Are we witnessing the beginning of the end of the United States?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

80. There's a lot to unpack in that question

Objectively, we were far closer to the end of the US in 1861-1865 than now.

We are ~225 years old. Keep in mind that that is still relatively young. look what France has gone through in the same timeframe - end of monarchy/a bloody revolution; Napoleon; more monarchy; I think they are on - what? the 5th Republic right now? Plus, they were occupied by the Nazis. Don't even get started on the UK.

We have a lot of factors at play right now:

- Whites are going from a majority to a plurality and don't want to give up power. Travel around the US. Get outside the big cities - especially north of I-80 and west of M/SP or Omaha. You don't see a lot of non-white faces. In AFB towns - sure. In towns with packing houses, like Sioux Falls or Sioux City, you might see Africans and Latinx that work in the packing houses. But it's pretty white until you get to the West Coast. Those folks are not happy when they see BLM protesters because it's an issue that doesn't impact them.
- We have a generational shift as the boomers die off, and the last time we had a fractious generational shift was - you guessed it - when the boomers started coming of age in the 60s.
- The living memory of WWII is leaving us
- The world is becoming increasingly complex, and the change of pace is rapid. People like simple solutions, but often the simple solutions/answers to complex problems are wrong.
- A lot of what you see is crafted political theater because one thing the GOP has gotten really good at is spite and payback. Did Trump really lose? Wasn't there massive voter fraud? You Dems sure thought there was fraud in 2016 and impeached our guy over it. Joe Biden can enjoy Karma. -or- Oh, so you don't like the ide of voter ID and having a clear and auditable vote count, but boy did you Dems whine about vote security after Bush won in 2000.
- We've always disagreed about the relative importance of areas of the constitution. Conservatives tend to see freedom of firearms ownership and faith as the most important aspects, while progressives see the protections of press and speech, and the protection of undue search & seizure and cruel/unusual punishment as important. But we all read stuff in as implied - progressives strongly believe in a right to privacy; conservatives believe that the freedom to start and run a business is in there. We've also always disagreed over the need for the Electoral College. But this has led us to where we are now, and it is really a symptom of a larger issue. Some large populated states (Texas, Florida, Ohio) voted for Trump. However, a lot of states with relatively small populations (< 1M in some cases) like Wyoming, NoDak, SoDak, Alaska, Montana - voted for Trump. To be sure, there are some Biden states in this group - Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware. Conservatives in these small states, as well as conservatives in deeply divided states, like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania - don't view the idea of thwarting the will of the voters (even voters in their own states) as undemocratic because they see it as protection from coastal elites with whom they have nothing in common.

It clearly can't continue like this.

What to do?

One possible solution is divorce. Bust up the country into separate countries or some kind of confederation. Maybe we just have to accept that there is about 1/3 of this nation that wants to live in a faith-based apartheid state and give them what they want. But where would that be? And would the new nations just end up warring with one another.

One possible solution is to bust up states. I think this idea actually appeals to conservatives as well. Florida should probably be 4 states. Texas and California at least 5 - 6 each. New York and Illinois (probably Pennsylvania as well) should each be 2 - 3. Ultimately, that might make the Senate more representative.

After the various fiascos of 21st century elections, it is probably time for the various state houses and governors to have a Constitutional Convention. Obviously, there would be some vastly different agendas going in. I think there might be broad agreement that the time has come for congressional term limits, limits on SCOTUS terms, putting limits on presidential pardon power, possibly working some roles in longer terms and requiring a higher approval bar to make them "non-political" in the manner of the Fed - AG, FBI head, CIA head, possibly Sec Def. Possibly requiring the House and Senate to approve SCOTUS picks; possibly requiring a 3/5 or 2/3 majority on SCOTUS picks. I doubt consensus could be reached on choice/abortion, corporate personhood, LGBTQ rights - maybe the ERA could finally be incorporated.

Right now, I think the forecast is one-term presidencies and wild every-four year policy swings for a decade or more.