Marjorie Taylor Greene's 'national divorce' wouldn't happen without 'a long bloody war': civil war expert

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) called for another civil war this week when she spoke out about a so-called "national divorce" between red states and blue states. The "national divorce" is essentially a civil war without the shooting. It would take an agreement between both sides to "divorce." Assuming the main U.S. government would oppose such an effort, it would likely become a second civil war and destroy the economy of both sides.

Speaking to CNN's Jim Acosta on Sunday was civil war expert Barbara Walter, professor and Rohr Chair in Pacific International Relations at UC San Diego, who wrote the book How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them.

"So, you have not just any individual talking about a national divorce, but a congressperson," said Walter. "And somebody who has the ear of the majority leader. Marjorie Taylor Greene is increasingly influential and increasingly represents a large subset of the American population. When she talks about a national divorce, this might sound incidental, but in reality, it is absolutely not. These types of divorces tend to be deeply destabilizing, and they tend to be deeply destabilizing for both sides that are involved."

Acosta cited the list of conspiracy theories that Greene is known for promoting and noted that there is an ongoing battle of whether or not to cover some of her ravings because it can lend legitimacy to them.

The issue seems as if it could be about Donald Trump and his 2020 election loss. If the U.S. were to split between red and blue states, the Trump family could become the monarchythey'vedesired. The lower populations in the red states and lack of industry could make it financially difficult for the red states to survive without the help of the blue states, particularly after natural disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes.

"We have to take this seriously," Walter explained. "And ignoring it does not mean it goes away. We have to take it seriously because, on the surface, what she's saying might actually resonate with a lot of people. They might actually think that it makes sense. If the two sides are fighting, urban/rural split, the white/black, the Christian/nonchristian — if we're fighting, if we're increasingly polarized, maybe we should divorce. Maybe everybody will be happier as a result."

However, she said that the reality is often different.

"If you look over the last hundred years at countries that have all had separatist movements, what you find is remarkably similar across these cases," Walter said. "Governments almost never allow these regions to leave without a fight. In fact, the one issue that governments almost never negotiate over is territory. They go to war, and these wars tend to be the longest and the bloodiest wars out there. So what somebody like Marjorie Taylor Greene is getting wrong or what she's misrepresenting is really three realities that exist in this country. The first is that separation is not easy. With the exception of Wyoming, every red state has a sizable urban population, and that population tends to be much more liberal, much more racially and religiously mixed, and they don't want to separate."

The second point Greene is missing is if separation happens, the red states that are extremely poor will get poorer without the help of wealthier states to prop them up.

"And that actually represents a risk for both sides," Walter continued. "If you have a poor region, our enemies on the outside — think about how Vladimir Putin might exploit this. Suddenly he's offering to cover those subsidies. Suddenly he's offering to help them in a variety of ways. And of course, there are always strings attached to that. And then, third, the American government, the rest of the U.S. becomes weaker as a result, also, because from a security standpoint, suddenly our borders are harder to defend."

When President Joe Biden spoke out about the MAGA Republican Party, and the far right, he warned that such a war against the United States would likely be problematic because the U.S. government has the military along with all of the bombs, planes and ships necessary to win a war from within.

See the full conversation below or at the link here:

MTG's civil waryoutu.be