On Ceding States

Conservatives must resist the urge to participate in the “Big Sort”

America is a nation of pioneers, and it seems that the migratory blood remains; to an ever-increasing degree, people are exercising their ability to vote with their feet. We are living through a period that journalist Bill Bishop coined as the “Big Sort”: more and more people are moving to states dominated by their preferred political party.¹

Multiple explanations have been offered. During the Covid-19 pandemic, residents lost many of the ties that kept them rooted to their previous states, such as in-person employment, and vastly different state-level responses to the pandemic accentuated the ramifications of living in a blue state or red state.² Additionally, as the lifestyles of conservatives and progressives continue to diverge, it is becoming more difficult to live in a state without like-minded people. 

This is well illustrated by the twin stories of Idaho and Colorado, both western states. Whereas the political composition of migrants to Idaho had previously mirrored the state’s existing composition (slightly conservative-leaning), now nearly two-thirds of incoming residents are registered with the GOP.³ These new residents are pushing the state farther right.⁴ The opposite has occurred in the Centennial State: amidst high population growth, Colorado transitioned from a swing state to a Democratic stronghold in just a couple of elections.⁵ Republicans are emigrating away from Colorado as their Democrat counterparts flood in.⁶ 

As states like Idaho and Colorado get redder or bluer, it simply increases the incentives for like-minded individuals to keep immigrating. Polarization intensifies. In fact, the number of landslide counties—counties where the winning presidential candidate received over 80% of the vote—nearly quadrupled from 2004 to 2020, a statistic largely attributed to the Big Sort.⁷ 

The Big Sort is only possible because of federalism. The autonomy offered to states and counties via reserved powers allows for the development of rival cultures, cultures which people can then sort themselves into. The impact of federalism, which will be aggravated by the Big Sort, has proven paradoxical. The division of powers, as intended, is supposed to control the effects of minority factions. Political radicals stemming from a given region must capture multiple levels of government before they can influence national policy, and they face increasing resistance to change at each level. Theoretically, a minority faction can be contained at the local or state level.

Yet in practice, federalism allows factions incapable of swaying the national government to consolidate power at the lower levels. To contain a faction at the state level is to allow it to take the state government. This becomes increasingly likely amidst state-by-state polarization: a very blue state will probably allow left-wing extremists to fester in the state government, and the same is true for a very red state.  

The danger of local political consolidation is twofold. First, in the modern era, otherwise isolated political groups can use the internet to organize. The transgender movement, once a constellation of various fringe groups, used online platforms to build a cohesive political and cultural movement.⁸ Tying radicals down to the region they stem from is no longer feasible. Secondly, local ideologies do not stay local. Federalism has often been praised for creating a laboratory of democracy: states and regions experiment with ideas, and the federal government picks its favorites. Allowing radical ideas to increase their hold at a local level also increases the likelihood that those ideas are later picked up by national level actors. 

Living through the Big Sort, it might be tempting for conservatives to go home—or, if home is being overrun by blue-haired blue voters, to find a place that can become home. This might be the best option for many. Community is important, and while political agreement is not a precondition for strong community, aligned values are. For the individual, there are many perks related to living in a red state: lower taxes, greater personal freedom, district attorneys that will prosecute violent crime.⁹ Most importantly, you have an obligation to your children. The state you live in will partially determine the role models they look up to, the curriculum they learn in school—the worldview they develop.

But for all of us to partake in the Big Sort would be a mistake. In the short run, it is easy to allow California and Massachusetts to do their thing while we do ours. Yet the ideas which develop in those states ultimately bleed into the rest of the country. Even a decade ago, experimental ideas like the legalization of drugs and elementary school curricula on intersectionality were confined to the bluest of counties. Yet, largely unchallenged at their root, such ideas were able to refine themselves, gain traction, and enter the national discourse. If we do not develop a foothold in those counties, we miss our best opportunity to challenge radical ideology. The most extreme factions can, as mentioned previously, consolidate power before becoming mainstream.  

Moreover, the categories of red state and blue state are unbalanced: blue states are closest to the nexuses of power. America’s major financial, cultural, and political centers are in primarily blue states—to cede those states is also to cede those control points and the institutions within them. We may be attempting to build alternative institutions that can rival existing progressive ones: Nashville to rival Hollywood, Hillsdale to rival the Ivy League, etc. The existing institutions, however, were developed over decades and centuries; in the years it will take to construct real alternatives, conservatives cannot ignore what is currently dominant.

We should be strategic about which battles we fight, along with who fights them. This means focusing our efforts on the most culturally and politically influential states. Turning New York red, for example, probably matters more than flipping Vermont. We should also send the conservatives with less external obligations. It is better for recent college graduates without children to carve out a life in progressive states; they might temporarily live there before going home to put down roots. The task, then, is for the conservatives who are equipped and able to go behind enemy lines and present a challenge in increasingly radical blue regions. 

How can this challenge be presented? Sometimes, merely one’s presence matters. The simple act of voicing alternative perspectives into extremist bubbles can break otherwise unchallenged narratives. The illusion of consensus allows crazy ideologies to flourish. To speak out shatters that illusion. Furthermore, even if challenging radical ideas does not eliminate them, it slows their spread, in turn slowing their attempts to break into the national conversation.

What conservatives living in progressive areas might also realize is that subcultures can be the best communities. Attending Harvard—a school where my ideas and, in particular, my faith have a price—forces me to question why I believe what I believe, and this has deepened my convictions. The testing of one’s faith produces perseverance. Living in hostile territory also draws you closer to those who share your beliefs. Pressure, from every direction, pushes you together just as strongly as the common values that pull you. The conservative might face a trade-off between challenging the extreme left and living an easy life, but strong communities can exist in either world.

The Big Sort is happening. While it might be tempting to pack your bags for Idaho, we cannot neglect the importance of resisting left-wing ideas in blue states; after all, for a haven to exist, there must be people guarding it from the threats that might corrupt it. Furthermore, even if the exclaves we establish are not havens in themselves, that does not mean we cannot flourish in them.

Every conservative wants to go home. But it’s not time yet. 

MICHEL DE MONTAIGNE

A version of this article originally appeared in Terra Firma, the May 2024 print issue of the Salient.

1. Nicholas Riccardi, “Conservatives Go to Red States and Liberals Go to Blue as the Country Grows More Polarized,” AP News, July 5, 2023.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Nigel Jaquiss, “New Data Shows Red Wave Washing Into Idaho,” Willamette Week, December 3, 2023.

5. Mark Z. Barabak, “Column: From Red Bastion to Blue Bulwark: What Political Shift in Colorado and West Means for U.S.,” Los Angeles Times, March 21, 2023. 

6. Dara Bitler, “Reasons People Say They’re Leaving Colorado,” Fox 31 KDVR, April 11, 2022.

7. Rhodes Cook, “The ‘Big Sort’ Continues, with Trump as a Driving Force,” Crystal Ball, The Center for Politics, February 17, 2022.

8. Avery Dame-Griff, “Digital Queers: How Computers Transformed LGBTQ Life in the United States,” Process, Organization of American Historians, Accessed April 2024.

9. Erica York and Jared Walczak, “State and Local Tax Burdens, Calendar Year 2022,” Tax Foundation, April 7, 2022.

Craig Trainor, “Taking on ‘Progressive Prosecutors’,” City Journal, February 7, 2021. 

Charles Stimson and Zack Smith, Rogue Prosecutors: How Radical Soros Lawyers are Destroying America’s Communities, Bombardier Books, 2023.