Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has revived her call for a “national divorce” in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s fatal shooting. Experts in political science warn that such an outcome would not be peaceful ― and that Greene’s proposal is alarming.

On Monday, Greene shared a lengthy post on X, formerly Twitter, dangerously blaming people on the left for Kirk’s death, saying “millions” of liberal-leaning people were celebrating it. Many Republicans had rushed to publicly blame Democrats for Kirk’s death, even while the search for a suspect was still underway — and despite the fact that both people on the left and the right have been subjected to political violence and threats in recent years.

“There is nothing left to talk about with the left. They hate us. They assassinated our nice guy who actually talked to them peacefully, debating ideas,” Greene said of Kirk. “Then millions on the left celebrated and made clear they want all of us dead.”

“To be honest, I want a peaceful national divorce. Our country is too far gone and too far divided, and it’s no longer safe for any of us,” she continued, before adding: “Tighten your circle around your family and protect them at all times. I will pray for the left, but personally I want nothing to do with them.”

Greene has called for a national divorce before. Back in 2021, the congresswoman suggested that people moving from blue states to red states should have a “cooling off period” before they’re able to vote.

“All possible in a National Divorce scenario. After Democrat voters and big donors ruin a state like California, you would think it wise to stop them from doing it to another great state like Florida,” she wrote on X at the time. “Brainwashed people that move from CA and NY really need a cooling off period.”

And in 2023, she wrote on X that “we need a national divorce” and that “everyone I talk to says this.”

She added, “From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the [Democrats’] traitorous America Last policies, we are done.”

When Greene called for a national divorce in 2021, political commentator and journalist Mehdi Hasan called her out at the time in a TV segment on his then-network MSNBC, calling her a “serious threat to democracy.”

Hasan pointed out that Greene, who represents Georgia’s 14th Congressional District, comes from a state that “tried a national divorce in the 1860s.”

“Why? Georgia wanted to keep the institution of slavery,” he said at the time. Georgia was the fifth out of the 11 Southern states to secede from the Union, following the election of President Abraham Lincoln. The Civil War followed.

While Greene’s tweet on Monday called for a “peaceful” national divorce, one expert in political science emphasized that such a scenario would not be possible.

“Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s renewed call for a ‘peaceful national divorce’ underscores a growing belief that red and blue America can no longer coexist,” Ryan Griffiths, a political science professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, told HuffPost.

“History shows such a divorce would not be peaceful,” he continued.

Griffiths, author of “The Disunited States: Threats of Secession in Red and Blue America and Why They Won’t Work,” told HuffPost that the “idea that irreconcilable differences justify secession ignores the violent history of such efforts, including the Civil War, and overlooks the reality that Americans are deeply intermixed — politically, geographically and ideologically.”

He said that while polarization is “real and worsening,” the solution is not to separate. It’s to find common ground.

“Americans share more values than they realize, and it is our political leadership and not the people that is most polarized,” he said. “We need leaders who reject extremism, denounce violence, and work together to heal the divide before the call for divorce becomes a dangerous reality.”

Griffiths emphasized that the U.S. “lacks the conditions for a clean split.” Then he added, “Any attempt to divide, based on what we’ve seen historically, would trigger cycles of violence, displacement, and lawlessness.”

Alvin B. Tillery Jr., a professor of political science and African American studies at Northwestern University, told HuffPost that he believes Greene’s proposal for a national divorce is “the Neo-secessionist language invoking the Civil War that has been common in Republican Party circles, particular in hinterland areas of the South like the district that [Greene] represents.”

Tillery said that this rhetoric has been popular among “white nationalist politicians” throughout the 20th century. And that, then, when most white opponents of racial integration switched parties from Democrat to Republican in the 1980s, there was a lot of “resurgent talk of ‘states’ rights’ and ‘starving the beast’ of federal government,” he explained.

“[Greene’s] national divorce language is just an extension of these themes,” Tillery added, before emphasizing the dangers such rhetoric has had on people across the country — especially those with public platforms.

He said that as Black colleges and professors across the country, including himself, are receiving death threats in the wake of Kirk’s killing, “national divorce language is more alarming than normal.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) recently criticized Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) by seemingly questioning the authenticity of Crockett’s Black American experience.

During an appearance this week on former Fox News Host Megyn Kelly’s podcast, “The Megyn Kelly Show,” Greene reflected on her well-documented ongoing feud with Crockett by taking several jabs at her Democratic colleague. The Georgia Republican accused Crockett of mistreating her staff, which prompted Kelly to mention a New York Post article published earlier this month that detailed accusations from anonymous sources about Crockett showing “diva” behavior. (Crockett has since shut down the allegations, calling them “lies” and “nonsense.”)

Greene, who is white, then pivoted to a discussion about the “Black American struggle,” sharing her opinion about whether Crockett, who is Black, really understands it.

“She claims to be, you know, from her people. She puts on this image that she understands the Black American struggle,” Greene said. “But let’s face it, the girl went to private school, she went on to … I don’t know what college … and law school — she’s a complete fake.”

“She’s as fake as her eyelashes, she’s as fake as her hair, she’s as fake as her fingernails and she is such a massive fraud,” she continued.

Crockett has since responded to the clip on X, formerly Twitter, though she did not name Greene in her response.

“It is funny that MAGA cultist want to challenge my blackness because of my education… Remember how they challenged Barack Obama & his roots? Remember how they claimed Kamala [Harris] ‘turned’ black,” she said. “Y’all are a joke. Walk a day in my shoes where your white supremacist friends send me hateful emails, death threats, DMs, & posts, and then you can tell me if I’m truly living the black experience in this country, UNTIL then mind your business.”

Crockett then emphasized that being Black has “nothing to do with education.”

Crockett is often the target of right-wing, racist and anti-Black attacks. She’s routinely criticized for the way she speaks and her use of African American Vernacular English (AAVE). Conservatives have made a habit of accusing Crockett of being disingenuous because the way she speaks doesn’t align with their views of how someone who attended private school should speak.

Case in point: In April, Fox News host Laura Ingraham accused Crockett of sounding “very different” in the past. “And now she’s going very … street,” Ingraham said at the time, as she swayed her head side-to-side.

The congresswoman had addressed some of these accusations before.

“I don’t have an ‘accent’ … if anything, it’s Texan, maybe mixed with a little bit of St. Louis,” she said in a TikTok video in March. “And then determining that my ‘accent’ is fake because of the types of schools I went to … seriously, y’all?”

And as it relates to Greene’s recent attacks on Crockett, Portia Allen-Kyle, a civil rights attorney and interim executive director at the racial justice organization Color Of Change, said that Greene “doesn’t understand the reality that Blackness is disrespected in this country no matter how many degrees you hold or how much money you make.”

Allen-Kyle told HuffPost that the Republican congresswoman showed her “own ignorance” during her appearance on Kelly’s podcast.

“She reduces the Black experience to some caricature of poverty and struggle— as if class alone defines Blackness,” she said. “That mindset exposes her bias. Greene thinks struggle is the only stamp of Blackness and she dresses up her ignorance as commentary.”

Furthermore, Allen-Kyle emphasized that Greene’s digs about Crockett’s “fake” eyelashes, nails and hair were examples of macroaggressions — not microaggressions.

“When Greene fixates on a Black woman’s appearance instead of her words, she’s playing an old, racist playbook meant to demean, belittle and distract,” Allen-Kyle said. “Black women’s beauty and choices have always been politicized, and Greene leans right into that racist tradition.”

“It was a macroaggression, rather than a microaggression,” she continued. “When young Black girls think about what a congressperson looks like, Congresswoman Crockett shows Black girls nationwide that they could represent their community someday.”

And there’s a lot more to unpack from Greene’s recent comments about Crockett and her ideas about the so-called “Black American struggle.”

Crockett was “absolutely right” in her response to Greene on X, Allen-Kyle said.

“There’s no amount of education [or] income that allows you to transcend Blackness — it’s made obvious every single day by the racist attacks aimed at us,” she continued. “Crockett’s very presence in Congress, and the fact that she’s constantly targeted, proves the point she made: Racism doesn’t care about your résumé. Anti-Blackness follows us into the boardroom, the courtroom, and even the halls of Congress.”

Deepak Sarma, inaugural distinguished scholar in the public humanities at Case Western Reserve University, said that Greene’s comments about Crockett are “consistent with the MAGA / Trump strategy to invent damaging unconfirmed allegations against prominent Black leaders and to question their intellect and capabilities.”

Sarma said that President Donald Trump and his “MAGA minions” continually malign others for “their nefarious gaslighting and fraudulent purposes.” They likened it to Trump’s attacks on Harris and her capabilities as a public speaker, or about her intelligence.

“In the world of psychology, this is known as a Jungian projection, where one attributes one’s unacceptable character, feelings, and behavior to someone else,” they said.

And by Greene suggesting that Crockett’s success “in a capitalist democracy makes her a fraud or inauthentic,” she’s insinuating that the “real” experience of a Black person is being “impoverished and a failure,” Sarma said.

What’s more, Sarma thinks that conservatives feel discomfort when they hear Crockett speak, or when she uses AAVE because it “contradicts their misguided belief that America is a monoculture, a white Christian monoculture.”

“The feeling that they are being left out and that they are not adept in the language justifies, in their mind, their rage and suspicion,” they said.

Sarma later emphasized that “Trumpisms are already becoming accepted in America” and that these recent incidents directed at Black people, like Greene’s remarks about Crockett, are “slowly becoming more normal.”

Allen-Kyle thinks the right-wing attacks related to Crockett’s private school education are ironic.

“Conservatives trash and defund public schools every chance they get, but they seethe when a Black woman gets a private education. Why? Because it proves what they fear most: that Black women can be smarter, sharper, and more culturally fluent than they’ll ever be,” she said.

“It exposes their real agenda — they don’t want Black people educated, period,” she continued. “They don’t hate Crockett’s accent or her education—they hate that she’s brilliant enough to beat them at both.”