I first encountered Michael Anton’s work via his originally pseudonymous 2016 essay, “The Flight 93 Election”. Since his authorship of that article became known, I have been seeking out his work. He has recently written a very long (50-ish page) article, in the form of a dialogue between two persons with opposing views, in a magazine called “Asylum” and made available by them here:
IMHO, this is a superb essay covering the pros and cons of our possibly impending national divorce. Some slices:
“The FBI is cooking the books to find ‘domestic extremism’ where none exists as an excuse to persecute conservatives on behalf of the Democratic Party,” Tom said.
“Do you realize how crazy you sound?” Malcolm asked.
“This is exasperating,” Tom said, “but still proves my point. We disagree, of course, about which side is truly hateful. But your counter-accusation that we’re the hateful ones is only more evidence of your hate for us. You hate what you see as hateful.”
“Really?” Malcolm said. “You think we’re hateful; that’s what you’re saying, right?”
“Yes,” Tom said.
“So by your logic, doesn’t that mean that you hate us?” Malcolm asked.
“No,” Tom said, “we just want to be left alone. And we want to leave you alone.”
We’ve already addressed that,” Tom said. “This is a proposal to secure civil peace and avoid conflict. The way we see it, the only way to stay together is for one side to rule the other. In practice, that means for you to rule us, since we don’t have the power to rule you and wouldn’t want to even if we did. We’ve already established that, for you, ‘democracy’ means you outvoting us forever and ruling us, effectively, without our consent.”
“Voting is consent,” Malcolm replied.
“In a fair system,” Tom said, “in which elections actually have consequences and change the government, yes. But not in a system in which elections are pre-rigged by ballot-harvesting, propaganda and censorship, and in which victories are routinely overturned in the courts, blocked by bureaucracies, and fought by the media and all the corporations. Nobody consents to any of that.…”
“I think you need us,” Tom said. “You need us, first, to do the scutwork that you look down on and don’t know how to do. Second, you need us as a villain, an enemy, to hold your coalition together—someone you can point to as the cause of all problems. Like ‘wreckers’ in the Soviet Union. Third, you need the contrast. There’s no beauty without ugliness. You’re convinced you’re beautiful, but you need us around as the ugly so that your beauty can shine.”