In a Politically Divided America, Where Does Relocation Fit In?

In a recent essay, I argue that America’s political division is so severe that the United States should consider a peaceful split into two sovereign nations joined in a cooperative “American Union” with shared currency, defense, and freedom of movement. Many commenters focused immediately on the issue of relocation, questioning whether citizens living “behind enemy lines” would feel even more trapped than they do today.

“What happens to blue people in red America, and red people in blue America? People can’t just pick up and move,” they ask.

It’s a fair concern. But it rests on an assumption that doesn’t match how Americans actually live now -- and it underestimates how stabilizing an American Union could be.

Political mismatch is already our status quo. Millions of Americans already live in states whose dominant politics oppose their personal values.

Take, for example, California and Texas -- the largest blue and red states. California with roughly 39 million residents and Texas with about 31 million together account for just over 20 percent of the U.S. population. They also produced roughly $6.8 trillion in economic output in 2024 -- nearly a quarter of the national economy. Combined, they would rank as the world’s third-largest economy.

Yet within those states, millions routinely vote for the “other” party. In California’s 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump received more than 6 million votes. In Texas, Kamala Harris received nearly 5 million. And California and Texas already differ dramatically in law and policy. Yet millions stay put, without civil breakdown or social collapse.

Below is a snapshot of some of the major differences between the two largest states that already coexist inside the United States:

California vs. Texas: Big Differences That Already Coexist Inside the U.S.

These are not cosmetic differences. They are fundamental contrasts in law and culture -- and yet tens of millions of people remain where they are.

If Americans can coexist within sharply divergent policy regimes inside a single country, it is difficult to believe that coexistence would suddenly become impossible within two self-governing nations joined in a structured union.

The deeper fear behind the relocation objection is that political conflict would intensify. But much of today’s polarization stems from the structure of national power itself and, as envisioned, an American Union would lower the political temperature.

American politics has shifted from simple policy disagreements to intense political tribalism -- where political party identity becomes primary social identity. When politics feels existential, losing an election is like losing control of one’s entire social world. Today, a single federal government dictates taxes, regulation, and constitutional law for everyone. Every national election, we face a winner-take-all struggle for total control.

As a result, national policy often feels like a weapon rather than governance. Take, for example, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’s $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions, which was widely criticized for disproportionately burdening residents of high-tax, Democratic-leaning states.

Similar dynamics appear in executive and legislative efforts to condition or withhold federal law enforcement and other grants from, and to focus immigration efforts on, so-called “sanctuary” cities and states, using federal funding and law enforcement resources as leverage to compel compliance with contested immigration policies. During COVID, analyses of federal relief found that aid formulas often advantaged states aligned with the party that was then in power.

An American Union flips those incentives. Red America gains nothing by punishing Blue America, and vice versa, because neither side controls the other’s national government. Each country governs itself -- and pays the price, and reaps the rewards, for its own choices.

Under today’s system, political parties pander to their most extreme base voters. In an American Union, there likely would be a shift in both countries toward their “centers,” as each government better reflects its median voter rather than fighting for control of a single national machine by focusing on their most ardent supporters.

Consider abortion. Today the debate is framed as an all-or-nothing national struggle. But public opinion is far less absolutist. Roughly two-thirds of Americans say abortion should be permitted in at least some circumstances. Only 25 percent of Democrats and 7 percent of Republicans believe it should be legal in all cases, while 2 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans believe it should be illegal in all cases. Support for gestational limits is substantial across party lines. Without the threat of national imposition, policies would naturally gravitate toward the center -- favoring durable compromise over ideological purity.

Gun policy offers another poignant example. In the current U.S. structure, any federal regulation is often perceived as a precursor to sweeping national restriction. Yet polling consistently shows overwhelming bipartisan support for specific safety measures. Around 93 percent of Americans support background checks for all gun buyers. Large bipartisan majorities support preventing people with serious mental illness from purchasing firearms. Even permit requirements draw notable support among Republicans.

Free from federal threats, Red America could adopt supported safety measures to satisfy its suburban voters, while Blue America could focus on effective enforcement that respects the rights of its rural residents.

The same logic applies to the federal courts. Presidents are incentivized to nominate younger, more ideologically rigid judges to the Supreme Court to lock in power for decades. In an American Union, judicial appointments would no longer determine constitutional interpretation for all Americans; the pressure to treat every nomination as a generational ideological war would dissipate.

Taken together, an American Union would likely make everyday life easier for political minorities -- not harder. Fewer national laws would be written to send partisan messages. Fewer court decisions would feel like irreversible losses imposed by a distant majority. Fewer elections would carry the sense that one side is about to seize control. And with disagreement less threatening, living under a government controlled by the other party would likely feel more manageable than it does today and actually diminish incentives to relocate.

Even within deeply polarized states today, Americans rely on their local communities to insulate them from political differences, something scholars call "The Big Sort." Progressives live in conservative states, and conservatives live in progressive states; but within those states they often find cities and counties, churches, neighborhoods, and social groups aligned with their personal values. And there is no reason to believe a progressive pocket like Austin, Texas, or a conservative stronghold like Kern County, California, will not remain intact in an American Union.

An American Union would not erase these micro-communities. If anything, by lowering national political stakes, it would make local coexistence easier.

Of course, some people would relocate, including those who cannot afford to move now. And if they do, the American Union can handle it. About 8.2 million Americans moved between states in 2022 alone, with interstate moves in the 10 years between 2012 and 2022 totaling over 70 million.

For those who cannot afford to move but want to, a national relocation program makes that possible. Moving means housing deposits, job transitions, childcare disruption, and licensing hurdles. A structured union could ease those burdens through portability of benefits, licensing reciprocity, and reasonable relocation support.

Research on autonomy and well-being suggests that simply having meaningful choice reduces stress. The knowledge that one can move -- even if one ultimately stays -- changes the psychology of feeling trapped.

For those with deep local roots -- like homeowners with low-interest mortgages or small business owners -- this relocation support, combined with the freedom to live and work across national borders, eliminates the feeling of being “trapped” in hostile territory. This approach paradoxically reduces the pressure to move: when the “exit” is clearly marked and accessible, the room feels less like a cage.

Recent history shows that providing relocation support would not automatically result in a mass exodus. For nearly 30 years -- from the Berlin Wall’s construction in 1961 until its fall in 1989 -- East Germans were legally barred from relocating to West Germany and West Germans rarely moved east. After German reunification, legal barriers between East and West were lifted and significant governmental support was provided to make relocation easier. Even then, only 7 to 8 percent of the unified German population moved across the former divide in the 20 years following unification.

The lesson is not that no one would move. It’s just that most people, even when given opportunity and support, will likely choose to stay put.

The relocation objection often masks the deeper fear that political conflict would worsen under an American Union. But Americans already live together -- imperfectly, but continuously -- in divided states. An American Union is not about severing social ties. It is about lowering the political stakes so disagreement feels less like a fight for survival.

If the structure works, people will still (and should) disagree -- but with less panic, less intensity, and less fear of being trapped under a hostile national government. That would make it easier -- not harder -- for political minorities to stay put. Ultimately, an American Union may make the “wrong” side of the border feel more like home than the current United States ever could.