Here’s an option for the U.S. that sounds less radical than secession. It could be called an extreme form of autonomy. Let the red-state federation and the blue-state abomination become two separate countries in every way, except that they continue to share the federal reserve & currency (if that’s the popular choice), and share a military, which would consist of the military of each red state and the military of the blue-state entity. There would be no government above the government of the red-state federation or above the government of the blue-state entity. The two halves would hold in common, as peers, the military of the US. The military would be led by someone called the “Commander in Chief,” the only official left who would still be elected by all the people of the USA. He would be someone different from the president of the blue states and different from whoever leads the red-state federation. The blue-state entity would have a president, Congress, and judiciary at Washington DC. None of these would have any power or jurisdiction over red states. The red states would have their own constitution, which would presumably respect states’ rights.
The commander in chief would only have jurisdiction over defense from foreign adversaries, like a secretary of defense. The red states would no longer have to fear that the US would send the FBI or judicial rulings to strip their rights. There would be no US agents to impose penalties, taxes, or enforce laws. Only red states or the red-state federation would have laws and enforcement of laws in red-state territory. A red state’s military would be deterrent enough to prevent pressure on the state from other states.
The Commander in Chief would have a staff funded by both halves of the US, but no weapons. The weapons are held by the military of each red state, and by the military of the blue-state country.
The Commander in Chief would be responsible for “diplomacy” when it comes to to military issues. The Congress of the blue-state entity would have to agree with the Congress of the red-state federation before war were declared. The main tasks of diplomats are better left to these two halves of the US separately: visas (immigration), promoting businesses, trade deals (tariffs), and foreign aid.
The two parts of the US could still eventually split, and that’s OK.
Our motivation for suggesting this middle path is that it might be easier to convince people to accept it as compared to secession. The US would still exist in some sense, and the two halves could be described as “autonomous regions” of the US.
Sammy Edwards writes :
It is easy to find countless examples of examples of unruly regions and ethnicities granted “self-rule” in exchange for ceding foreign policy powers to the central government. States have made it abundantly clear on countless occasions that they’re willing to tolerate local autonomy for various populations so long as the state retains the preponderance of control over military and diplomatic affairs. This was the case throughout much of the nineteenth century within the British Empire. It has been the case for countless difficult-to-unite populations in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. This reality is reflected in the existence of self-governing client states.