Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation

by David French

David French warns of the potential dangers to the country―and the world―if we don’t summon the courage to reconcile our political differences.

Two decades into the 21st Century, the U.S. is less united than at any time in our history since the Civil War. We are more diverse in our beliefs and culture than ever before. But red and blue states, secular and religious groups, liberal and conservative idealists, and Republican and Democratic representatives all have one thing in each believes their distinct cultures and liberties are being threatened by an escalating violent opposition. This polarized tribalism, espoused by the loudest, angriest fringe extremists on both the left and the right, dismisses dialogue as appeasement; if left unchecked, it could very well lead to secession.

An engaging mix of cutting edge research and fair-minded analysis, Divided We Fall is an unblinking look at the true dimensions and dangers of this widening ideological gap, and what could happen if we don't take steps toward bridging it. French reveals chilling, plausible scenarios of how the United States could fracture into regions that will not only weaken the country but destabilize the world.

But our future is not written in stone. By implementing James Madison’s vision of pluralism―that all people have the right to form communities representing their personal values―we can prevent oppressive factions from seizing absolute power and instead maintain everyone ’s beliefs and identities across all fifty states.

Reestablishing national unity will require the bravery to commit ourselves to embracing qualities of kindness, decency, and grace towards those we disagree with ideologically. French calls on all of us to demonstrate true tolerance so we can heal the American divide. If we want to remain united, we must learn to stand together again.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Sociology, Audiobook, Cultural, Social Science

288 pages, Hardcover

First published September 22, 2020

About the author

A staff writer at National Review, an attorney (concentrating his practice in constitutional law and the law of armed conflict), and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is the author or co-author of several books including, most recently, the No. 1 New York Times bestselling Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can’t Ignore. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School, the past president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and a former lecturer at Cornell Law School. He has served as a senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom. David is a major in the United States Army Reserve (IRR). In 2007, he deployed to Iraq, serving in Diyala Province as Squadron Judge Advocate for the 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, where he was awarded the Bronze Star. He lives and works in Columbia, Tennessee, with his wife, Nancy (who is also a New York Times bestselling author), and three children.

Reviews

[Mehrsa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not a conservative, but I love to read a well-reasoned and smart take from "the other side." This is that book. There was a lot of wisdom in here about our current divisions. Obviously, I have a few disagreements: I think he and many conservatives make too much of the campus turmoils caused by left-wing students and also he keeps referring to CA as this crazy liberal state and living here deep in red California, I wish he'd had some more nuance there. I also think his solution of federalism has some serious unmentioned flaws (like the protection of minorities in each state and the fact that politics is regional to some extent, but also the major divisions are urban/rural and how do you break that up?). But overall, I think French is right about his diagnosis of our divisions and this is a good book for both left and right to read and think about.

[Bruce Katz · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book because its author, David French, is a conservative thinker whom I have heard described as thoughtful, intelligent, and morally grounded. (His recent piece on the website Persuasion about tribes and truth impressed me with its honesty and humility. I definitely recommend it.) It's not my usual political fare -- I'm a creature of the Left -- but I feel a moral obligation to seek out serious works from the "other side." I already know what I think; I want to learn what others think, to see if my arguments and conclusions hold up under scrutiny.

OK, end of my virtue signaling. French brings to this new book a set of moral foundations based equally on his conservatism and evangelical beliefs. For me that's a good thing because, (a) neither of those phrases applies to me at all, and (b) these positions shape his vision but he doesn't explicitly advertise either or wave them as flags on a battlefield. As the book's full title expresses, French sees our country as being at a very dangerous place. He begins his book, as others have, by looking at the growing polarization overtaking us. We are sorting ourselves by politics, culture, lifestyles, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), demography, and -- very problematically -- by geography. More and more, if you know one key thing about a person, it's quite likely that a lot of other key thing about that person can also be discerned. To demonstrate the ubiquity of this sorting, he mentions a study of television preferences. Based on 2016 ratings, Hillary Clinton's map was "Game of Thrones." For Red states and districts, the preferred show was "The Walking Dead," which French winningly describes as "the entertainment industry's valentine to the Second Amendment."

"Divided We Fall" examines the sorting and explores the dire political and social implications of its perpetuation. He mentions, for example, how research has shown that "when people of like mind gather, they tend to become more extreme." This observation leads him to look at how the bell curve that used to describe the American political landscape has flattened out. And the further apart the two sides move, the less decency and humanity they see on the other side. He describes the situation this way: Pluralism... becomes to the pure partisan mind an instrument of injustice and civil liberties a barrier to progress. Because when one is righteous, the very existence of dissenting communities is proof that justice is thwarted and evil exists. And why should any person protect the existence of evil?

French uses the concept of the Overton window to examine how one side perceives the other, how certain words and phrases mean very different things to the two sides. In his thinking, the Overton window has expanded so far on both sides that there are essentially two separate windows. What's more, he says, the dynamics of our culture are such that conflict is fed and rewarded. As he puts it, we are controlled by the "dark magic of group polarization." Some samples of how he sees the situation: One of the lessons of the modern era is that while you can try to understand the other side and engage in good faith, the real energy is on the side of scorn and shame. The people who care the most about politics, who drive the national conversation, give no quarter to opponents. In short, "'free speech' isn't about dialogue. It's about transmitting truth to the unenlightened." And: "The goal is domination, not discussion, and certainly not coexistence."

I found French to be, for the most part, even-handed in critiquing the Left and Right. He describes, for example, the oversized -- and dangerous -- influence Fox has on conservative thinking and political careers. Fox, he writes in language that is certain not to win him praise among fellow conservatives, is the place where you can nurse grievances over failed arguments. It's the place where you can make money after failed campaigns. (He also identifies Fox as the primary force keeping Benghazi in the public eye after so many years: Simply stated, it plays well with the Fox audience.) Powerful words for someone on the Right to utter. He balances them by saying that Fox is far more ideologically diverse than, for example, the humanities faculty at virtually any academic institution of note.

I leave it for others to debate the right and wrong of these observations, whether they have validity or are examples of false equivalence. But I do feel obliged to share this passage, based as it was on the author's own unhappy experience: To this day, Americans do not appreciate the sheer scale of the harassment and threats directed at Trump critics. They do not appreciate that the price of opposing the Republican president could include the very real fear that your family -- including your children -- could face direct reprisals.

French is not optimistic. He sees too much distance between the two sides, too many forces contributing to and expanding the split. A significant chunk of the book rolls out two scenarios that lead to the dissolution of the country. The first involves the secession of California from the union, the second the secession of Texas. Once again, I leave it for others to determine whether the scenarios go too far, but I will say that he provides so much detail and bases his argument on powerful political, economic, and cultural factors that are demonstrably present in America today, that I couldn't categorically rule them out.

French sees our only hope lying in a return to and redefinition of federalism, pluralism, and tolerance. His argument has too much substance for me to cover here. Suffice it to say that he finds a healing vision in James Madison's writings in "The Federalist Papers" about "the violence of faction." If I were to share a passage that best summarizes his view, it would be this:

French writes, Healthy federalism grants wide authority to the states to regulate health care, fashion environmental policy, create economic incentives, and establish pension plans -- to do all the things that governments do (aside from those functions that are reserved to the federal government or that conflict with federal authority). Healthy federalism does NOT, however, grant states the power to restrict individual liberty more than the Bill of Rights allows. No matter where they live, all citizens should enjoy a certain minimum level of guaranteed rights. States can grant more liberty than required by the Bill of Rights, but they cannot grant less.

"Divided We Fall" is very accessibly written -- he is obviously trying to reach a broad audience -- and the reader can easily discern the author's earnest hope that Americans make a conscious effort to resist the dehumanizing and coarsening trends in which we find ourselves. He is explicit in his condemnation of Trump and his enablers in both Congress and the evangelical community. French's vision is a broad one: readers won't find here any policy proposals or discussion of big topics like race, economic inequality, climate change, etc. I don't agree with everything he says, and I imagine many readers here with me on the Left will find more to challenge than I. Sometimes I found his language disingenuous, misleading, and in a couple of cases, naive, particularly when race is the subtext to a point he is trying to make. (Voter suppression seems not to exist in the America he's writing about.) I suppose much of what he says is exactly what one would expect to hear from a classical conservative., but that's fine with me. I'm glad I read the book, that I spent time with Mr. French. I learned much from him, was gratified when I saw where we shared common ground, and frankly, I was sincerely happy to find that serious and decent conservative thinkers like him are still out there.

[Jason Furman · Rating 5 out of 5]

David French's book contains an analysis a political polarization that shares a lot in common with Ezra Klein's Why We're Polarized, a speculative depiction of the United States breaking up in "Calexit" and "Texit", and a proposed solution which is maximum federalism limited only by States not having the right to override the Constitution and especially the First Amendment. This solution is motivated by "toleration," not for those what we celebrate and love but for those that we disagree with in a system with a greater degree of pluralism, viewpoint diversity, and to the degree collective choices are needed they are done closer to the level where people agree on them.

Much of the polarization story in this book has been told before but French tells it well and does it with almost complete even-handed sympathy for both sides in the culture and broader wars. One could debate whether both sides deserve even hands (e.g., French rightly says that both sides pick the worst of the other side and claim it is an exemplar, but a progressive picking Donald Trump as an exemplar of conservatives is not exactly cherry picking). But French is good at serving up some of his own's sides hypocrisies and inconsistencies too, for example pointing that while conservatives love to talk about the importance of free speech in the face of cancel culture it was a Republican President and the NFL that cancelled Colin Kaepernick. What makes French's analysis so distinctive--and also potentially a bit off--is how much he emphasizes geographical sorting, something that is also a key to motivating his analysis of the problem and the solution. Of course there is substantial sorting into "red" and "blue" America but it is not all along regional lines. Most everywhere cities are blue, even in the reddest states. And most everywhere rural areas are red, even in the bluest states. People with a graduate degree tend to be blue regardless of where they live and the converse for a high school degree or less. French is right that you can live in Brooklyn and never meet a Republican, but you don't have to travel to North Carolina to remedy this deficiency--you just need to go two counties over to Orange County which voted for Trump in 2016.

The regional divides lead to three enjoyable chapters imaging what a dissolution of the United States might look like. The first scenario is a gun massacre in California, they pass unconstitutional legislation, a series of conflicts between federal and state authorities lead them to want to succeed, and an embattled Republican President realizes he can cement his party's power if he lets them go. All is peaceful and relatively happy domestically. The second scenario is a clash over abortion that leads to a virtual economic embargo of the South by major corporations, a packing of the Supreme Court, and them leaving the union--enabled by the many military bases and assets they control, devolving in a Cold War situation as the competing nations face off. French follows these two chapters with one that follows from both depicting what a world with a U.S. power vacuum could look like, with an emboldened China trying to take over Taiwan, Russia expanding out, Germany and Japan remilitarizing, etc., all of which is a chilling reminder of what might happen if U.S. power wanes (see Matthew Yglesias's One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger).

In the final part of the book French makes an eloquent plea for "tolerance" which he defines as living with those you find disagreeable and repugnant, which is very different from the current liberal approach to "tolerance" of different groups that you actually like and celebrate (which is why, in fact, progressives have generally moved away from the word "tolerance"). Because he argues most differences are geographic he thinks that federalism is a solution. Let California take the money it currently channels to the federal government to set up a single payer health system. Let other states limit abortions. Keep things closer to what local people want and making national elections less important and Presidents much less important. French is very consistent in his advocacy (and in fact remarkably consistent throughout the book), he clearly is not using the "federalism" label to achieve whatever more fundamental goals he has. But I was not fully persuaded by this as a solution since there is still a lot of polarization within states, I have less of a belief in the limitations of the federal government, and a sneaking suspicion that as even handed as French is trying to be the limits on federal power are putting a thumb on the scale of more conservative solutions. That said, he made me take the idea more seriously and is better than the opportunists on both sides who inconsistently invoke their support or opposition to federalism as it best suits in the moment.

Overall, the U.S. political debate is lucky to have French's voice giving a sympathetic rendering to a large group of Americans that are ignored or marginalized in much progressive political analysis but without doing it in the combative and incoherent manner one too often sees in Fox News commentators and their ilk.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Adapted in large part from National Review essays David French penned since 2015, this book is a provocative blend of urgent cultural analysis and speculative fiction. To distill his argument down to essentials, he believes federalism and pluralism are the only way to stay united. He takes a picture of the South in 1860 as a template for secession today. Of the four characteristics French identified, he talks about geographically contiguous and culturally distinct the most. Think of the west coast of WA, OR, and CA, or the college football SEC states of the Southeast.

After making a case for our divisions' cause, he provides several interesting chapters on what secession might look like in California and Texas. His background as a lawyer and his keen observations of the political landscape make these chapters far more interesting than I thought they would be. In some ways, the heart of his argument finds a more natural home here than in his polemics.

Whereas Jonathan Haidt et al. bring to bear centrist convictions and analysis in books like The Coddling Of The American Mind, French applies conservative analysis and solutions. But is federalism the way forward? I’m not convinced that French buys his own argument based on comments he makes, and the great failure of the book is to address the imperial judiciary. An original constitutional framework can be reinvigorated, and states rights become ascendant, but if interventionist judges continue to create law and override the will of the people, I don’t see how federalism is a long-term solution.

[Jacopo Quercia · Rating 1 out of 5]

Full disclosure: I didn't buy this book or seek it out in any way. It just showed up in my mailbox one afternoon, and I have no idea who sent it to me.

I don't like writing negative reviews for two reasons: one, there are better authors out there whose work all too often goes unnoticed, and two, negative reviews sometimes attract underserved attention to the work in question. That stated, I feel compelled to leave some comments since this book enjoys critical and commercial success that no words of mine will detract from, and because I believe its core arguments have been severely diminished by the 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters.

There is simply no liberal equivalent to the attempted coup d'état of January 6, 2021, not even among the "angriest fringe extremists" of the American left. Trumpism, white supremacy, radicalized Christian nationalism, and Republican officeholders throughout the country have thoroughly outdone themselves in their calls for secession and even armed insurrection. Any attempt to portray these forces as an equal threat to our government and the union between the states as liberalism, Democratic socialism, or even communism in 2021 is a false equivalent. It is fallacy. It is incorrect. No mob of Trotskyists ever beat a U.S. Capitol police officer with an American flag on the steps of Congress. No Black Panthers ever forced their way into the Capitol Rotunda. No mob of Democrats ever threatened to "hang" Mike Pence with a noose they erected in our nation's capital. The Republican Party created Trumpism, and they alone will determine the trajectory of their party. If the best they have to offer is voter suppression, then books like this will continue to be on the wrong side of history.

My advice: don't read this book. Read 'Conservativism: The Fight for a Tradition' by Edmund Fawcett for a better, fairer, and more exhaustive history of conservativism. Read 'The Divided States of America' by Dr. Donald F. Kettl for a better analysis of U.S. political division. Read 'The Loud Minority: Why Protests Matter in American Democracy,' by Daniel Q. Gillion and 'Let the People Rule: How Direct Democracy Can Meet the Populist Challenge,' by John G Matsusaka for better insight on how to restore our nation. Read 'Democracy in America' by Alexis de Tocqueville for a better understanding of Americans.

1.0 stars. Not recommended. Read the above authors instead.

[Tori Samar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Once upon a time, I would have scoffed at the premise of this book. But the news of each day makes it increasingly prophetic and penetrating. Thank goodness we still have conservatives like David French.

To borrow French’s own words: “The central idea of this book . . . is that, thanks to increasing geographic separation and group polarization, the ‘fight and win’ approach to the American divide won't produce a permanent settlement but rather will result in more extremism and more division—extremism and division that can lead to dangerous instability.”

If we are determined to fight and dominate our political opponents, forcing down our own views and trampling all over theirs, we are doomed. Preserving the United States demands pluralism, federalism, and tolerance (aside: another thing I particularly appreciate about this book is that French rescues tolerance from its prison of misunderstanding and misapplication).

Even if you disagree with French’s solutions, I humbly suggest that you at least hear him out. Part 1, in particular, is worth the price of the whole book. It explains the growing problem of polarization with great incisiveness.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Americans, Read This Book. Now. Quite simply, I've yet to encounter a more important book for every American to read *immediately*, and *particularly* before you vote in the General Election this fall. French does a solid job detailing the stark realities of exactly where we are as a nation politically, and where we've been. He then dedicates just three chapters to some of the most disturbing things I've ever read, - and I've read books that would make even an Iraq War veteran like French puke his guts out in their explicit horror. In two of these three chapters, French presents two scenarios for a complete dissolution of the United States of America - one from the right, one from the left. And what makes these scenarios so disturbing? I'm writing this review on July 4th, 2020. The book actually publishes (so far at least) on September 22, 2020. *Either of these scenarios could plausibly happen in between me writing this review and most of you being able to read this book.* After presenting these scenarios in all their horror, French then spends the back third of the book detailing how we can prevent them from happening. While he ultimately only has two real recommendations - neither easy and arguably neither directly feasible in this moment, but both things we can commit to working towards - they are both things that could actually work, if indeed Americans want to save America. Very much recommended.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: An argument warning that the political divides in American life could lead to a dissolution of the nation through secession and may be averted by a tolerant federalism.

One of my enjoyments is reading the history of the American Civil War and the events leading up to it. In recent years, that history has increasingly disturbed me as I recognize the troubling parallel of the deep political divides and inflammatory rhetoric that led to armed conflict, and our present time. I’ve wondered where this could lead: authoritarian government, civil unrest and breakdown, or a war of red versus blue.

If there is any comfort in Divided We Fall, it is to learn that a thoughtful political commentator has similar concerns. David French believes we could well be headed toward another secession of states, one he does not believe will lead to military action, but to a greatly diminished America, both domestically, and in global affairs, a prospect perhaps as troubling as armed conflict within our border.

What leads him to moot this possibility is the character of our divides. For one thing, they may be charted along regional lines. His thesis is that geography plus culture plus fear may equal secession. One particular culture subject to the kindling of fear is the religious subculture. While some fear the intrusion of the state on religious freedom and decry court decisions contrary to religious morality, others fear the intrusion of one religion into a very plural public life, limiting the freedom of others.

Chapter 5 on “How an Academic Article Explains America” may be the most important in the book. It introduces us to an article titled “The Law of Group Polarization.” that proposes that when groups are formed with a “predeliberation tendency,” rather than making better judgments than on their own, they will move toward the extreme of their bias. In our present setting, even moderates put off by one side (left or right) will tend to move to the extreme version of what they favor, intensifying our divisions. Sadly, French observes in the following chapters, churches have followed this, largely following the cultural and geographical alignments within which they are embedded, and that political alignments have trumped other alignments, where political identities primary and ultimate.

French traces the breakdown in our capacity for discourse. No longer can friends agree to disagree–they become enemies. Free speech has become subject to “safetyism” and cancel culture. French, who has worked extensively as a lawyer on free speech issues, makes a passionate appeal for the critical role of the First Amendment as critical to giving marginal groups a voice. Instead, the effort of our contemporary discourse is to use power to silence the opposition, which only inflames opposition.

He sets out two fictional secession scenarios, one led by California, the other by Texas. California’s is over immigration and gun control. Texas secedes to protect from a blue backlash. He explores the resultant unraveling of the Pax Americana, the various security guarantees that prevented armed conflict in many parts of the world, including China, the Middle East, and eastern Europe.

French’s proposed remedy is Madisonian federalism that accepts faction but vigorously protects free speech. He believes that it is possible for competing communities to exist in different parts of the country. He argues that the First Amendment protects these. He contends that genuine tolerance protects difference–we only tolerate that with which we disagree. He longs for moments of grace leading to movements of grace, citing the example of the reconciliation between SNL’s Pete Davidson, and Dan Crenshaw, a Republican congressional candidate. When mocked by Davidson for a war wound, Crenshaw accepted a later apology and then appeared on the show, talking about what “never forget” meant to both of them–speaking of Davidson’s father, a fireman who died on 9/11.

French argues this healthy federalism protects individual liberties while allowing public policy to be shaped more by state and local governments than a “one size fits all” approach that may work in a utopia, but not in America. He contrasts Arizona and California’s approach to use of state resources with regard to immigration enforcement and argues that each were responses to what they thought best and should have been equally upheld under healthy federalism. He similarly cites state-based universal health care proposals as opposed to a nationalized system.

In the end, what French calls for is courage to engage what he considers the more critical culture war of the age–not between left and right, but between decency and indecency. He believes there is a need for a better political class, one committed to Micah 6:8 virtues of justice, mercy, and humility before God.

I find myself both affirming much of this analysis and questioning parts. I agree with his analysis of our divides. I had not thought deeply about secession, but having seen more and more commentary from others, it seems possible. Yet I wonder. Many states are more purple than red or blue. My state of Ohio is like that. What happens to blue elements in this scenario? Or what happens when a state like ours “flips.” All in all, I am more fearful of civil disorder within many of our states and growth of militia and vigilante actions. I think there is much in his proposals of a tolerant federalism in our pluralistic society, but how this works to protect individual liberties seems to be the challenge. While some states provide for universal health care, what about those who don’t, when access varies along economic, racial, or even partisan lines? Finally, I wonder from where we get a better political class committed to justice, mercy, and humility?

I agree with French that we need such a political class and recovery of the kind of federalist toleration and First Amendment-affirming political discourse for which he advocates. French has been courageous in using his own voice to advocate for a better America, resulting in vicious criticisms, and threats against his family. The critical question is whether enough others will join him and those of his like to make a difference.

_____________________________

Disclosure of Material (and Personal) Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the author, who served as a wise advisor during a campus religious freedom issue with which I was involved in 2005. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amid the increasingly vitriolic cacophony of our angry partisan bickering, David French stands out as a Tennessee-twanged voice in the wilderness. This book offers a less-than-rose-tinted take on America's political polarization. Without being overly alarmist, Divided We Fall offers a sobering analysis of our nation's looming future and a prescription for readers to help reverse the trend.

French cut his teeth in the conservative movement and to this day remains a committed evangelical Christian who is devotedly pro-life and an expert defender of religious liberty. Even so, he treats the faults of America's political left and right in a remarkably evenhanded manner. One can imagine an avowed partisan of either side alternatively nodding in agreement and heaving exasperated objections. That attests to the fact the author hasn't missed the mark by much.

The book's author draws upon not only a treasure trove of current events that recently raced through the 24-hour news cycle and our collective consciousness, but also a remarkably insightful but obscure academic paper that offers the most for the intellect to chew on. The reader's imagination is equally enlivened by his two fictional, but certainly plausible, scenarios of how our great republic could break apart.

French offers a prescription to restore the health of the body politic, but confesses to not being optimistic that the course of treatment will be adopted. The civic medicine he prescribes is a heavy dose of federalism, allowing communities in California and Tennessee to pursue their own health care, environmental and social welfare policies, while protecting the Bill of Rights' guarantees for every citizen.

I am highly sympathetic to the recommendations French offers, have been in agreement for years that the United States not only can but must shed earlier stigmas associated with federalism and devolve power from the central government. Still, questions remain, perhaps for another volume, about how exactly to navigate the challenges around the boundaries. What happens to the Supreme Court's creation of a fundamental right to abortion and redefinition of marriage? How will progressives be persuaded, in the face of what they perceive as an existential threat, to relinquish control of climate policies in some states?

At bottom, the change French seeks is one of attitude and culture. As he acknowledges, making society civil again is not the province of government. Instead, he leaves the reader with admonitions for how to embody the courage and decency that will shape the future. The conclusion calls for both a reverence for our nation's founding creed and a hearkening to the Old Testament prophet's threefold call: to do justice, love mercy and walk in humility (Micah 6:8). Seeds are also planted for us to consider how we might guide, and where necessary, rebuild institutions according to these virtues.

This book also appealed to me as a student of 19th-century American history, summoning memories of a dusty degree and untold numbers of other books digested about sectionalism, the Civil War and Reconstruction. Thus I appreciated his citations from James McPherson, the dean of Civil War history, and his sound analysis of the conditions that made possible the deadly secession crisis of 1860-61.

In the same spirit, I spotted a couple of problems with the text that made me wonder about the editing process. First, a miscalculation that assigned 134 years as the amount of time that's passed since Appomattox. And second, in a passing reference, the conflation of Chattanooga's Missionary Ridge with Gettysburg's Cemetery Ridge.

But those are tiny errata magnified in the eyes of a history nerd, compared with the timely, relevant and compelling message in this book. History teaches us that it's hard for those of us living in the moment to see what's coming around the corner. But the divisive reality that French foresees for our nation is so credible and alarming that it ought to stir the sleepy or fearful citizen into action.

[Ivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A plea to return to the Founders’ conception of pluralism. According to French, we need an 18th-century solution to our 21st-century problem—the “us vs. them” loathing that characterizes much of our political discourse. I find French’s analysis always clear and incisive—and I think he models well what he calls for, namely, political and moral courage in our sectarian age. His look at the religious, cultural, political, and social forces dividing us is sobering. Ideally, this is a book to read along with John Inazu’s Confident Pluralism, Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed, Ben Sasse’s Them.

[Cristie Underwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am a Democrat and do not share the conservative beliefs of the author. However, I like to read things from people who have views that differ from mine. I do agree that we are divided as a nation and need to come together for the common good. This book was well written and provided me with insight from the other side and shows that not everyone that disagrees resorts to insults or namecalling.

[Ian Hammond · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a call to a return to federalism and virtue. The author is very concerned about polarization, which is being stoked by the left and right. We are not going to find consensus, but we can embrace pluralism and federalism to avoid secession.

[Julie Tedjeske Crane · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really like David French and I am a subscriber to The Dispatch, which is an ad-free, fact-based, center-right news service that he helps to run. I don't share his politics from a liberal/conservative perspective, but I do share his approach to politics, which is more solutions-based and perhaps small-c conservative and institutionalist than is currently stylish.

This book covers a lot of familiar arguments and examples, but French is able to write from a perspective that is genuinely open and which engages his political opponents in a sincere manner. In fact, if anything, a cursory glance at the reviews of this book suggests that his readership is more liberal than conservative, which is a bit discouraging.

French goes through an examination of the big sort, which suggests that the country is sorting itself into red and blue geographically. In addition to the blue/urban areas of the country getting bluer and the red/rural areas getting redder, political identity is merged with other aspects of identity--including religious, cultural, and educational factors--to create competing "mega-identities."

Moreover, as these geographically and culturally-based like-minded people form groups, the group dynamics tend to push them to become more extreme. A chose-your-own adventure media also pushes people to extremes.

As French notes, people who consume more political media tend to be less well-informed about what the "other side" believes as opposed to people who have a more casual interest in politics. Political junkies tend to be motivated by negative polarization--meaning that they despise the "other side" more than they support their own side. (It is a little funny that people do not more often stop to consider that the reason they can't believe that people on the "other side" believe or do outrageous things is because most people on the other side *don't* actually believe or do those outrageous things.)

This negative polarization is exacerbated by the media and social media tendency to cherry-pick grievances. Unlike a real war, the culture war does not have "leaders" who can declare a "truce." No matter what, you can always find some nut job on the "other side" who has done something outrageous and amplify that as an example of what "they" really think or how "they" behave. Of course, given the outrageousness of your "enemies," you must respond in kind. This sort of motivated reasoning gives people an adrenaline rush and is encouraged by their peer groups.

Probably my least favorite part of the book are the two fictional succession scenarios, whereby French tries to demonstrate that the country could literally tear itself apart. These just didn't ring true to me.

In terms of solutions, French advocates for a return to federalism, which would allow for a greater degree of self-governance of more culturally and politically homogeneous communities. I am not sure how well that would work in practice, although I am sympathetic to the general idea, at least to a point.

Beyond just a political system that relies on a renewed commitment to federalism, French argues for a cultural pluralism exemplified by tolerance and respect for a diversity of viewpoints. This is probably the best part of French's writing because he tries to practice this himself. He also admits that he has not always done so in the past. In this way, French can serve as a role model for all of us.

If you are interested in polarization, I would recommend this book. I would also recommend Ezra Klein's Why We're Polarized, which covers much of the same territory from a left-leaning perspective. And finally, I would recommend the conversation between both of these authors on Ezra Klein's podcast.

[SoCal Heather · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is easy to read, not because it is simplistic but because it is well written and fairly short. At least, it felt short since when I got to the end of one chapter I felt compelled to start the next chapter and this kept going until I ended up finishing it quickly.

If you are familiar with David French you will have an idea of what to expect from this book - he states the problem and the solution clearly and concisely, without fear or favor. If you are not familiar with David French I recommend that you start here. He is addressing a real problem that our nation faces today and that needs to solve before secession becomes the only sane option.

[Laurel Hicks · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this book does a better job than J. D. Vance’s fine Hillbilly Elegy explaining the roots of today’s sharp political polarization. And it suggests a remedy.

[Joe Terrell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Of the multiple books I've read about America's polarization issues and the looming threat of a potential second Civil War, David French's Divided We Fall might be one of the most accessible. It was also the most illuminating for me, as David French is far more conservative than me, so it revealed an ideological side of the conflict I hadn't considered (or been encouraged to consider).

For the record, David French is what I'd refer to as a "classical common-sense Conservative." There's definitely a lot we disagree on (especially when it comes to social issues), but he's erudite, well-read, and recognizes the existential rot occurring in the GOP (French was an anti-Trump Republican). As I said above, French forced me to consider a different perspective on our ideological divide, and while he throws a lot of punches at the Right for tolerating authoritarianism and fascism in their ranks, he throws down hard against smug liberals whose self-righteous contempt and performative outrage is hurting way more than it's helping.

As someone who considers themselves "center-Left," French's observations of the hypocrisy of the Left stung. Most books on this topic - because they're written from a more liberal perspective - generally place the blame firmly on the side of conservatives "holding back progress."

French's solution to our polarization crisis is essentially an aggressive form of Federalism or giving more autonomy to the states. Intellectually, French's argument is strong (and rooted in what our founder's probably intended), but there are some pretty large holes in his reasoning. Basically, French wants blue states to be allowed to be more liberal and red states to be allowed to be more conservative - without much interference from the federal government (and as long as the states don't violate anyone's civil liberties). I think where French's argument falters is the rural/urban divide (states like California and Texas are far more ideologically diverse than a lot of people realize).

Overall, Divided We Fall helped me this issue from a different perspective and acknowledge failures in my own political ideology. It also includes two of the most bruisingly realistic "secession" scenarios (and their global fallout) - the secession of Texas and California.

I recommend this book to liberals (like myself) who want to understand what the polarization issue looks like from a more center-Right angle, and for conservatives who are fed up with "Trumpism" and want to return to "classical conservatism" (it's also a great intellectual antidote to the likes of Tucker Carlson, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, and Steven Crowder).

[Will · Rating 5 out of 5]

French’s diagnosis of America seems irrefutable. I don’t see the possibility of America dividing up as possible as French. I don’t know if federalism is the answer to our ills, but French’s conclusion is spot on. America is lucky to have David French.

[Sam Strickland · Rating 3 out of 5]

French's preoperative diagnosis of the nation's ills is split into three main parts, which I will (somewhat) briefly comment upon.

1. In the first section French articulates his account of the ways in which the U.S. is polarized. He has little to say that is new here. Like most books of this type he recapitulates work from thinkers like Cass Sunstein, whose cited article was written decades ago, and Bill Bishop. If you have a political junky in your life who follows people like Ezra Klein or others, then you've likely heard much of this before. The main value of this section lies in the careful case French makes for his thesis that there is not a single institution or center of gravity pulling Americans toward greater unity.

2. Here we come across two separate imaginative scenarios of how polarization could potentially lead to secession. Each of these sections, featuring California and Texas as the focal states of secession, is plausible enough, though I'd say that French fixates too heavily on two cultural issues, gun regulation and the outlawing of abortion. This leads to a rather strange caricature of governors who care so much about taking guns away from a several thousand people or outlawing abortion in states where it is already heavily curtailed that they are willing to break off from the larger US. French's analysis of the international scene after secession relies too heavily on his previous scenarios working out in a certain way coupled with a simplistic version of Realist IR theory. The dominos are set up too neatly in the IR section.

3. The third section is predictably the weakest of the book. Conservative criticisms of culture often have strong diagnoses with weaker cures; this book is no exception. Interestingly enough, French's main cure of federalism is precisely the thing that leads to his secession scenarios. All it takes to make them work is if the national government responds to what it determines a violation of constitutional rights within a state trying to practice what it sees as good government within its borders. To be fair, French thinks that the Bill of Rights should serve as a check on the practice of federalism. But, given the prevalence of the Supreme Court in our cultural politics, I'm not sure how these two principles could avoid practically coming into conflict. As for pluralism, it's vital that we in the U.S. learn to practice it, but I don't see French offering any suggestions beyond "be nice; it's what the framers intended."

Criticisms: not enough analysis of others' ideas, lack of creativity in addressing the problem, fetishization of the founders/framers, practical tensions within the restorative vision

Strengths: makes a clear point about disunity in American life coupled with a somewhat helpful view of how it might be remedied

Sidenote: It's unclear to me that French actually thinks the U.S. could reach a new consensus of substantively good government. For him it appears that good government equals the principles of procedural justice articulated in the Constitution. I'd like to ask him, "What about the Declaration of Independence? What about the preamble and its talk of 'establishing justice,' ensuring 'domestic tranquility,' and promoting 'the general welfare?' What of the speeches from Patrick Henry (if we want to start at the Revolutionary period) to MLK (not to mention important historical characters whose views we might find less palatable) articulating a national good that moves beyond procedure?" Would these higher goals only be societal in nature or would government at the national level actually have something to contribute in regards to them?

[Liam · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 Stars

This was an excellent book. David French is one of my favorite voices in journalism and politics, and this book was extremely well articulated and argued.

French’s primary concern in this book is with the divisive scornful direction modern political debate and disagreement has gone. His plea is that rather than despising those on the opposite side of the political aisle, we should disagree with decency and good-will toward those who don’t believe what we do.

French marks the current climate, and compares it in alarming ways to the one immediately prior to the civil war. His main concern is for our nation’s distant future, but he convincingly delineates 3 strings of potential future events that could, even in our own time, feasibly cause a break up of our nation.

The goal of this book, is that the reader would see that the real enemy of our country, rather than being those on the opposite side of the political spectrum, is ourselves, if we literally despise those who think differently than we do and desire their downfall.

His plea is that decency rather than despising would once again take hold in our political discourse. His argument is widely non-partisan, and he uses examples of politicians on both the left and the right either committing the same and opposite blunders, or showing the same and opposite remarkable grace and humility as both positive & negative examples. Toward the end of the book, French argues for a national federalism that gives states more freedom, allowing more liberal states the ability to enact their own policies, and more conservative states the ability to enact theirs. He makes a compelling case, considering how diverse our nation is politically.

Concerning kindness, grace, and charity in our political discourse, French ends with this very relevant quote from John Adams:

“While our Country remains untainted with the Principles and manners, which are now producing desolation in so many Parts of the World: while she continues Sincere and incapable of insidious and impious Policy: We shall have the Strongest Reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned Us by Providence. But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net.”

[Patti · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn’t agree with everything David French wrote but did take away several ideas to continue to think about:

1) When people of like mind gather, they tend to become more extreme. Expose yourself to different opinions and ideas.

2) James Madison’s embrace of pluralism is the answer. First, if you are a citizen of a pluralistic, liberal republic you need to defend the rights of others that you would like to exercise yourself even when others seek to use those rights to advance ideas you may dislike or even find repugnant. Second, if you are a citizen of a pluralistic, liberal government you should defend the rights of communities and associations to govern themselves according to their values and beliefs so long as they don’t violate the fundamental rights of their dissenting members.

3) We rarely turn reflective. We rarely spend serious time questioning our own role in making politics toxic or our indifference to cultural repair. But now is exactly the time to examine ourselves. It’s easy in polarized times to seek justice. But mercy for our opponents and humility about our own mistakes are indispensable to our national life. No matter the depth of our national division there is no point where it is too late or too risky to show these three virtues.

[David Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

The phrase “United We Stand, Divided We Fall” has a long history in the United States. The earliest reference is in a song called “The Liberty Song” by John Dickenson published in 1768. For our purposes though the most poignant use may have been in 1799. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were dividing the new nation. These Resolutions, which would plague America until the onset of the Civil War, were written in opposition of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Penned in secret by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, these Resolutions argued that individual states had the right to nullify Federal laws that the state deemed to be unconstitutional. These resolutions horrified George Washington who asked his old friend Patrick Henry to step in the gap and oppose them. Washington knew that the request was odd. After all, Henry had been one of the most influential voices opposing the Constitution and the government it created. Henry was sixty-three years old and in failing health. Still he took Washington’s challenge and issued forth to defend the young nation. At his final public speech Henry attacked those who wrote the Resolutions and defended the young nation. He ended with "United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our very existence hangs." The old orator had to be helped from the building and died two months later. 

Now I do not think it is an insult to David French to say that he is no Patrick Henry. I like to think that the great orator would have approved of French’s new book Divided We Fall. David French, senior writer at The Dispatch, is calling out the same warning that was heard so long ago at a college campus in Virginia. “We cannot assume that a continent-sized, multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy can remain united forever, and it will not remain united if our political class cannot and will not adapt to an increasingly diverse and divided American public.” With these words he launches into this timely book. First of all what this book is not is an attempt to make all Americans agree and “become one.” Rather it is a call for us to embrace our diversity and our pluralism and learn to live together once again. It is a cry to end the polarization and to move towards each other instead of moving away. 

In the first part of the book French outlines the move towards division. He shows that many Americans have begun to move to states and cities that they feel more reflect their own ideas. This leads people in places like California to relocate to Tennessee or Texas. It also leads people from Texas and Tennessee to move to California. The mobilization is leading to an increased polarization between Red and Blue states as the populations become less diverse. The internet has also made it easier for the nation to polarize. Now our friendship circles are no longer defined by work, church, and clubs. Instead we find others who think like us on the internet and create our own communities that reinforce our preconceived notions. These and other issues that French lay out help to explain the ever increasing divide in America.
The second part of the book is an interesting exercise. In this section French lays out a couple of theoretical scenarios that end with the United States splitting into multiple countries. In the first scenario liberal states angered by a buffoon in the White House eventually sever from the US, setting their own countries. The second scenario does the same, but with Texas and other Southern and Western states breaking from a liberal government run. I have to say that I found this section less than compelling. French is a delightful writer and a wonderful person, but his skills like more towards the law and less towards dystopian literature. I don’t see the scenarios breaking down as neatly as he lays it out. First of all, while I agree that the nation has done a good deal of self-sorting I’m not sure that it is so extreme that it’s quite ready to split apart on state lines. Though these scenarios are more about the fears that drive those on the left and the right.
The final section of the book provides ideas for how we can bridge these divides and bring the nation back together. The most important thing that we can do is to build on the foundations of pluralism and tolerance. We need to defend the rights of others as we would defend our own rights. It is not enough for me to defend my own right to speak, to protest, to worship. I must also defend the rights of those whose views I disagree. This idea of a neutral system where all are free to assemble and speak as they believe brought controversy on French last year when he was attacked from the Right for not wishing to force others to hide their lifestyle. The very essence of a free society is that its citizens have to tolerate those whose views differ. You don’t have to like the ideas, but you do have to tolerate their existence in the public square. 
Divided We Fall is well written and French pours his heart into the book. In this time of increased polarization we need more calls to live in unity. Not the unity of a monoculture where we all think and act the same, but a unity of purpose to allow freedom to others to live and think and speak as they see fit while you do the same. It’s the same dream that another great orator shared in 1963. The dream of a place where “Black men and White men, Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Catholic” and David French would add, atheist and Muslim, men and women, straight and gay, liberal and conservative can be free and can join hands together. Is that too much to believe in. French doesn’t think so.

[Simms · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting read. French's solution to our nation's political problems is a little pat (basically, everyone should stop trying to dominate their political opponents and learn to live with differences in belief, without demonizing those who hold contrary positions to one's own) but it's well-expressed and features some cautionary hypotheticals for those who think that splitting off from the US is a solution. I did find fault with his willingness to excuse discrimination against gay or transgender people as a legitimate expression of one's religious beliefs, however.

[Caely · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommend. A great read mid-election season. Not warm and fuzzy at all and he brings up some harsh reality, but he offers hope if we’re willing to take it.

[Colleen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was very interested in this book, mainly since the author is of evangelical and conservative beliefs. While neither of these positions in todays news cycle are particularly shown as positive I was curious to read this book. While the telling of this book is even handed and it shows neither side as being more right than the other. But what it does do is quietly and calmly share the wide differences and the possibilities of changing the great divide between the "them or us" mentality by going back to Madison's writings in "The Federalists Papers" about the violence of factions, and a return to pluralism and tolerance. It certainly seems easy to put a label such as "right wing extremists or left wing crazies" but there are some people that don't embrace the name calling and hatred for those that have a different opinion. I appreciate Mr. French taking the time to share his opinions.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Divided We Fall" is David French's warning concerning the state of our disunion. He warns in part 1 of the coming crisis due to the fever-pitch of political discourse. In part 2, he plays out two scenarios of secession, and then how that might play out on the international stage. In part 3, he offers a solution to the increasing political division that is playing out geographically.

French is right that the United States is headed perilously close to secession--or at least a crisis of our political union that hasn't played out since the decades leading up to the Civil War. Anyone paying much attention to the political discourse and election results of the last decade should be able to recognize this reality.

French doesn't really address the city/suburb/rural divide, however. He alludes to this with the way landslide counties have become more predominant; but he doesn't address how this is less of a state-level divide than a city vs. country divide. Cities are very left-leaning, and those outside of the city are much more right-leaning. This fact makes the political divisions much more complicated than he really addresses. Any kind of secession movement would not end with states seceding, but with counties seceding one state and joining another.

His scenarios are interesting and are very compelling. It is sadly all too easy to see either scenario play itself out. But the point of French's book is found in part 3. Here he lays out the solution to our political divide: federalism. He argues that by returning to the federalism that our founders laid out in the United States Constitution, we can find a way for states like California to live according to their state priorities, while allowing states like Tennessee to live out their own priorities.

French is absolutely right that this is the way states were meant to govern and should now govern. The fact that this is not the case has many roots, and as French notes, it is the nationalizing impulse that has led both parties to centralize power within the federal government.

French is correct to argue that conservatives must return to federalism, for that is the root of the conservative worldview. A return toward federalism has long been the answer to solve many of the challenges our nation faces. But as French acknowledges, the Republican party long ago abandoned true conservatism. However, assuming Republicans return to federalism, the challenge lies in progressives accepting federalism.

What French fails to recognize, is that centralization and intolerance is the fruit of the progressive worldview. He does understand the strong impulses of progressives toward intolerance, and is fully aware of the dangers of it, but he doesn't seem to understand that progressives must operate outside of their worldview to accept and enact federalism. Progressivism is messianic in character and entirely intolerant in its ideology. It cannot accept federalism.

Progressivism is an intolerant, hostile ideology that seeks to destroy all rivals. In this sense, it is a rival religion to Christianity--which it must stamp out. Whatever optimism French has, regarding a return to federalism, and it isn't much, is the result of his misunderstanding the progressive worldview. He seems to think there is common ground between progressives and conservatives, or even centrists. But there is none. His failure to accept this fact makes the book, which is already extremely pessimistic, even more so.

The book succinctly argues the case for the great danger our nation is in, and has some interesting schenarios as to how it might play out, but doesn't really offer a meaningful solution, as federalism is a dead letter in 2020 America. The only real solution to the secession threat is national revival and the destruction of the progressivist and nationalistic idols. Both left and right must abandon the will to power, and the ungodly worldviews that fuel those desires, and return to the Christian roots that served as the soil and seed of the United States Constitution.

[Mark Warnock · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like David French. I think he's one of the rare sane, balanced voices in today's cacophonous and ludicrous politics. Divided We Fall is a more or less an argument for a return to a looser federalism, that allows "California to be California, and Tennessee to be Tennessee." He observes that we have become polarized along political and geographical lines--red states and blue states, and that the state of our discourse is as fearful and fractious as that preceding the Civil War.

He offers two dystopian scenarios of secession, which, while fantasy, are believable enough to give the reader pause.

It's not the most dense or closely argued book, and doesn't strike as firmly as I expected, but I enjoyed the read nevertheless. The best part are the concluding pages, where he argues for a return to decency and a humble, balanced patriotism.

Moreover, this is a great book to read NOW, amidst the chaos and insanity of our current political moment.

Recommended.

[Jonathan Roberts · Rating 4 out of 5]

A depressing yet encouraging book. Don’t believe me then go get the book. At very minimum take it off the shelf at your bookstore and read the conclusion!!! It is worth it!

Recommended

[G · Rating 5 out of 5]

Depressing but good. Wish it had more by way of solutions but it's a start

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

From center-right author David French, a call for political sanity that goes beyond "both-sidesism" that would equate, for example, BLM with pro-Trump insurrectionists.

Since he and his own family were harassed by hard-right activists when French criticized Trump, he knows what he's talking about when he says that conservatives have gotten too caught up in their own parallel universe of friendly media, from Fox News to alt-right websites.

But he also makes fair criticism of the mainstream media, not for failing to adhere to basic facts, but for slanting things in a left direction. This is part of the beef that the right has had for years, that mainstream media and the rest of mainstream culture, is leaving the values of the right behind. That they're losing the culture war on social issues like gender, guns, and immigration.

Whatever side you fall on such issues, French also makes a good case that people who care about them on either side aren't likely to change their minds anytime soon. So, either side trying to impose their will nationally by taking over Washington isn't likely to end the conflict. Instead, imposing a national solution to the most contentious issues is only likely to make polarization worse. It could get so bad, French warns, that red states and blue states could actually move towards national separation based on geography.

The dissolution of the United States wouldn't be like the Civil War, but it would have the threat of violence behind it. French outlines two frighteningly plausible scenarios by which America could break up into collections of states focusing on California (liberal secession over guns) and Texas (conservative secession over abortion).

The way to stop the drift towards secession is to stop trying to win on the most contentious issues nationally and force the other side to accept that they lose. Instead, it's to allow more diversity by region. For example, liberal abortion laws in California but stricter ones in Texas, if that's what people in each area want.

As part of a theory of political pluralism, French feels that allowing more geographic variation would tamp down conflicts and lead Americans to respect each other more. Let California be California and let Texas be Texas, he's saying. The details to work out would be many, but the overall approach is appealing to untie the Gordian knots that the most polarizing issues like abortion, guns, and immigration have become.

[Jacob · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was between four and five stars but opted for five because of how timely it is. I can honestly say he was balanced in his critiques of the left and the right. Of course, my mind went into argument mode the second he started critiquing the left, but I tried to resist that urge. It was interesting to hear that both sides really do feel like their ways of life and most important values are under imminent attack by the other. I can definitely relate to that. Another really interesting point was how social desirability bias can influence people to adopt views they don’t necessarily hold, because most of us would rather overstate our principles than be an outcast. It may feel like we are arrive at our political views by sitting in a quiet room and deciding what is best, but these opinions are never formed in a vacuum. Ezra Klein‘s book on polarization goes into a lot more detail here and pairs well with this one.

It’s hard to doubt that we are starting to live in different Americas, both politically but also in terms of lifestyle, culture, etc., And it’s even harder to imagine this trend reversing. The future secession scenarios were frightening but maybe not as far-fetched as people may think. What is his solution? Instead of trying to convert the other side, French argues that we should be more tolerant and embrace federalism at a broader scale. In other words, stop having such bitter national arguments over topics like abortion, immigration, and healthcare, and give each state more leeway in making its own decisions here. This may not work well for certain issues, but it might be our only hope in maintaining some semblance of national unity.

It can be hard to balance the desire for national order with the desire to fight for what you think is right. In my case, I really do believe in the values I hold, and I don’t think each side has equal merit. Some might say they would rather live in a smaller, more progressive or conservative country than give up ground to the other side, but this route brings a whole new set of issues many of us are not prepared to grapple with. I’m not sure how this will all play out, but I’m glad people like French are starting the conversation, and few people are better positioned to do so.