A few weeks ago, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene caused a stir by bringing up the idea of a “national divorce” in a series of posts on Twitter.

In the days that followed, the topic spread like wildfire, with Greene taking the heat. Many likened her concept of divorce to secession, and some alluded to the Civil War, but as with anything, it’s important to hear directly from the source.

Greene began her thread with, “Why the left and right should consider a national divorce, not a civil war but a legal agreement to separate our ideological and political disagreements by states while maintaining our legal union.”

Greene uses divorce as an analogy throughout her thread, citing “irreconcilable differences” between the left and right. But she makes no mention of secession, and makes it clear the federal government would still remain at the head of the states, just on a much smaller scale. “A national divorce would require a much smaller federal government with more power given to the states,” she said. “Reducing the federal government would be easy because states would completely control things like education, trade and commerce, and communications to a much larger degree.”

But a headline from The Hill characterized Greene’s tweets as a “secessionist fantasy” and a Mediaite headline said, “Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls for Republican States to Secede From the Union.” While Greene did not call for secession, she did take several jabs at Democrats throughout her thread, using divisive rhetoric, which detracted from her main points and hurt her message as a whole. Greene’s use of “divorce” was also perhaps too strong of an analogy, and only served to fuel claims she wanted secession.

“Divorce” is not what is needed, but American federalism is: the idea that the states can generally govern themselves with limited oversight and input from the federal government. The issue is that for far too long, American politics have taken a top-down approach. Policies enacted at the federal level are imposed upon the states. Unfortunately, we keep trending in that direction.

The election of Trump started a “resist” movement, and now the Biden administration is receiving backlash from conservatives. Instead of staking everything on the White House and Congress, let’s come together and have a reasoned conversation on the role of government. If we can’t agree on policies, maybe we can agree – to some extent – that the federal government has outgrown the role laid out for it in the Constitution, and that more power should lie with the states as outlined in the 10th Amendment.

If California wants to ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars, run their electrical grid on wind and solar energy, impose gun control on their citizens, and allow nearly unrestricted access to abortion, OK. But don’t take those policies to Washington, D.C., and then try to make red states live under them, as well. Red states generally don’t want to live that way. Yet President Biden has repeatedly called to phase out and end the use of fossil fuels, repeatedly called for an assault weapons ban, and repeatedly called on Congress to “codify” Roe v. Wade into federal law.

There’s no doubt that Americans are divided on a host of issues. As Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” But instead of divorce, let’s see if we can find common ground on the role of government, and allow the states to make more of their own decisions.

Thomas Sanco is a Cherokee County resident, who deals in vintage cars and parts.