A House Divided

 The Clairmont Institute is running a series of articles talking about divvying up America in the wake of an intractable presidential electoral split. From the relatively peaceful "trial separation" to the imaginary look-back on  a succession of the rural areas following Trump's loss, these take a variety of  stances---all of the making a heroic effort to be objective while being, well, writers who can get published at the Clairmont Institute--that is, hard core Republicans.

As such, none of them, thus far, are able to really diagnose the problems that are fueling our separation. We can see on their list:

• Claims about a powerful economic and cultural oligarchy that rules the cities with its woke, intersectionalist doctrine and the fearsome power of antifa and BLM riots.
• The requirement that pro-life and man-woman-marriage be enshrined in the American constitution as the only way Red People can possibly live happily.
• The idea that Blue is winning--but that the coming fight with Red will be tough so, you know, better compromise (by giving Red States a constitutional convention to enshrine the above rights) and that 
• Trump, while maybe not great, was the American Heartland voting itself back into the game (okay, not exactly--but close enough).

All of this is missing some serious shit. The Omnivore will set the Clairmont Institute straight:

It Ain't Ignorance That's The Problem--It's What So Many Folks Know That Ain't So

Trump's America is mired deeply in conspiracy from the vile dogma of QAnon to the widespread belief in a rigged election replete with numerous blind allies of logic (sharpie-gate? The rumors that you could hear Chief Justice John Roberts yelling through the wall at the real conservative Justices that he didn't want RIOTS--when, in fact, all the SCOTUS meetings are virtual these days), and various exegesis of the Dominion Voting machines all claim to be the "smoking gun" which uncovers The Steal.

The idea that tens of millions of Americans not only believe the election was rigged--but have been told so by everyone from their president to all their news personalities--isn't something Clairmont can grapple with because, well, it'd be kinda esposing

With this mob equally willing to turn on Tucker Carlson, Mitch McConnell, and Bill Barr it's hard to see how you can make a case for these salt-of-the-earth people wanting something rational or being a real force for any kind of justice (yes, one of the authors finds Trump stumping for "Justice."), No, they're thralls under the spell of the only person they'll believe: The Great Golden One.

That's not a recipe for a constitutional anything.

The Clairmont Institute Is Pro-Life and Anti-SSM: But . . . What About Heresy?

One of the problems with basing your renewed America on solid well tread Christian principles is that the Trumpers are sliding deeper into what is rightly called heresy and idolatry rather than cleaving to biblical principles. No, they don't literally think Trump is Jesus--yes, they are literally blowing shofars (ram-horn horns) in Biblical fashion and repeating messianic psalms in prayers for Trump across the land.

The mix of religion and nationalism has frightened a number of orthodox and traditional Christian thinkers and well it should: the Trump Train is running well and truly over the pews in any conventional church, mixing geopolitics (Israel, for example) into the church in ways not seen in the modern west.

Clairmont's writers ignore this or treat it as a passing fad, perhaps (saying that if Trump got reelected it would give the Red Folks a lot more options in 2024)--but none of them recon with the reality that right now Trump is a religious figure to millions of Americans and their own presumed traditional religious teachings have, erm, a lot to say about that--and none of it is Go Red Team!

The Righteousness Of Violence

Team Clairmont considers the riots (and the COVID response, for at least one of them) to be intimidation tactics against Americans--especially Red ones. How do they feel about the announced wave of violence in the Trump camps? They don't say--they, presumably, consider it necessary to effect needed social changes and an a normal outgrowth of the failure of electoral politics (i.e. voting).

Oh, wait: that's what the libs were saying about BLM protests. No, no--Clairmont clearly thinks this stuff--but they don't even address it. They just take it for granted. 

So the unanswered question is: is it okay to launch asymmetric warfare when you didn't win an election if your populace was incorrectly told it was stolen? Claremont seems to think so.

In The End

The problem with the discussion the way they are having it is that in the end we're not going to get a constitutional convention that gives Red States the right to kick out gays and even if we did it wouldn't make them happy. We're not going to see a revolt of the rural districts against the cities--how would that work when they don't have any remaining hospitals?

We may see angry Trumpers taking up guns and doing bad things to people they can get their hands on--some of whom are likely to be Republicans who figured "The Leopard Would Never Eat Their Face" (the Governor of Georgia) and unlike some of the Clairmont writer's wet fantasies the police and the military won't likely be okay with that. Biden will be right to put it down quickly and The Omnivore doesn't doubt he will.

We also might not see that violence at scale because these guys are a lot of talk and not that much action.

So in the end this isn't going to happen--it can't: we're no longer equipped for a civil war. It's just fan-fic.