The Merriam-Webster website defines paradigm shift as “an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way.” It’s an excellent term for a phenomenon we all experience. It may be thrilling, as when Einstein realized that time and distance were not absolutes. More often, though, it’s wrenching: you learn that Santa Claus doesn’t exist; you realize your religious beliefs are based on primitive myths; years of studying to become an astrophysicist seem insignificant alongside a chance to do standup comedy; your enthusiasm for spectator sports now seems like childish hero worship; your amiable spouse of 20 years turns out to be a maker of methanfedamines.
Most paradigm shifts are far from inevitable. They struggle against denial, the most potent of our defense mechanisms. Denial often wins; a shift never occurs. An alcoholic may never accept that he is one. A white supremacist may never admit that skin color has no correlation with excellence in anything.
If we were to make a list of beliefs most resistant to shifting, the certainty of national superiority would surely be near the top. In America, the indoctrination is unrelenting. We have “Founding Fathers” who devised a perfect political document. We pledge to be “indivisible.” Our nation is “under God” — the ultimate overseer. Our destiny is “manifest.” Our military is second to none. Our wealth is second to none. At sports events, we sing a standing, hand-over-heart tribute to our flag and to ourselves. Political speeches end with “may God [continue to] bless America.” We are “exceptional.”
Might an extraordinary set of circumstances trigger a paradigm shift and cause us to cry out, “Enough brainwashing! We demand a better homeland!” It’s happened before, to the American colonists of the 18th century. They chose to rebel rather than live with the grievances on Mr. Jefferson’s list. They did so even though being an Englishman was considered a distinct honor, if not a blessing. Today, do some Americans — let’s call them Blue Americans — have grievances that are sufficiently weighty to justify a separation from Red Americans? Well, consider these:
- The dismissal of scientific knowledge that conflicts with religious belief
- The insistence that people acquire medical insurance from for-profit companies
- The absence of sane national gun regulations (the denial of freedom from fear)
- An overfunded defense budget that forces the underfunding of vital programs
- The absence of a scheduled drawdown on the use of fossil fuels
- Inadequate government investment in climate-change solutions
- The lack of a comprehensive national program to end hunger
- The harassment and disenfranchisement of minorities who want to vote
- The harassment of people whose sex lives are outside social norms
- The denial of preschool and higher education to those who can’t afford them
- College loans that condemn young people to lifelong debt
- The denial of abortion, even when the good of society justifies it
- The absence of security criteria that would guarantee valid elections
- Presidential elections that are not determined by a popular vote
- A Senate that hugely over-represents states with low populations
- A Senate willing to exculpate a criminal president
- House elections that are warped by gerrymandering
- Since 1972, the failure of 38 states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment
This bill of grievances is at least as substantial as the one published in the Declaration of Independence. But even so, you probably balk at using it to argue for a separation from Red America. Why? Is it because our separation from England was bloody and because the attempted secession of the Confederacy was even bloodier? That’s an excellent reason for balking, but I’m not proposing a rebellion or a secession. I’m proposing an amicable separation that is favorable to both sides.
It’s obvious what Blue America would stand to gain, but why would a separation be attractive to Red America? Simple — they would be free to be as reactionary as they liked. Though very improbable, they could restore slavery and disenfranchise women. They could outlaw abortion and same-sex marriage (a certainty), invent a host of restrictions on voting (a certainty), enact racist immigration laws (a certainty), enact anti-union laws (a certainty), re-criminalize the recreational use of marijuana (a certainty), decree that a free education and free medical care are “un-Red” (a certainty), endorse all the provisions of the Constitution that thwart representative government (a certainty), pare all regulatory agencies down to nothing (a certainty), make Christianity the national religion (probably), legalize open-carry throughout the nation (probably), and re-examine our current government’s commitment to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (probably). They could even adopt the name “Christian Confederacy of America.” These inducements might well be irresistible.
Both sides would want to avoid economic damage. Declaring the two countries a free trade zone with open borders would achieve that goal. Think of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic as the model. They were once Czechoslovakia, but they wanted to go their separate ways. The agreement they reached is now known as the “Velvet Divorce.” Certainly the two Americas would face more than economic problems, but all of them could be negotiated. I’ll raise some of them in a future post and suggest solutions.
The first step toward separation is changing the political dialogue. Here’s a typical flawed exchange between a journalist and a politician:
Wolf Blitzer: Senator Sanders, our country is badly divided. As president, what would you do to bring Americans together again?
Bernie Sanders: We all have the same fundamental needs, Wolf, and we all want economic and social justice. We’ve never had a government that’s truly for the people. I’ll see to it that we finally have one.
First, Blitzer’s question assumes that a genuine reconciliation is achievable. That is a fantasy. As matters stand, only a sham reconciliation is possible, like the one we have with North Korea. Second, Sanders’ answer has a deceptive premise. Yes, we all want economic and social justice, but what does economic and social justice look like? On that point there is deep disagreement.
Sanders’ answer should be, “I would not try to pave over our divisions, Wolf. I would acknowledge them for what they are, irreparable within our lifetime and our children’s lifetime. The American people cannot be made content together, but they can be made content separately.”
We need a paradigm shift, a shift to Sanders’ second answer.
The Scratching Post 