Soft secession refers to blue states withholding financial support rather than formally leaving the Union, sidestepping the legal and logistical impossibilities of actual secession.
The term "national divorce" is discussed as a recurring rhetorical idea promoted by right-wing figures, but Pakman emphasizes that real secession is practically and constitutionally unfeasible.
For decades, many blue states have been net donors to the federal government, sending more in taxes than they receive in federal spending, while red states are often net takers relying on these subsidies for critical social services.
Specific examples include New Jersey receiving only 91 cents for every dollar sent to the federal government, contrasted with Mississippi receiving $2.53 per dollar.
Blue states could disrupt federal cash flows by declining to participate in certain federal programs and crafting state policies that reduce dependence on Washington, DC.
This would likely cause severe budget shortfalls and cuts to health care, education, and infrastructure in many red states that depend on federal funds.
The approach would be framed as local control rather than an explicit political statement, minimizing direct confrontation.
Challenges include federal preemption (where federal law overrides state law), the contractual obligations of interstate compacts, and the need for states to replace lost federal funds legally and practically.
While messy and complex, Pakman argues this tactic would be simpler than formal secession and could devastate red states financially, forcing political change.
What do you think about this idea? Would this approach help red states finally realize the benefits and importance of social services and federal support they have long relied on?