Although I don’t approve of the idea it is food for thought because it forces the question, as with Brexit for the EU, of what is the meaning of the ‘united states’ (note the play on the term ‘state’) and this in the context of its imperialistic transcontinental after life. With Brexit I suggested that globalization can break up premature ‘unions’ and induce new forms of unification in the set of subsets of all states, or in fact the subsets of states. I doubt if global capitalism can solve this problem.
The US is clearly in a state of botched unification, a point evident at the onset of the Civil War and once again evident today.
Our consideration of a revolutionary/evolutionary transition to a postcapitalist system with a more benign economic system might allow the wounded system to heal. And it is also possible to consider large ‘unions’, viz. a union of Canada, US and Mexico (and what about Central America?). But it is clear that unions can complicate localities and a degree of autonomy in the midst of expanding unifications is inevitable…
We can consider a rogue version of our neo-communist nationalism: a US imperialism turned into a neo-communist union of ‘states’ on its way to an internalizing union of ‘states’…a situation that started to come about with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, up to a point.
Political scientists suspend their disbelief to explain how secession might play out for the Golden State