You knew that half of Americans were going to be outraged no matter which candidate won. If Hillary had won, you’d likely hear a swell coming from the South, including Texas, of the desire to secede from the Union. But in this case, Trump won the electoral vote, and a group of outraged Californians are proposing secession instead.

After Donald Trump won the race to the White House, people across California took to social media Tuesday night to call for “Calexit” (or California exit), recalling Brexit, Britain’s push to leave the European Union…

The movement has racked up an impressive backer already. Shervin Pishevar, an early investor in Uber and well-known angel investor, said on Twitter that he would bankroll a campaign to make California its own nation if Trump won.

In an interview with CNBC on Wednesday, he confirmed his mission.

“It’s the most patriotic thing I can do,” he told CNBC. “The country is at serious crossroads. … Calling it New California.”

He expressed a desire that California, the sixth-largest economy in the world in terms of GDP, might become a catalyst for a “national dialogue” as the country reaches a “tipping point.”

One nation, two ideals

While this is a broad sweeping unfair generalization, you could say that East and West coasts represent one political side and middle America represents the other. Ever since this article was posted on Facebook, I’ve imagined what a world would look like if the U.S. was broken into three separate countries.

Ideologically, it could be broken into two, but no way East and West coast can truly unite when separated geographically by a different country that used to be part of the same. More likely they would forge an international alliance.

The U.S. has maintained a “cohesive” whole all these years because each part of the country needs what the other parts provide. Back in Civil War era, the factories were up North and the farms were in the South. The factories would’ve had no goods to produce on their own and the farms would’ve had no customers to purchase on their own.

You could argue that the global market has changed this somewhat, with China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and other countries around the world capable of providing what middle America provides, possibly cheaper.

The unintended cost of separation

I hope this never happens. I don’t like communities, companies, or nations that lack diversity of ideals. Without middle America, I think the Coasts run themselves into the ground with debt from free services. They also lose a powerful connection to the positive side of historical family values. Without the coasts, I think Middle America discriminates, violates civil rights, and damages the earth by depleting resources and pumping poison into the ground.

I wouldn’t want to live in either location without the balancing effect of both ideologies requiring compromise on decision making.

I’m saddened that so many of my friends now feel disenfranchised. That they live with real concern about their safety, well-being, and practical exercise of equal rights of citizenship. This should not be so.

If you are angered by the results, I understand. If you think Hillary should have been elected over Trump, I would argue that you’re ignoring the depth of illegal activity. If you think neither candidate truly deserved to be nominated, I would say that you have a valid point.

My biggest takeaway is that we may need a change to the process of Presidential succession. 4-8 years isn’t working. I vehemently oppose the existing version of Obamacare, but I see how things could go indefinitely if every 8 years the nation overreacts to the flaws of the current President and the new opposite President just wipes the slate clean of all former Presidential initiatives. That’s just hitting the reset button every decade and getting nowhere. There’s going to need to be an adjustment made to that cycle.

I have no suggestions as of yet, but real thought needs to be put into how we build upon each candidacy, rather than waste entire lifetimes undoing each other’s best efforts.

Where do we draw the next line?

If you’re thinking that an exit is the answer, i have a question for you: Where will it end? Where’s the new line in the sand that a nation will not cross? On what issues will you not split over next time or the time after that or a generation later?

The moment one region or state secedes, all parties are a house of cards waiting to fall. You set a precedent that at some point it’s better to separate than to unify. With each new challenge, crisis, and catastrophe, we would all face new opportunities to secede based on the difficulty of unity.

If California leafy, who would be next? And within California itself, what happens when geography poses unconquerable differences? Do you split again? And again?

I think the point is that you can’t uncross that line, and it’s better to demand more of ourselves than to back out and set a precedent of escape versus compromise.

Have something to say? Click here to leave a comment on Facebook!