BOOK REPORT – “Divided We Fall” by David French

America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation

Is America headed for a divorce? Will it be messy or amicable? What will the settlement look like? Who will get the kids?

These are the questions David French addresses in his new book, “Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation.” French is a social and political conservative, and a reformed Presbyterian. He’s also a Harvard lawyer (and former JAG officer) who at one point had sued more colleges over free speech violations than any other lawyer in the country.

But despite his conservative background, he claims to be a man without a party. He laments the Trump takeover and what’s happened to his former political home.

Of greater concern to him, though, are the social and political forces which seem to be pushing Americans apart with greater force than anything holding us together. The main thesis of “Divided We Fall” is that the conditions that led to the secession of the south prior to the Civil War are slowly being recreated. Indeed, we are almost there, and we are foolish to think the American states are destined to remain united, forever.

How has this happened? The answers are well-known: geographic sorting, group polarization, demonization of the other side, terrifying acts of political violence. That’s what the first third of the book explains. In the second third, French describes two plausible scenarios in which either the right or the left opts out. In Calexit, California (and the rest of the west coast) files for divorce over (among many things) gun rights. The Northeast follows. In Texit, much of the Republican south files for divorce over (among many things) abortion in order to form their own, more perfect, union. The plausibility of either of these outcomes increases as French methodically connects the political dots. One might argue that the picture is already slowly forming.

In the third part, French waxes optimistic: How can we avert the division of our nation? On a personal level we can all do better by, at the very least, not living in echo-chambers which increase the speed at which we move apart from each other.

But our best political hope, according to the author, is increased federalism. In other words, let states be their own selves. This was the framers’ original vision, and reflective of the pluralism that James Madison famously advocated in the Federalist papers as essential to a healthy democracy. Let California have its sanctuary cities and single-payer healthcare system, which do not necessarily violate federal law. Let Texas have its gun rights. French blames the overreach of the federal government for exacerbating the growing division between red and blue America. While the notion of “states rights” has lost credibility in the long wake of the Civil War, it might be the only way to keep America together.

After reading French’s book, I had a few questions.

My first question: What’s wrong with a divorce, exactly? Maybe it’d be for the best. In French’s Texit and Calexit scenarios, that’s the calculation both sides make: it’s easier this way. (In a disputable claim, French argues that the destructiveness of modern war would lead us to keep our pistols holstered and accept the terms peaceably. I’m not so sure.) However, the international effects of a national breakup could be disastrous. The threat of American power still means something, and keeps belligerent nations such as China and Russia at bay. In even the best scenario, America’s divorce would require a re-organization which would distract us enough for the world to destabilize in all kinds of terrible ways.

Besides which, isn’t American unity worth fighting for? Aren’t we better together? (If you’re not so sure the answer to that question is obvious, you’re not alone. It’s why French wrote the book.)

My second question: In French’s attempt to be objective and lay blame at the feet of both sides, is he being too fair? Despite his conservative bent, he gives equal treatment to both left and right—both in empathizing with their grievances and calling out their abuses. He cites countless examples of politically-motivated violence and extremely bad behavior on the left and the right. In his observation, the intensity of the moment is the result of larger socio-political forces aligning to bring out the worst in us. Both sides are at fault, he insists. But is that accurate?

I’m not sure. My friends on both sides insist that No, the other side started it, and (some would argue further) extreme measures are required to check the other sides’ political crimes. Fight fire with fire. While I recognize that assigning blame is a complicated and even impossible assignment, I do tend to agree with the author. As a pastor I’ve sat through plenty of conflict and divorce mediations and the blame is almost always shared. But predictably, not everyone agrees. French has already been hammered by both sides for his attempt to look beyond the impasse at the larger cultural forces which got us here. Finger-pointing is too easy.

My third question: Would French’s proposed solution of increased federalism work? Could we head off a divorce if we “let California be California, and let Tennessee be Tennessee?”

On this point, I’m skeptical. Much of the issues we’re fighting over these days are national in scope, and constitutional in basis. Some aren’t, but some are. Advocates of the second amendment (many of whom actually live in California) see gun rights as a natural-born right, protected by the founders. Advocates of abortion rights (many of whom actually live in Texas) see abortion rights as protected by the constitution. Finding a way to let states reflect the values of their own citizens, while respecting the rights and convictions of the political minorities living within their borders, without violating our best collective understanding of the rights enshrined in the Constitution binding us all together, and doing so peacefully with smiles on our faces…that would all require a level of political maturity we don’t seem capable of any more. If we ever were.

So what, pray tell, may happen to our great United States of America? I have no idea. The question might not be If but When, and how we’ll take to life as a divorcee. But after reading French’s book, and with my rudimentary understanding of American history, I have one more question, as well:

Was the United States ever really united in the first place?

-MRH (10/17/2020)