Op-Ed: Political Division Is So Severe America Should Split in Two

I never thought I’d say this. I agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene. Not on policy, certainly not on her rhetoric, but on her suggestion that Americans might be happier if we split into two separate nations — one red, one blue.

It may sound unthinkable to many. But let’s be honest, America has never been as united as its name suggests. The Articles of Confederation established an unworkable loose alliance of sovereign states, and it took the Constitutional Convention’s compromises — on slavery, representation, and federal power — to hold our young nation together, eventually leading to the Civil War, still our bloodiest conflict.

Post-Reconstruction, the divides persisted. The agrarian populism of the Midwest clashing with Eastern industrialism, the isolationist heartland versus coastal internationalism during the World Wars. The 20th century was marked by furious battles over civil rights, voting, and gender equality. From the beginning, we have been — and continue to be — a nation at odds with itself.

This divide feels even more permanent and deep than ever before. A country of 330 million people — stretching from New England villages to Mid-Atlantic cities to Texas oil towns to Montana ranches to California tech hubs to the glaciers of Alaska — is forced to act as if one set of laws, one political culture, and one vision of morality can workably apply to everyone. The result is endless frustration — with the whiplash of government swinging from left to right, Democrat to Republican, and back again every few years. One administration builds, the next tears down, and ordinary citizens are left angry, exhausted, and embittered.

A peaceful separation into two sovereign countries could offer a much healthier and happier path forward. Imagine a “Red America” and a “Blue America,” each free to pursue its own vision of health care, education, social policy, and regulation — without constantly trying to override the other.

But separation need not mean isolation. We could model our post-split relationship on the European Union: two sovereign nations bound by a cooperative framework that preserves the best of our d history. The U.S. dollar — as a continued common currency — would stabilize economies and facilitate trade, avoiding the pitfalls of monetary divergence. Joint defense through a mutual security pact — perhaps an evolved NATO-like alliance — would safeguard against external threats, with d military assets and intelligence.

Most crucially, free movement of persons, goods, and services could mirror the EU’s Schengen Area and single market, with citizens crossing borders without passports, businesses operating seamlessly, and cultural exchanges flourishing. This “American Union” would allow red and blue citizens to live under governments that reflect their values while enjoying the economic and security benefits of partnership. Families divided by ideology could visit freely; businesses could tap talent pools across the divide; and innovation could flow unimpeded, from Silicon Valley’s tech to Texas’s energy sector.

This path doesn’t need to be a fantasy. There is recent precedent for peaceful national separation. In 1993, Czechoslovakia split in what became known as the “Velvet Divorce.” Both the Czech Republic and Slovakia have thrived since. The European Union shows how sovereign nations can preserve independence while cooperating on security and trade.

Before that, there was the peaceful dissolution of the Norway-Sweden union in 1905. After nearly a century of union under a d monarchy, Norway sought independence. Rather than fight, the two nations negotiated a peaceful split. Norway held a referendum, voting for independence, and Sweden accepted the outcome. Assets were divided amicably, and both countries maintained close ties, later cooperating in trade and defense as Nordic neighbors. Today, both thrive as prosperous, friendly nations.

And, of course, most recently, Britain’s decision to leave the European Union shows that even today the most complex political and economic unions can be unwound through democratic choice. Brexit was hardly seamless — negotiations were protracted and often messy — but the essential fact is that one of the world’s largest economies reasserted its sovereignty without bloodshed or collapse.
The U.K. remains deeply connected to Europe through trade, travel, and culture, yet it is now free to chart its own course.

A workable plan for us might unfold like this:

First, state choice. Each state would vote on whether to join Red or Blue America, through referenda to ensure legitimacy. Each new nation would lay out its governing principles — or proposed constitution — so that each state and its citizens could make an informed choice.

Second, division of assets. A national commission would apportion federal infrastructure — from military bases to energy and telecommunications infrastructure to highways — and allocate the national debt fairly, much as Czechoslovakia did.

Third, d structures. Both countries would contribute to a joint defense command, preserve a single currency, and maintain open borders so families and businesses could continue to cross easily, and the national commission would develop appropriate governance for those activities.

Finally, relocation support. For a transitional period, residents wishing to move from one nation to the other would receive temporary financial help, such as relocation grants, housing vouchers, and assistance transferring schools, medical coverage, and retirement benefits. No one would be trapped in a political system they couldn’t abide simply because they couldn’t afford to move.

Some will think this impossible. They will warn that splitting the country would weaken us economically or militarily, leaving two diminished powers where one superpower once stood. They will say that our d history, culture, and Constitution are too precious to divide. They will fear that the process of separation would be chaotic, messy, and rife with unintended consequences. But none of this is insurmountable.

Two coherent nations, working in partnership, could actually wield more consistent influence abroad than today’s divided America. Our d culture and history would not vanish – they would live on in a union of equals, much like Europe’s d civilization thrives across its many nations, continuing to reflect our existing and long-standing regional differences. As for the logistics, Czechoslovakia, Norway–Sweden, and Brexit all proved that with careful planning, political will, and mutual respect, separation can be orderly, even amicable.

The benefits of a split would, indeed, be significant. Each country would enjoy greater political and social stability, without the constant lurch of alternating administrations. The world would deal with two coherent Americas rather than one divided vacillating giant. Our allies surely would welcome the end of sharp foreign policy swings every four or eight years. Most importantly, Americans themselves would be freer and happier — able to live under governments that reflect their values, while still traveling, trading, and connecting with those in the other nation.

Moreover, the idea of national division is not a rejection of America’s grand experiment, but a recognition of its current limits. Every political system must eventually adapt to the changing social realities beneath it. Just as the United States pioneered the modern constitutional democracy, an American Union would simply be the next chapter — a model of cooperation between sovereign democracies bound not by historical accident and forced uniformity, but by choice, consent, and mutual respect.

Here’s the paradox. By not forcing everyone into one political box, we might actually come together more easily. Freed from constant fight to death battles over who controls Washington, who is appointed to the Supreme Court, we could meet as neighbors, business partners, and even friends without seeing one another as existential threats. Separation could make it easier to rediscover our common humanity.

We are told that compromise is the essence of democracy. But compromise only works when underlying values are d, there is general consensus on overall governing principles, and the disputes are ones of degree — like tax rates, spending levels, the approach to a social safety net (as opposed to whether there should be one at all), and regulatory details. On fundamental questions of morality and civic identity, compromise often feels like betrayal. When values are not d, compromise becomes corrosive — a cycle of resentment and revenge.

Splitting into two nations would not erase those differences, but it would take them out of the realm of constant political warfare. And that could give us space to see each other not as enemies, but as fellow human beings.

Sometimes the best way to preserve what is good in a relationship is to admit that living under one roof no longer works. That’s not a failure. It can be an act of respect — and even of love.

And maybe, just maybe, the way to make America more united is to finally accept that it doesn’t have to be one nation to be one people.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either d or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.