Would the world be better off with a balkanized U.S.?

We've often joked, remarked, and predicted whether or not this might come about, and this thread is NOT meant to be a prediction of future events thread, but merely a discussion of what it might mean after the fact.

So here's the scenario: For whatever reason, the US of A has split into a half dozen or so smaller, independent nations along various geo-political lines.

Would we be better off, and why or why not?

Would the world be better off, and why or why not?

Have at it. It's the red room, but if we could prevent this one from devolving into the typical partisan, namecalling bullshit by the end of the first page, that would be cool.

I give the idea

The US is too big, and much too intrusive into the lives of it's citizens. When our founding fathers first created this country, it was only 13 small colonies that soon became states. It was manageable. But once the country started growing and adding states our problems became compounded. Today it is simply impossible for one almighty government to control everything, and to look out for the interests of almost 400 million citizens with different backgrounds and opinions.

Well, popular culture would certainly be changed.

Would Hollywood get partisan/patriotic against all the pieces that split off from them?

Or would the other pieces now fall into minority culture status, to be portrayed respectfully?

Would New York City now count as an "exotic location" for those in the non-NYC pieces?

And would I still be obsessed with making fun of popular media's painful idiosyncrasies?

It would end our role as Policeman to the World, officially, at least.

Maybe if we prefaced it by creating a trade association that encompassed all of the states and territories and allowed them to deal with other nations as a single entity, it could work...after a very long time of sorting out who gets what and who's responsible for what once the "Union" is dissolved.

What to do about little things like defense? That would take some planning.

And depending on where the lines on the maps were drawn, some of the new "states" would flourish, while others, having lost their federal funding, would sink into oblivion.

The world, maybe.

The citizens? FUCK NO. Too many ways to count - can you imagine needing to immigrate from Oklahoma to Pennsylvannia? If we break up, there's going to be bad feelings and border feuds, which will lead to increased prices and maybe even tariffs. God forbid they not agree on how to divide up the nukes, or the navy, or the army, or who gets what chunk of the national debt.

I like being able to travel 3000 miles and know the culture, know the language, be able to do so without getting a visa 20 times. What if a state decides to stop supporting a major interstate across it?

Imagine the impact in something as simple as going to college.

And all of a sudden R&D is split between multiple states, and the megacorps gain even more power compared to the individual governments.

You want to live in a balkanized nation? Immigrate to the Balkans or the former Soviet Union. Enjoy.

You bring up some valid points, but remember that we're not talking 50 individual countries, but blocks of former states forming about a half dozen countries. So yeah, theoretically if you wanted to move from OK to PA you would be emigrating, but maybe not if you wanted to move from OK to KS or AL or GA, depending on how the lines were drawn.

I would assume in any balkanization scenario that TX would be a country of its own- back to the Lone Star Republic days.

This begs another question: if the US were to break apart, would not the national debt become null and void? If there is no more federal government, no U.S. currency (the dollar), and so on, the debt is automatically defaulted on. Am I right or not?

If that's what it takes to give us a 16 team playoff, World Championship Of College Football I'm all for it.

There is no scenario in which Americans would be better off with the United States breaking up. It would make all of our lives much, much more complicated, and would have no benefits that I can immediately think of.

There is one, maybe not a big one, but it's this: You and I would no longer be sending our tax dollars to Tennessee.

Trim the fat. Cascadia, bitches.

Actually, I think that on the world stage, things would be fine so long as civilized allies were still wiling to act together to counter a legitimate global threat (and otherwise feel much less obliged to be "world cop)

As for North america, I think the whole question turns on how much animosity people have towards each other. If the various states end up getting along the way we get along with, say Canada and Australia now, then other than some folks adjusting to new realities (for instance, poorer folks in more conservative states seeing a greatly modified "safety net" structure, or conservative folks in more liberal states adapting to permanent minority status in things like gay rights - which is ongoing anyway in some places) I think it would be fine.

I think garamet's thesis about transfer payments overstates the difficulties for the receiver areas, because it ignores the opportunity to rectify that through trade and so forth, as well as those states modifying WHAT they pay for and HOW. A lot of Federal dollars come with strings that make those dollars less efficient.

Anyway, I'd argue that ultimately the majority of folks would be much better off if they could choose to live in a country that more closely reflects their worldview...a couple of liberal states that would likely look a lot like Canada, a "jesusland" state or two, a more libertarian sort of place (interior Northwest most likely)...while those who were financially unable to re-locate, or unwilling to, would be pretty damned miserable as, say, a liberal in the Southeast or a conservative in Boston.

The first decade or two might be turbulent, but long term...50-100 years out... I would think a federation of similarly minded but wholly independent Western/Anglo nations would work better than a "superpower" for sane human behavior.

On the other hand, if the daughter states spent all their time trying to piss in each other's soup - that would be bad.


One other note - if such a thing happened I would think that as a natural consiquence you'd see a realignment in Canada too. there would be a natural geographic and political connection between, say, Vancouver and at least the populated area of BC, and the so-called "Cascadia" region in the american Northwest. Alberta, et al probably have a great deal in common with Montana, et al. The "blue state" Northeast would probably readily fit with (non-Quebec) Eastern Canada - Possibly the upper Midwest as well.

I wouldn't be awfully surprised if the Southwest lost some territory back to Mexico (or a new state that amounted to "Mexico, Jr.") either. But that's not really relevant to the thread.

Short answer to the OP: the whole thing depends on HOW the split occurs and whether the new states are friendly or acrimonious.

Just as an aside, Israel would be screwed...

I don't see that as a foregone conclusion. The Feds have basically been hindering, not helping, immigration law enforcement in Arizona for quite a while now. You might see southern California go the way of Mexico, Jr., but I don't think Arizona would -- not without a war, anyway. I can see Arizona, New Mexico and Texas working out a trade/ally status against that happening.

This would fuck the world economy over in ways we have no way to predict, though I imagine it'll make the Great Depression look like a prosperity bubble in comparison.

on the other hand, if the world economy were already in a great depression, which is likely to happen eventually, then the props the current U.S. economy provides would already be largely absent.


Also, the U.S. economy supports the world economy largely by consumption. One would have no reason to assume less consumption just because the consumers are politically separated.

As I suggested upthread: Forming a trade association in place of the federal government could secure the economic impact.

Nope. What we need is more harmony, not competing little fiefdoms. That would do tremendous economic damage, apart from anything else.

We've already got 50+ little fiefdoms. Even within states there are conflicts in terms of culture and goals - Upstate NY vs Downstate, Western vs Eastern North Carolina, Northern California vs SoCal, etc.

Consolidating blocs of states into larger regions would IMO reduce some of that friction, particularly in terms of states like mine having to prop up states like Muad's.

Well I know you're probably gonna shit the bed when I say this, but border wars, increased prices, and tariffs caused it the first time.

You may change your sheets now.

Right, and there would be a huge slippery slope on this once the concept of secession is ratified. Say the 6 New England states form a country. It won't be long before New Hampshire or Vermont wants out. And then the Burlington area won't want to be stuck with Rutland so individual towns will begin to secede.

in the abstract, all of this might be okay, but unless the rest of the world also reverts to city states, we'd be ripe for conquest by the new Canadian Empire.

We've had islands secede here in Maine.

There is also talk of Maine becoming either in part, or wholly part of Canada.

Generally, I doubt it's a wise course.

As to the question, a lot depends on how and how quickly is it done. Are we talking Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia? Is it an orderly process or due to an emergency?


As a general statement, I don't really see it happening. I do however see more regional/political collusion. You saw this in other states joining the California Emissions standards during the Bush years, you get enough other states with actual populations and then you've got a national standard, whether or not the Feds actually get behind it.

I think this will continue.

Well, given how peaceful and prosperous the world has been in the late 1970s and the past four years, when we've had a weak United States, I can only imagine the paradise it would be if the USA completely dissolved.

Harmony in terms of not killing each other over disagreements? Definitely.

But it would be a considerable misunderstanding of human nature, after all this accumulated evidence, to assume their can be harmony of opinion. Americans have had every logical reason to become a more harmonious population and we have steadily, over the last half century, become less so (and a century before that killed many thousands because we couldn't)

Human nature, to our discredit perhaps, is not given to agreement and harmony. There's no logical reason why people who completely disagree about how civilization should work ought be forced into a political partnership with each other for unrealistic idealistic reasons.

Rather, all that is necessary is that they agree to peaceably disagree in those places where their views can't be reconciled. That can be done, quite possibly better in fact, in seperate states as it can by being bound together for symbolic reasons.

in short, the U.S, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK often disagree, are economic competitors and separate governments, and yet on the whole they get along fine and share a mutually beneficial working relationship.

Upon what evidence should we conclude that this would not be possible between the 5 or 6 theoretical "daughter states" of the U.S. should a divide happen?

I'm not asking for an argument that it WON'T happen, I'm asking for evidence that it CAN'T.

You raise, perhaps in passing, another interesting point. It would be a mistake to assume that in the event of such a separation, that we should be obliged to hold strictly to state lines. for instance, Anc would argue (correctly) that coastal Washington has little in common with the Eastern part of the state. Same for Oregon. Same, with some complexities, for California.

Geography would of course constrain some situations (can one practically separate Orange County from LA?) but I would assume that there would be some variation from state lines.

And as it relates to your point...I would assume that there would be some economic solution having to do with, for instance, Coastal California (your country) having to pay quite a bit for water rights to the interior areas which your dollars now "support" (just to use one example)

Right now, the transfer payments you are thinking of are only one part of the equation. the "rich" areas derive economic benefits from their being in the same country with the "dependent" states which also happen to be the agricultural producers and so forth.

when that synergy is disturbed, or altered, it's not like the "rich" areas can simply pocket the savings.

Eh, it would shake out for a while until a new equilibrium was reached.

Besides, a direct secession movement is not the only scenario to arrive at the situation Marso mentions. A top-down dissolution of the federal government would not set any particular precedent re secession, but it would create a situation where political distinctions were redrawn to reflect popular sentiment. i don't see that as particularly a bad thing except, as I said, for those folks economically "trapped" on the wrong side of the new borders.

Well, some parts of the US are quite poor in both money and natural resources, while some parts of the US are quite rich in both. Right now, the wealthier areas subsidize the poorer ones, which keeps everything peaceful. Take that away, you're looking for trouble. Poor people don't tend to stay peaceful people for long.

Which states are being subsidized the most? Here ya go.

http://247wallst.com/2012/08/03/states-that-get-the-most-federal-money/2/

No. People from the Balkan are ugly, dirty and mostly criminals.

j/k

Transitional discord is not evidence that the long term effect would be continual upheaval. Besides, it would be a misreading of world politics to assume there was some blessed peace going on from, say, '92 to '06