mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
American Balkanization
This Is How the Country Breaks Apart
Features Icon
show comments
  • Dale Fayda

    “We do not want to go down this road.”

    Yes, we do. Let CA (and any other Blue state) secede. Let’s get it over with.

    • TGates

      But before this happens, CA itself needs to decide who goes and who stays. Based on what I understand, roughly 50% of the CA populace representing 50% of the CA landmass would probably vote to breakaway from CA and stay in the US in some form or another. In fact we have seen many proposals calling for CA to be divided into 6 states. What do you do with all of the federal military bases in southern CA as well as the Navy port in San Diego? My guess is the real breakaway part of CA is considerably smaller than represented.

      • Dale Fayda

        All that stuff will shake out in time. Look at the break up of the Soviet Union, for example. It happened largely unilaterally – various Soviet republics simply declaring themselves independent and the Soviet government basically just approving fait accompli. You may very well be right – the breakaway part of CA may very well look vastly different than the current geographic configuration of the state, with coastal Oregon and Washington possibly joining CA and their respective inland areas staying in the US. Additional spontaneous territorial permutations are also a possibility, even after an agreement been reached, with this or that county deciding to throw in with this entity or the other. Some of this may even be decided by force of arms. Look at Nagorno – Karabakh, Transnistria, eastern Ukraine, Chechnya, etc.

        The military installation question may be handled along the lines of how Russia used to maintain its Black Sea naval bases in (formerly) Ukrainian Crimea or how it still maintains its Kaliningrad enclave, which is detached from Russia proper. Some military bases may have to given up (no big loss).

        If there is a will – there is a way.

        • Jim__L

          I don’t think that giving up our entire system of ports and military bases on the Pacific could be considered “no big loss” strategically.

          San Diego will end up a flash point, or at best an enclave. Not good.

          • Anthony

            Jim, we have our “virtual” differences but we both love America and our mutual heritage (as well as her secure future). Reason carefully as to why someone (under ruse of Blue States’ governance disdain) would advocate the divisive issue of rendering America.

            As a note of caution (and this is pure speculation at this point), I refreshed myself on the tactics of the FSB. The assault on the Western Liberal Order remains a strategic interest – provocateurs are not as Foreign looking (sounding) as we have been acculturated to think. Food for thought.

        • Wascally Wabbit

          You actually think this is gonna happen? Damn, boy, maybe that fabled Azlatan country gonna happen
          You gotta put that pipe down son..its making you CRAZY.

      • Jim__L

        Geographically speaking, the potential breakaway parts of California are densely-populated patches and strips along the coast. So, maybe a little more than 50% of the population (and next to none of the water), vs. a bit more than 50% of the population (with a lot more of the water, and thirsty farmland that demands it.)

        • Wascally Wabbit

          Never gonna happen. Libs just gonna have to accept defeat again as they have for the past 8 years. Look at all the losses they have endured under Obummer. Get over it, Trump is the President and you all gonna have to live with it or move to Cuba…granted, nobody here gonna miss your ass so…Leave now.

      • texasjimbo

        I doubt the pro succession side could get 50% of the vote (the one poll I saw put support in the mid 30% range). But the deep blue portion of the state where the pro succession sentiment is the strongest represents far more than 50% of the population and occupies less than 50% of the land area. The percentage that would choose to stay in California *after* succession occurred (even if California had to abandon its reder areas is probably above 50%.

    • Diws

      How about secession and no peace treaty? Would be nice to reabsorb coastal California, sans limousine liberals.

      • Dale Fayda

        Not sure how much of it would be left after the inevitable flood of people and criminal cartels from Mexico into the new “Republic of California”. You don’t think the Leftists who would be running that country would put much effort into border control, do you? That’s racist, don’t you read the papers?

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    If it comes down to another civil war, I’m going to be on the side that has already heavily armed itself. Muwahahaha!

  • Jim__L

    Does the Californians supporting this not see the irony in their making their association with Kansas contingent on Kansas complying with a morality that California wants to impose on Kansas, regarding the (oh goodness how terrible!) practice of Kansans wanting to make their association with other Kansans contingent on agreeing to a common moral framework?

    • Warheit

      Kafkaesque, indeed.

  • Legal Economist

    Jason Willick needs a refresher course on federalism. Federalism was never intended to “create a kind of insurance against polarization” — federalism exists so that a diverse people can co-exist under a broad national political umbrella. If Californians want “do everything together through government” and prohibit collegiate athletes from traveling to Kansas, that’s their prerogative. Other states can choose to not restrict public funds, or better yet, let their citizens keep their own money and spend it as they see fit. And if some citizens of California cannot abide by the communitarian solidarity of their comrades, they can easily move to other states.

    Once again, the lockstep consensus created by the unique events of World War II is leading to a dead-end of totalitarian conformity. Throughout most of its history, the United States has been a very diverse nation. This diversity has been tolerated by respecting the sovereignty of the individual states, and by the free movement of its citizens. Labelling this diversity as “polarization” is wrong, because polarization is created by the top-down imposition of winner-take-all, one-size-fits-all national policies.

    A real “commitment to tolerance and inclusion” means respecting and accepting fundamental differences — even if those differences seem crazy and immoral.

    • Jim__L

      I dunno, doesn’t this qualify as “interstate commerce”?

      A whole lot more than anything else that’s “covered” by that clause these days, anyway?

      • Legal Economist


        There is no federal power (commerce or otherwise) to command state spending.

        See the 10th Amendment and Printz v. United States.

        • Jim__L

          Not entirely seriously… mostly I’m being snarky about the extreme flexibility of the commerce clause.

          On the other hand, it is in the best interests of DC to try to reconcile potential conflicts between the states before they turn terribly sour. Liberty is a good approach, all things considered.

          • Disappeared4x

            No need to be snarky about “…the extreme flexibility of the commerce clause…” FDR expended serious effort to get that flexibility. He was lucky that Coolidge’s sole SCOTUS nominee was Harlan Fiske Stone, who was also the first SCOTUS nominee to answer questions from the Senate in person.

            Apologies for not having the references on my current hard drive on how Stone persuaded the Court on this, after FDR’s court-packing idea was stopped. Stone’s support was why FDR made Stone Chief Justice of SCOTUS in 1941.



        • QET

          You should be more imaginative. Under the Tushnet doctrine, Printz would likely be summarily overturned by a liberal-weighted Court as having been wrongly decided. And it requires no great stretch of the imagination to foresee that if the Kansas legislature prohibited its athletes from traveling to California because California’s gay policies were deemed immoral and inconsistent with Kansas values, a liberal-weighted Court and maybe even a conservative-weighted one would probably find that the Commerce Clause in this case did override the states’ sovereignty. California cannot enact a tariff on Kansas athletes, and we have a Chief Justice who equated a government mandate to a tax. So I think it would be fairly easy for the Court to sustain the CC as a basis for prohibiting what CA wants to do.

          • texasjimbo

            But they are not prohibiting individuals from traveling anywhere. They are saying that money that is from the state government or passed through/spent by a state institution can not be used to pay for the trip. And perhaps, that an individual can not act as an agent of the state institution while traveling on that trip. Both of those things are very different from having “prohibited its athletes from traveling to California.”

        • Kevin

          No reason for Kansas voters to guarantee students loans in CA either.

    • rosewater49

      Wrong! His argument on federalism is correct. Apparently you would defend the southern states in their federalism argument in favor of slavery.

      • Therealpatriot2013jrd

        Seems like to much hyperbole to me, trying to conflate the issue of slavery as a state’s right, with the ban of state funded travel to Kansas. Almost like Godwin’s law, as when any issue is mentioned, it moves to the most extreme possibility. There are limits to what a state can do, but aren’t you using the slippery slope concept a bit much?

        • texasjimbo

          Legal Economist left real patriot a big opening: “…even if those differences seem crazy and immoral.”
          Should California be allowed, say, to detain someone indefinitely without charges or due process for no reason?

          • Therealpatriot2013jrd

            As I wrote, there are limits to be adjudicated by sane people on multiple levels. Your comment is hyperbole and doesn’t reflect my intent. I don’t wish to have to cover every contingency of lunatic thought. People who are contrarian, understood the point.

          • texasjimbo

            I used “hyperbole”? Ever heard of slavery? It was an actual thing in our history and was indistinguishable from my “hyperbole” except that it was the state empowering individuals to do exactly that to a certain class of people. And it illustrates one of the certain dilemmas of a federal system. It caused the worst war in our history.

        • rosewater49

          Did you actually read the article where the writer mentions as fact that southern states did use the Fed argument to justify slavery?

          • Therealpatriot2013jrd

            Read the article? Why would anyone do that….ha. Such a silly question from you. Are you against freedom of association, in which the SCOTUS has ruled on? The point is there are freedom’s that States and it’s entities should have, but only up to certain points in the issues, and then the judicial system is there to clarify the issues, if needed. What is confusing to you about that concept? In a upcoming issue, there are many in California that wish to secede from the Union…..the progressives, the illegals, the radicals, communists, socialists and other malcontents are working daily for that goal….do you think for a moment that the Federal Government is going to allow that to happen? Check your history, if you think it will work out.

    • Therealpatriot2013jrd

      Excellent comment. As a supporter of freedom, I choose which states to spend my money and time in. California is not one of those and both the state and I are happier for it.

    • texasjimbo

      Read the comment again. Insurance doesn’t prevent an event from occurring; it simply mitigates some of the effects of an event if it occurs.

  • Dhako

    Although I have no dog in this particular American’s intramural political fight. But something of the tone of the current American’s discourse tells me that, 4 years of Trump’s presidency,coupled with pliant congressional outfit and a Supreme court who soon will be tilting decisively to the right, will all going to make the talk of the “very dissolution” of the Republic, as if just another item on the discourse, not something akin to a crazy talk.

    Hence, it’s either going to be a Republic that had finally settled its political contradiction, whereby if one party wins power across the board the other party practically put the nation on a “hostage’s situation” (as it happened during the Obama’s years; and will probably happen if the democrat wins one or both chamber of congress, come the mid-term election of 2018). Or failing that then the US will basically be “tempting faith” in waiting around for the starter gun (or the “casus-belli”) that will start another political conflagration of the kind that could endanger the very foundation of the Republic.

    Lets hope, this perpetual divided Republic, will either dodge the bullet. Or some unseen so far of an statesmen, will rise from somewhere in this vast country and bring reason and comity back to the soul of this nation. Otherwise, I am afraid, it’s a curtain time for the American’s experiment.

    • Dale Fayda

      With all due respect, your auto-translator is not doing a particularly good job for you. And if you’re coming up with this copy yourself, you should spend a little more time polishing up the grammar. A lot of obvious grammatical missteps.

      • Psalms564

        My new strategy is to quote 90’s rap lyrics back to him. I promised him that i would real all his screeds of 2 paragraphs or less.

        • Dale Fayda

          I’ve never seen anything that short from him and I don’t think I ever will. He must get paid by the word. You may need to dip pretty deeply into your old record collection to keep up with his output.

          • Psalms564

            One word, one simple word in the English language: 2Pac. Poor Dhako won’t know what hit him when I drop 2Pac’s monologue at the end of Hit ‘Em Up. I gotta say, the Chinese and Russian propaganda efforts are pretty pisspoor. They seemed to have forgotten the #1 rule of propaganda (something the media here in the US also forgot): Your ENEMY is supposed to believe your propaganda, YOU are NOT supposed to believe your propaganda. Hubris, my friend, hubris gets everyone at the end.

    • Psalms564

      So your point is that America, a country that is seemingly blessed with endless natural resources, is doomed?
      Come on guy, people can’t walk in China’s cities without wearing a gas mask. How sustainable do you think that is?

    • ——————————

      “Otherwise, I am afraid, it’s a curtain time for the American’s experiment.”

      You better hope not, or the paper tiger will crash and burn without the USA buying it’s widgets…after teaching it how to make those widgets of course…and teaching it just about everything else it knows.

      There is nothing more pathetic and myopic than a ‘follower’ hoping for the hand that feeds it to get bitten….

  • Frank Natoli

    This is how the country breaks apart? A separation from California would be, no exaggeration, no hyperbole, the very best thing that could happen to the rest of the country. Can anything be done to advance that probability?

  • FriendlyGoat

    First of all, there is a fair fundamental question as to why any state funds should be needed for college athletes or anyone else to travel from California to Kansas. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with states slapping at each other over political matters—–seeing as how we now have a number of state governments going so anti-social that they deserve to be ostracized from other parts of the country.

    • Tom

      “seeing as how we now have a number of state governments going so anti-social that they deserve to be ostracized from other parts of the country.”

      Like, for example, California, which has been vigorously robbing Peter’s kids to pay Paul.

      • FriendlyGoat

        When Tom and Jim arrive together, I know I’m onto something.

        • Jim__L

          Nah, it’s just a coincidence. Reading too much into it is kind of weird.

          I think you’d be better off sticking to auspices. Or haruspices. Or, anything other than hyper-partisanship, really.

      • CosmotKat

        It’s actually robbing Peter to pay Pablo in CA.

    • Jim__L

      California is being extremely anti-social here, it’s true.

      • FriendlyGoat

        So there is nothing wrong with Kansas deciding it will not spend any state money for anyone to go do anything in California. Contrary to TAI here, which is worried that such tat-for-tat between state governments might break up the country, I’m inclined to think that some of this squabbling might cause citizens to pay more attention to the fracture of the country which is already underway anyhow. No better place for that to happen than in something(s) that become inconvenient for sports, after all.

    • f1b0nacc1

      Rarely do I agree with you on anything, but you are correct here.

  • Disappeared4x

    This is one tactic the Democrats now use to win elections, drive voter turnout, at the state level. In 2016, 5 states and 17 cities banned taxpayer-funded travel to North Carolina* to protest HB2. Gov. McCrory lost re-election over transgender bathroom access! In 2018, term-limited Gov. Brownback means open election in Kansas.

    I am not surprised that Massachusetts did not ban state-funded travel to Pennsylvania for fracking natural gas in the Marcellus Shale, after well organized activists got Kinder-Morgan to drop their pipeline plan. Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor Tom Wolf is eligible for re-election in 2018.

    There are 14 term-limited or retiring Republican governors in 2018, when the Democrats also have 23 Senators plus Sanders, VT, and King, ME up for re-election, with only 8 GOP Senators in 2018 :,_2018,_2018

    Only Virginia and New Jersey have open gubernatorial elections in 2017.

    • f1b0nacc1

      Of course, this practice could be used against them, particularly by compacts of states. Might be interesting to watch it play out…

      Sauce for the goose, and all that…

      • Disappeared4x

        There was a Target retailer consumer boycott to protest the transgender-bathroom controversy last spring, but the GOP has tended to stick to the rule of law, using other tactics to drive voter turnout, e.g., Real Issues, without abusing the power of state governments to create an issue as Gov. Brown just did by targeting Kansas.

        This is relevant, from Forbes, Jan 16, 2017:
        “Budget Shortfalls, State Attorneys General Waste Scarce Taxpayer Dollars On Partisan Witch Hunt”

        “…Explaining why voters decided to elect a record high number of Republican state attorneys general in 2016, Scott Will, executive director of the Republican Attorneys General Association, writes:

        “Attorneys general across the United States led or are still leading lawsuits against the Obama Administration on executive amnesty, Obamacare, the Clean Power Plan, Waters of the U.S., the transgender bathroom directive, and more. Our A.G.s won significant victories, and some cases are still winding through the court system. One thing is clear as a result of these actions: voters have rewarded Republican attorneys general for their defense of the Constitution and the rule of law.”

    • Palamas

      You mentioned 5 states and 17 cities. I don’t really think either of those made any difference. What DID make a difference was the NCAA and NBA pulling events out of North Carolina, costing the state’s economy some big bucks. Progressives have got their claws in many private or quasi-private institutions and businesses, and those are the real troublemakers. North Carolinians don’t care whether California bureaucrats travel to their state (would, on the whole, rather they didn’t). But when the NBA All-Star Game gets taken from Charlotte, that’s a big, big deal.

      • Disappeared4x

        Agree with you, but did not include the timeline in my original comment. Hope you can see how Cuomo’s NY travel ban on March 29 2016 was the kick-off to the entire boycott ‘process’, especially the basketball boycotts:
        March 29, 2016 1:37PM “New York, four cities ban government travel to NC over LGBT law: Highlights:
        New York City, Seattle, San Francisco, West Palm Beach issue travel bans
        Economic effect likely will be limited”
        …“…But Wake County commissioner says the moves hurt North Carolina’s image among companies
        “…It’s unclear how much government-funded travel took place in North Carolina before the bans. The loss of government employee travel is unlikely to have a major effect on the state’s economy.

        But Wake County Commissioner John Burns, a Democrat and vocal opponent of the law, said the travel bans could have a ripple effect. “Importance of NC travel bans isn’t loss of visits,” Burns said on Twitter. “These are our competitors. And they are burning this image into companies’ vision.” …”

        “A Comprehensive Timeline of Public Figures Boycotting North Carolina Over the HB2 ‘Bathroom Bill’ ”
        By Ryan Bort On 9/14/16 at 5:06 PM

        “…April 5: PayPal cancels plans to open a new facility in North Carolina that would have created 400 new jobs. The withdrawal comes only two weeks after plans for the new facility were initially announced. “Becoming an employer in North Carolina, where members of our teams will not have equal rights under the law, is simply untenable,” said CEO Dan Schulman in a statement. “The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture.”

        April 8: The Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority announces that it has lost 13 conventions following the passage of HB2.

        April 15: Famed performance troupe Cirque du Soleil announces the cancellation of shows in Greensboro, Charlotte and Raleigh.

        May 9: The Obama administration files a lawsuit against the state of North Carolina, claiming the passage of HB2 violates federal civil rights law protecting trans citizens.

        July 8: Sixty-eight companies—including Apple, Nike, American Airlines and plenty of other drivers of commerce in America—file a court brief against North Carolina in an attempt to block HB2. The brief was filed along with the Human Rights Campaign

        July 13: A November 12 men’s basketball game between Albany and Duke, which is located in Durham, is canceled. Why? Because after HB2 was passed in March, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo banned nonessential state
        travel to North Carolina.

        July 21: The NBA announces that it is pulling the 2016-2017 All-Star Game from Charlotte, where it was originally scheduled to take place.

        September 12: The NCAA announces that seven of its 2016-2017 championships will be moved out of the state.

        September 14: Following the NCAA’s lead, the ACC announces that it will move all of its 2016-2017 championships out of North Carolina.” …”…/hb2-boycotts-officials-encourage-economic-harm-own-st...
        Nov 8, 2016 – “In North Carolina, Democratic elected officials applaud boycotts of their own state inspired by House Bill 2….”

        “HB2 is still the law in North Carolina and so the boycott goes on”

        By Associated Press ·Wednesday, December 14, 2016

        • Palamas

          Oh, I agree about where it started. The private sector took its cue from virtue-signaling politicians like Cuomo. Key line is “But Wake County commissioner says the moves hurt North Carolina’s image among companies.” Once America’s Moral Arbiters sent out their decree, then the lickspittles could get their ducks in a row and properly punish the Great Unwashed. Thanks for the timeline.

          • Disappeared4x

            Helpful to be as cynical as the Dems: all of this was planned, starting with Charlotte’s ordinance that led to HB2. Mayor Jennifer Roberts was the new Wendy Davis. Same tactical plan in 2013: Wendy Davis v Texas abortion. Tried to turn Texas Blue…

            In 2010, Sen, Kirsten Gillibrand used ‘war on women’ to drive voter turnout of Manhattan females. Why? No Democrat can win NY statewide without a majority in NYC.

            It is how the Dems use Identity Politics to drive voter turnout.

            No such thing as a coincidence. Eric Holder is now working for California, because the Dems just lost the assist from DoJ.

            Nothing “symbolic” about Gov. Brown’s ban on taxpayer-funded travel to Kansas. The DNC is now increasingly reliant on LGBT donors. Identity Politics started with LGBT, in the 1960’s: Harry Hay.
            My cynicism comes from having briefly shared an office with NYS Democratic LGBT ‘activist’ more than ten years ago…

  • Ulysses4033

    At this point, the general leadership of California are all drinkers of the postmodernist Koolaid. They drink it in the Church of the All-Powerful State, which has magic powers greater than Voldemort’s to right all wrong, fix all potholes, put a chicken in every pot, and emasculate the President. The logic of religious magic-thinking leads us to the Inquisition and the concentration camp. Our governor and legislative leaders have become Teppichfressers in their rage at the apostates who do not bend our knee to their gods. This will not end well.

    • Disappeared4x

      Bonus point for Teppichfressers! fwiw, rumor has it California only fixes potholes when they turn into sinkholes.

      • Jim__L

        Yeah, I can verify that. The latest rains have left the roads in pretty poor condition.

        We’ll see how fast they get fixed.

    • Wascally Wabbit

      Aint nobody left in Cali but, fags, hags, and mexicans…to hell with them all. And if you disagree with me you’re a racist homophobe that probably believes in unicorns.

  • Fred

    So blue states hate states that allow freedom of religion and freedom of association. I think I’m gonna have a heart attack and die from NOT surprise.

  • Greg Olsen

    Red states would need to get their own house in order before going after states with sanctuary cities/counties/states. According to the Center for Immigration Studies Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan are the only states without a sanctuary policy somewhere in the state. This leaves out the red state behemoths Texas and Florida.

  • S.D. (Bob) Plissken

    The American-Interest. Home of Walter Russell Mead. Who voted for Barack Obama. Both times. #NeverForget

    • Palamas

      Well, that was…irrelevant.

  • Lepantzeus

    And nobody in Kansas cares! 😉

  • sliml jim

    what a load of crap.. idaho stops shipping spuds- iowa stops shipping beef, and the feds shut off the cash flow,, good luck you prunie pin heads.

  • Tom Servo

    I would really like to see deductability for all state income taxes eliminated, especially state income taxes and mortgage interest. It would pay for lower overall rates, and jack with California more than any other place. Also it would be nice to see some copyright changes, just whatever the movie company’s want, do the opposite. And offer special tax incentives for any tech company that is willing to move to the rust belt, and tax penalties for any who stay.

    Accepted knowledge is that hurting California’s economy hurts the country as a whole, but Trump has a wonderful opportunity to put in place policies what will suck California dry and send what they have to the the other 49 states. By the time California gets around to seceding, their economy will already have been destroyed. After that, let them go, who cares.

  • Cheryl Gumulauski

    If CA Dems try to succeed from the union, they will be met with the same deterrent they met the last time they tried this in 1861. The people can go, but the land stays in the USA.

  • Warheit

    We may not want to go down this road, but go down it we have. And it’s only the beginning.

    We aren’t even “one country, two nations” anymore. We’re now along for the ride as the myriad parts of the gargantuan, shambling zombie state known as the USA begins to fall apart. It may take 10,20, even 50 years to happen. But, sadly, I don’t think it’s a matter of if anymore — it’s a matter of when.

    That doesn’t mean there has to be a new civil war, or any bloodshed at all. A (very) loose confederation of several blocs of states could indeed be workable… assuming we ever have common cause to begin amending the U.S. Constitution to make such a thing a possibility. Admittedly, that’s a stratospherically high bar to hurdle though.

    If we want to avoid a second Civil War, the surest way is to call for an Article V Convention of The States.

  • SupplyGuy

    Let’s just get rid of CA already.
    The blue enclaves can become their own third world country and we’ll make the red East of the coast portions into two new states.

  • rosewater49

    I’m a proud Kansan and take California’s slight as a badge of honor.

  • The Deplorable EtoculusDei

    Fu ** KK California.

  • TruckinMack

    I would love to see state grow a pair and return fire. The NCAA, for instance, is banning a tournament in North Carolina because of transexual bathroom laws. (Oddly enough the NCAA is not imposing its will on all universities.) North Carolina should respond by removing all of its colleges and universities from the NCAA. Ditto for Texas, which the NCAA is also threatening. If the NCAA wants to move far Left, let it. Don’t chase it and beg it to take you back. Walk away and let it choke on it’s vomit.

  • Leader233

    CA will not be allowed to seceede because Democrats will prevent it by all means possible. They cannot afford to lose CA 44 electoral college votes or the popular majority it gave Ms Clinton in 2016. The Democrats would request Mr Trump take military action to prevent CA from leaving the union.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service