county would send a delegate to the global governance, which would be
the World Unity Council. So we would maximize democratic engagement locally
(county), and have direct and equal influence in the global body.

As long as democracy is healthy in both places, it won't ever be perfect, but
it'll be as good as it gets. Unless we unleash AI to run the world before
that, and I think that's more likely to happen.

Half the population views direct democracy as some sort of distrustful evil.
Just the way people seem to be, especially when democracy doesn't go their
way. Conspiracy theories. It's all about good management, with anything. It's
never perfect or suits everyone all the time. That's just the human condition.

So as a result we're most likely going to be dominated by AI at some point in
the near future. It's probably what humanity overall deserves since people
don't want to be sensible and engage in democracy. Even though it's immensely
fulfilling to become connected to your own destiny and relevant community-
it's work, and people don't like that. I do think more people would do it, if
they saw direct, near-immediate results from their engagement, which does not
really exist as much today.

So after a couple billionaires have a nuclear war, we'll end up putting the
robots in charge, unless the robots simply takeover first- and we'll be done
with it.

------
belltaco
Clinton won counties representing about 2/3rds of the GDP.

It'd be weird to break urban vs. rural areas into different countries.

The same divide exists in other countries like England.

------
acconrad
A federalist republic should mirror more like the EU than the USA. I don't see
why states couldn't be their own countries.

~~~
ap3
What about the armed forces ?

~~~
acconrad
every state has it's own reserve. obviously skewed to navys on the coasts and
texas/california have big reserves of folks

------
pessimizer
Anything that destroys the power of the Senate is good. This would do that,
therefore this is good.

------
neo4sure
We this guy must be a friend of Putin.

