Internal borders are an obscure, but important, aspect of politics. How a country is divided into smaller counties, provinces and states is vital to that country’s functioning because the management of resources, the distribution of the population and elections are all affected by how a country is subdivided.
One approach, Utahism, originating in conservative politics, seeks to radically redraw the borders of U.S. states into areas of cultural similarity. However, this idea is unsustainable and undemocratic.
Utahism is supported by a political faction whose understanding of the U.S. population is an inherently flawed one. First and foremost, the conservative groups advocating for Utahism claim that the United States is formed of several cultural and economic domains, areas where a group of people shares an identity unique to that region that is incompatible with the rest of the country.
Supporters of Utahism believe there are regional identities found across the United States that are more meaningful to people than their national identity. Simply put, they believe that it matters more to a person that they are a New Yorker, Californian or Texan, for example, than that they are American. Despite the fact that these identities indeed exist, using such vague concepts as “regional identity” to radically change how the U.S. functions is not logical.
Utahism, therefore, advocates a total reimagining of the United States by completely redrawing state borders to encompass these claimed regions. Some of the proposed regions are entirely city-based, like Los Angeles, New York and Miami, while larger states like Texas, Montana and Missouri would be divided into smaller rural communities.
According to Utahists, the new states in this country must follow cultural boundaries shaped by geographic boundaries such as mountains and rivers. However, they also obey less concrete and less objective boundaries like religion and race and consider concerningly abstract ideas, such as culture and ancestral background.
The ultimate goal of Utahism is to achieve harmony, an abstract and subjective claim that is not based on material conditions. The idea of redrawing state borders to improve economic and political efficiency is, sincerely speaking, a sound perspective. However, the crucial issues with Utahism are that it is too naive to see the problems it would generate and was created to ensure a form of ethno-nationalist gerrymandering or, in other words, an “American Apartheid.”
The first issue with Utahism is its disgraceful misunderstanding of identity and citizenship. National identities are fundamental sources of power for multicultural countries that seek to maintain unity across peoples. In a nation, the core purpose of the highest body of government is to represent all citizens, regardless of origin or character.
A Utahist system would instead make its citizens “separate but equal,” divided along racial and social lines that segregate people into isolated communities, eroding the values of a nationwide democracy and unified law.
Past racial policies, such as segregated education and voter disenfranchisement, which persisted long after slavery was abolished, continued to divide the population along racial lines with motives very similar in rhetoric to those of Utahism. The result of such divisions along race and culture has consistently been inequalities in income and education and unequal access to employment and healthcare.
Secondly, a Utahist system is not a solution for improving economic conditions. Regardless of how they are categorized and administered, all aspects of an economy must cooperate seamlessly. Grouping urban areas into one district and rural communities into another will not solve the social and economic gap between them. If anything, drawing strict borders between them and insisting that they are different because of “cultural differences” will only worsen inequality in the United States.
Finally, Utahism is a contradictory, if not covertly malicious, proposal given the kind of society it envisions. While on a large scale, humans may share similar beliefs and identities, a democratic society cannot allow internal divisions along lines of culture, economics or race. These are inherently undemocratic measures, seeking to isolate citizens into separate communities and gradually eroding the very principle of secular democracy.
Utahism poses a risk of destabilizing the United States by trapping the country in the kind of infighting that nearly brought it down in 1861. When the Civil War broke out, though the main motivation was the preservation of slavery, the excuse of the Confederates — which persists to this very day — is the preservation of states’ rights and a Southern identity separate from a national identity.
To institutionalize such divisions by carving the country into segregated commissariats can therefore be described with one word — pointless.
Utahism exists because of genuine needs, but follows a very concerning pattern of gerrymandering and segregation. As its supporters claim, the United States indeed needs to reform its internal administration to improve economic efficiency and reduce bureaucracy. However, to do so by turning the United States into a union of ethnic commissariats is a fundamentally flawed idea, counterintuitive to the principle of an equal society.
Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.