Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has once more stirred controversy, this time by proposing a serious discussion about national divorce. Her detractors immediately dismissed it as a call for civil war, but Greene insists that Congress is the place for divorce talks, not the streets. Is this a recipe for disaster, or does she have a point?
It started with a tweet by associate editor of Chronicles Magazine, Pedro Gonzales, where he proposed that people who flee from a progressive state to a conservative one and complain about their new home should be “actively discriminated against … through legislation.”
Greene responded to this by saying it would be “All possible in a National Divorce scenario.” Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) then responded that national divorce was not an option because “either you are for civil war, or you are not.” It escalated quickly from there.
The debate about national divorce signifies America has lost its way. There already exists a well-established uncontroversial word for national divorce: federalism. It is the idea that America’s 50 states can act independently of each other with different laws, only sharing some national scaffolding to hold the nation together as one. Even better: It’s already in the constitution.
Why is there even a debate about introducing something that already is at the core of the United States? And why is it controversial? It signifies how far away from the original constitution the nation has drifted.
If federalism were respected as the Founding Fathers originally outlined it, there would be almost no discontent with national policies because few would exist. There would be no far-reaching executive orders, massive debt, spiraling inflation, national curriculum, or an alphabet soup of federal agencies.
Federalism has eroded in the hearts and minds of politicians on both sides of the aisle. It has gone so far that one of these parties actively does everything in its power to further the erosion while the other tags along without too much protestation.
An understanding of the constitution is so poor among the representatives that one of them has re-invented federalism under this slogan of national divorce, except worse. Under the idea of separating the United States into red and blue states, one has introduced two separate blocks that move in lockstep. Why not 50?
The Great Lab
America was conceived as an experimental laboratory where each state could pursue a set of laws and policies within the security of a national framework. It gave citizens two chances to vote, first with their ballots and then their feet. With 50 states to choose from, the odds were high that citizens would find at least one state suitable for their needs and core beliefs. Natural selection would take care of the rest.
This lab model was not only a good idea but a unique innovation that allowed America to flourish and rise to the status of super-power. How about a return to the constitution for a change?
~ Read more from Caroline Adana.