Worth reading the linked Doug Bandow piece.
Around thirty years ago my aunt married a Ukranian man (immigrated in his youth, I believe). Not a Soviet man, a Ukrainian one. And I've known people who identified as English, not British. It wasn't a political statement, it was just a natural answer. In a place where the citizen identity is first the subset, these breakups don't strike me as surprising. Even with all the dissent during the Bush and Obama elections, I haven't seen anyone identifying as a Dixie or Cascadian or even Georgian or Washingtonian. So will the US survive the 2016 election? Yes. Will it last forever? No. Will it break up in my lifetime? Probably not.Who would have imagined 30 years ago the breakup of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or, even five years ago, of the United Kingdom?
I haven't seen anyone identifying as a Dixie
From what I'm watching, the populations seeking change are doing their damnedest to work their way through the system. I don't see many strong, rallying powers remotely influential enough to invoke such massive change. Political engagement seems relatively low, never mind satisfaction. Maybe I'm just naive, but the system I see in place allows for change given a motivated population. My biggest hope out of 2016 was seeing peers riled up enough to give a damn about polls rather than watching 2017 roll around, and hear them cry about the president while not voting as a form of protest (makes absolutely no sense to me). The system is much harder to work without an engaged population, but where we stand now it's just as rough as is. Even so, I believe Americans are still a bit comfortable in their situation. Nothing is so absolutely vicing that it's dividing Americans from sea to sea into two major factions willing to separate entirely - if anything, they are smaller factions without the resolve to go so far. The nebulous rhetoric of what America stands for rings a bit too clear here for anyone to seem to want otherwise.
I think what Bandow means isn't that we need a breakup of the union, but rather a constitutional convention. I can't, however, imagine a revamp of the constitution in which Washington gets less power. Washington is already really good at imposing its will on everyone, without regard to whether the authority they're imposing is permitting by the constitution (because they do it with taxes--"implement this law or you forfeit dollars," as opposed to just legislating the thing itself). Personally, I don't think parochialism would be much better for most people. Fiefdoms, historically, haven't worked out well for the little guy. I think I'm one of a relatively small minority who think our problems aren't as big as they seem (or rather they're as big not not as intractable). I think some much needed tax reform could go a long way toward solving America's economic stalemate, though surely it wouldn't do much for overzealous foreign interventionism (of course there are as many arguments for as against interventionism). All that said, if the South did rise again, I'd come down strongly on the side of "let them go," with a grace period for anyone who wanted to move into the union and retain their citizenship. I don't think a second civil war would be worth it to anyone, and I sure as fuck wouldn't fight it.