Tag Archives: secession

The Mainstreaming of Secession

26 Wednesday Dec 2018

Posted by in American Federalism, Devolution, Federalism, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

texas-capitol

Texas: One of several states harboring a nascent secessionist movement. 

I’ve been bowled over the last few weeks reading the growing number of articles in which mainstream columnists are finally coming to terms with a reality that I embraced more than a quarter century ago: the likely, if not inevitable, transformation of the  American Union into a much looser federation or into a number of smaller nation-states.

Predictably over the last quarter century, I’ve even been labeled everything from a neo-Confederate and a racist to a secessionist and traitor for subscribing to such views.

Actually, far more prodigious intellects, notably, the late George F. Kennan,  foresaw this inevitability years before I did.

I, for one, and despite my conservatism, respect the right of California and other left-leaning states to experiment with different domestic policies. I hope when all the chips are down that these enlightened blue-coast cosmopolitans will afford their counterparts in the red American hinterland the same courtesy.  And lest we forget, that was the concept behind American federalism:  that states possessed the attributes of nationhood but had chosen out of a desire for self-preservation against Britain and the other maritime powers of Europe to delegate a comparatively narrow range of powers to a general government that operated on behalf of the states.

Aside from all the constitutional arguments, there just comes a point when people outgrow relationships, whether these are business contracts, civic groups, friendships or marriages.  And the simple fact of the matter is that America is simply too damned big and diverse to govern, at least, based on the cookie-cutter approach that Woodrow Wilson and the progressives devised for us roughly a century ago.  We have reached the point where cultural evolution throughout through Europe and America has outstripped the ability of the central government to keep pace with it.

I really believe that.  In fact, I think that this is one of the inherent flaws in federations: The constituent parts are often inherently fissiparous, with their own highly evolved cultures and political ideologies.  These constituent parts don’t stop evolving when they enter into a federation: Their cultural and political evolution continues apace, sometimes to the point at which they feel compelled to question the utility of their relationship with the other members of the federation. Maybe it’s time for us to take into account that incontrovertible fact whenever we undertake the design and execution of another federation.

How close is America to a crackup?  I’m not sure.  Even so, I do believe that in many notable respects, we are drawing close to where the beleaguered Soviet Union found itself in about 1990.  Either we find some way to renegotiate federal arrangements in the United States by devolving more power back to states and, most important of all, localities, or we face a situation where internal pressures build up to a degree that states and regions take it upon themselves to address these problems.

Deep-blue California’s nullifying tendencies vis-a-vis the policies of the Trump Administration are merely a taste of what is to come.

In fact, in an unusually comprehensive and informative column posted in the Intelligencer recently, one perceptive columnist, Sasha Issenberg, predicts that growing number of states may enter into interstate compacts to work through a number of intractable domestic problems.  In the end, the United States may comprise up to three de facto federations: blue, red and neutral, each conducting their own unique domestic policies, while remaining parts of the United States.

Yet, even this columnist concedes that these de facto arrangements will only work for a time before the internal stresses build up and rend apart these federations, forcing each to move close to becoming bona fide countries.

For his part Kennan offered a sort of middle way, one to which I’m sympathetic: a union of about 15 or so constituent republics, to which the bulk of domestic powers would be entrusted, leaving the central government to run a common market and defense pact.

Whatever the case, we are very possibly approaching a constitutional impasse in which large states, particularly California, increasingly will assume more and more powers on their own, drawing us closer to a Soviet scenario. By that I mean that, despite our attempts to stay ahead of the problem by introducing institutional reforms, the country inevitably comes apart.

 

Many American Republics Instead of One?

25 Saturday Nov 2017

Posted by in American Federalism, American History, Devolution, Federalism, The Passing Scene, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Thomas-Jefferson2

Thomas Jefferson

The American Thinker recently painted a disturbing picture of the American future.  We are embroiled in a Civil War – for now, a cold one, though one that bears many hallmarks of one that eventually could run hot.

And from my perspective as a conservative, the left seems implacably opposed to compromise.  And why shouldn’t it be?  They control most of the institutions that define cultural hegemony:  the mainstream media, the arts, popular entertainment and higher education, not to mention, elements of the so-called Deep State.   As I have argued in this forum many times, a Democratic victory last year would have sealed its victory.

The rancorous divisions in this country have prompted some thoughts about an observation Jefferson offered throughout the post-revolutionary period of American history. He presumed that this continent was too big to encompass one American nation. He expected that settlers, as they spanned across broad American continent, would establish several republics, though all of them would share mutual affinities.

That was not to be.  As it turned out, our forebears essentially hewed a kind of middle way between the ideals of Jefferson and his arch ideological rival, Alexander Hamilton. We have tended to place great emphasis on the Jeffersonian fixation with individual liberties, while tacking more closely to the Hamiltonian ideal of a centralized federal union.

And I wonder: Could the case be made that this push toward centralization has simply prolonged the inevitable? Isn’t it natural for a country this big to develop distinct regional identities, even fissiparous ones? Would we be getting along better on this sprawling continent if we had been allowed to develop several polities, albeit with strong shared mutual affinities?

Why Is Secession Such a Terrible Word?

13 Friday Oct 2017

Posted by in American Federalism, American History, Devolution, Localism, U.S. Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

John-Stossel

Libertarian pundit and author John Stossel. Photo: Courtesy of Gage Skidmore.

Libertarian author and pundit John Stossel is mystified by all the smack talk about secession.

“Why do so many people see secession as such a terrible thing?” he asks.

Stossel cites the recent Catalonian push for secession, stressing that the struggle is about Catalans taking charge of their own affairs.  As he stresses, no government is perfect, but local governments, generally speaking, are “more responsive to the needs of constituents.” Moreover, by keeping government closer to home, citizens secure a greater likelihood of keeping their governments under close watch.

So, why all the agonizing over secession? he asks.

Short answer:  because the people in charge of big governments are seldom willing to give up power.

I wholeheartedly agree with Stossel: Why is secession such a terribly unspeakable word among so many of us? As he stresses, secession is by no means alien to the American experience. Indeed, the United States is an outgrowth of a secession struggle against the British Empire.

But I wonder: How many of us are aware that the the post-constitutional United States is a product of secession, too?

Madison once referred to this secession as the “delicate truth” behind the current American union. In effect, 11 states seceded from the union of states founded on the Articles of Confederation to form the present union. Recall that Rhode Island and North Carolina had refused to accede to the new Constitution and were still out of the union when George Washington took the oath as the first president of the United States on March 4, 1789.

Quite a few of our Founding Fathers never lost their enduring affection for small governments. A few of our Founding Fathers even had a hard time envisioning a nation the size of the present-day United States.  Writing to Dr. Joseph Priestly on January 29, 1804, Thomas Jefferson observed:

Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children and descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty and the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.

I concluded a long time ago that the American Experiment has essentially amounted to a forlorn attempt to force one part of the country to meld culturally and politically into the rest. And it hasn’t happened – not after almost a quarter of a millennium. Yes, I would like to see us soldier on as looser federation sharing common market and defense.  There are legitimate geopolitical threats, after all.  But this business of forcing a nation as geographically and culturally diverse as the United States to march in ideological lockstep is madness, sheer madness.

America’s Coming “Identity Awakening”

05 Thursday Oct 2017

Posted by in American Federalism, Federalism, Geo-Politics, Localism, U.S. Politics

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Catalan-demonstration

A Demonstration of Catalan Nationalists.  Photo: Courtesy of Sergil.

Identity Awakening.  I like that term.

It’s a term that geopolitical analysts and commentators have improvised to account for how globalization has produced a sort of paradoxical effect.

“Everywhere we see regionalism, nationalism as well as religious devotion growing in intensity, sometimes morphing into intolerance. It’s the great paradox of globalization: Far from erasing the peoples’ identitarian and cultural claims, it reinforces them,” writes Li Figaro’s Renaud Giraud.

Technology in the form of digitalization has played a role, too. This takes me back to the writings of the recently deceased Alvin Toffler, a futurist who wrote extensively about the the implications of digital technology, especially in terms of how it would transform society, culture, politics and the economy.

Toffler perceived demassification as one very palpable effect of digital technology.  Mass media would no longer be, well, a mass phenomenon.  There would be no more news anchormen of the stature, not to mention, with the temerity, of Walter Cronkite ending newscasts with the hyper-confident pronouncement:  “That’s the way it is…”

As bandwidth expanded, Toffler predicted that media would scale down to accommodate smaller, more defined audiences.

Remarkably, though, this demassification is not only affecting media but also entire nations.

Demassification seems to have played a major role in the “identity awakenings” occurring throughout the world, particularly in Europe.  It even appears that identity awakenings soon will be playing out in America.  Judging from what’s occurring in California, Texas, Vermont,and Cascadia, they already are.

And why shouldn’t they?  If the Toffler’s musings drove home one realization to me, it’s that national identities based on strong, highly centralized governments are a relic associated with 20th century industrialism, just as mass media are – were.

While I am a great sympathizer with and proponent of identity awakenings, I’m no rigid ideologue.  We are urgently in need of decentrism in America, but  we also depend on a common American market and a common defense, much as Europeans require a common continental market and defense apparatus. But to demand that continents as culturally diverse as America and Europe march in cultural and even political lockstep? It’s madness, as more and more people are coming to realize.

Sooner or later, our institutions will reflect that new reality.  Let’s hope that this occurs as a result of peaceful evolution.

The Elite Media’s Qualified View of Secession

01 Wednesday Feb 2017

Posted by in Devolution, U.S. Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

catalonian-independence

Photo: Courtesy of Dzlinker

Once again, I’m fascinated with The New York Times’ growing emphasis on federalism, regionalism, and – perish the thought, secession!

Carme Forcadell, president of the Catalan Parliament, writes a about judicial efforts by the Spanish government to impede the the open discussion of debate of Catalan independence within Parliament.

Forcadell relates that the Spanish government’s special prosecutor filed a complaint charging her with contempt of court and neglect of duty for allowing separatist debate to occur. It is one of many judicial methods the Madrid government has employed to stifle debate over independence.  Some 400 municipal officials have also been charged with involvement in discussions advancing Catalan independence.

Forcadell extols the open and unimpeded discussion and debate about Scottish independence that has ensued for years in Holyrood, the Scottish Parliament as well as the acquiescence  of the British government, which even acceded to the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum – a sharp contrast to Spain’s obstructionist attitude vis-a-vis the Catalans.

Despite the referendum’s unsuccessful outcome, “democracy was the winner,” Focadell affirms.

But Forcadell draws a sharp distinction between Catalan and Scottish independence struggles and others unfolding in Europe. She apparently regards sovereignty and independence movements as acceptable only if they are progressive in nature. Brexit and other Eurosceptic and “right-wing populist” movements don’t count as legitimate independence movements.

And, of course, this explains the Establishment media’s fascination with California’s growing separatist sentiment. California has legitimate grievances because these are pro-statist and progressive in nature.

And, conversely, this accounts for why the Texas Independence Movement has barely rated as a blip on the Establishment media’s news radar, except, of course, when the intention is to underscore the specter of right-wing extremism in America.

If Hillary were the 45th president instead of Trump and Texas were the state making the most noise about independence, I am virtually certain that federalism, sovereignty and secession would receive little, if any, positive mention in the hallowed pages of the New York Times or any Establishment agit/prop organ.

No, secession gets favorable mention only if it takes on a progressive hue.

But all of us red state hoi polloi  should take heart that Trump’s upset victory has galvanized “respectable” secessionist discourse in at least one blue state. That, at least, will ensure that the wider topic of secession will become a more frequent and mainstream topic of discourse over the next few years.

The Unpalatable American Truth about Secession

01 Wednesday Feb 2017

Posted by in American History, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

washington-first-inauguration

Washington’s First Inauguration in 1789.  He initially presided over 11 states, as North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet acceded to the new Union.

It’s one of the great and, for many left-leaning Americans, unpalatable facts associated with American history.

And this great and unpalatable fact was raised, however unwittingly, by Georgetown University School of Law Professor David Super in a recent discussion of the Convention of States effort.  As Super stresses, the Founders broke the law during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by abandoning the Articles of Confederation to form a new national compact under a new Constitution. How? By ignoring the provision in the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union that required not only the approval of the Congress of the United States but also the unanimous consent of all of the states before any revision of the Articles could occur.

The Delegates’ Commission under the Articles of Confederation

Bear in mind that delegates commissioned to represent their states at the convention in Philadelphia were “solely and expressly” charged with the task of revising the Articles of Confederation, not with drafting an entirely new framework of government.

Over the course of discussing the intractable limitations associated with the Articles, though, the delegates concluded that simple revision was an impractical goal.  Redressing their acute limitations would require a whole new written charter, one that likely would not be accepted by all the states.

So the delegates resolved to draft an entirely new Constitution, though one that would require the formal assent  of only three-fourths of the states for it to go into effect. Eleven States eventually ratified the new constitution in the intervening twenty months between the convention delegates’ signing of the new charter and the inauguration of George Washington as the first President of the United States.

The U.S. Constitution: Born of Secession

Think about that: Eleven states, in effect, seceded from the Confederation to form the new American compact we know today as the American Union. Yet, two states, Rhode Island and North Carolina, had not  ratified the Constitution and, consequently, were out of the Union when Washington took the his first presidential oath of office in

North Carolina finally came into the Union in November of 1789.  However, Rhode Island dragged its feet and grudgingly ratified the Constitution after the new federal government threatened to sever commercial relations.  And even then, ratification squeaked by with only two votes.

James Madison’s “Delicate Truth”

The 11 acts of secession that culminated in the new American Union poses what in 21st century parlance would be known as an “inconvenient truth.”

James Madison described it as “the delicate truth” beyond the American Union.

Writing in The Federalist Papers, he described the 11 states’ secession from the Articles of the Confederation to form a new compact as a simple matter of “self-preservation.” He justified this self-preservation on the basis of what he characterized as “the transcendent law of nature; and of nature’s God, which declares that the safety of and happiness of society are the subjects at which political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.”

California Secession: Not Treasonous at All

Simply put, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were no longer capable of securing a lasting,sustainable union and had to be scrapped out of necessity and replaced with something entirely new. And this could be achieved only by a super majority of states seceding from the old constitutional system and creating a newer, more sustainable one.

So, viewed within the wide context of American constitutional history, California’s current secessionist sentiment isn’t treasonous at all but is merely the latest expression of a very well-established American tradition.

Twice Born of Secession

The United States was twice born of secession: first in 1776, when thirteen former colonies issued a joint declaration declaring their intent to withdraw from the British Empire, and later in 1789, when the majority of the states withdrew from the Articles to form a new and improved confederation (Washington’s term for the new union).

And, incidentally, speaking of unpalatable facts, the great nationalist Founding Father Alexander Hamilton repeatedly described the new American  government as a “Confederate Republic” and as a “Confederation” and described the new constitution as a “compact” throughout the Federalist Papers.

But that is another remarkable and rather unpalatable constitutional fact that I’ll save for discussion at a later date.

Alexander Stephens, Red State Progenitor?

10 Saturday Dec 2016

Posted by in American Federalism, American History, U.S. Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

heartland-america

Alexander Stephens’ America.  That’s one way of looking at Red State America.

It’s remarkable how Stephens, a Georgia Whig U.S. congressman who would later serve as vice president of the Confederate States, really wasn’t a Confederate sympathizer to any significant degree.  He came to Montgomery very reluctantly as a delegate from Georgia to the Confederate Constitutional Convention, entrusted with helping draft both the Provisional and Permanent Constitutions of the the embryonic Southern confederation.

He was not only a Whig but also an FOL (friend of Abraham Lincoln, actually a very close friend of Lincoln). And to add an extra layer of irony to his legacy, Stephens at heart was also a deep-dyed unionist who had opposed secession.  Like Robert E. Lee, he cast his lot with the Southern cause only because he considered his first allegiance to lie with his beloved Georgia, which, much to Stephens’ regret, had withdrawn from the American Union and chosen to confederate with the other Southern Gulf states.

How did he intend to re-engineer this American reunification? By insisting that the Confederate Constitution include a provision to allow the admission of free states. Because of the Mississippi River, which still provided the most efficacious means for transporting agricultural and manufactured goods, Stephens was confident that hard economic realities ultimately would force the Old Northwest (the present-day Midwest)  to leave the American Union and confederate with the Southern Gulf States.

In essence, Stephen hoped that most of the Union, sans the Northeast, eventually would coalesce around the new Confederate Constitution.  This new charter would function not as the charter for a Southern Confederacy but as the basis for a reconstituted American Union.

It is amazing how this map, currently circulating on Twitter, reflected Stephens’ vision of a reconstituted American Union.

In a sense, he anticipated Red State America a full 150 years in advance.

John C. Calhoun: Blue State Icon?

18 Friday Nov 2016

Posted by in U.S. Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

john-calhoun2

John C. Calhoun, architect of Southern exceptionalism.

It’s often said that politics produces strange bedfellows.  And it appears that two weeks after the election of Donald Trump, a growing number of left-leaning blue-staters are embracing, however unwittingly, the political legacy of one of one of red state America’s most incendiary firebrands.

For 180 or so years, elites in the blue states – or what became blue states – have been wagging their fingers at Southerners and other red state Americans, decrying our appalling lack of patriotism and commitment to national unity and, even worse, our recalcitrance in the face of federal power and all that is deemed good, noble and decent in nation and the world. And, rest assured, if, after a year or so following a Hillary victory these fissiparous tendencies had surfaced once again in the South or any of the red states, the outcry would have been unremittingly harsh, with the left screaming about the dangerous rise of secessionist sentiment and the ugly racist, reactionary, conspiratorial and paramilitary-related impulses driving all of it.

Now that the proverbial shoe is on the other foot – now that red state rather than blue state America is in a position to tighten the federal screws – a growing number of Californians and other coastal blue states almost seem disposed toward the ideology of one of the greatest red state recalcitrants of them all: John C. Calhoun, the South Carolina firebrand who helped refine the nullification doctrine and even drew his native state and much of the rest of the South to the precipice of secession in the 1830’s.  And this embrace is occurring with hardly the batting of an eye.

And make no mistake: The people calling for secession or, at the very least, genuine devolution, are not simply ordinary people but also businessmen with real influence. One prominent Silicon Valley investor, Shervin Pishevar, walked back his earlier assertions of California secession, though affirming “a new Federalism where state and local governments are empowered to determine their destinies while bonded together in a United States of America.”

Think about this for a moment. A red state billionaire or political leader wouldn’t have conceived of raising such views following a Hillary victory without the inevitable verbal upbraiding by elites and the mainstream media. Yet, in the weeks following Trump’s unexpected victory, these sentiments are being espoused by the very people who otherwise would have regarded such opinions as dangerous, divisive, if not traitorous, talk only a short time ago.

But there is a silver lining to all of this rising fissiparous blue-state sentiment: It will likely pave the way for some genuine attempts at returning power to states and localities. States were envisioned by the Founding Fathers as entities with the attributes of nationhood but that were compelled, out of necessity, to pool a share of their sovereignty, namely, defense, foreign policy and economic policy,  to a general government – an approach considered far more efficient than each of these states exercising this sovereignty separately.

Honestly, despite all the hypocrisy that newfound blue state affinity for states rights and localism conveys, I wish California lots of luck.  I’ve got no problem with the idea of blue state America preempting Calhoun.  California and the other blue coastal states have every right to reacquire the accoutrements of nationhood that once characterized all of the states of the American Union.

I just hope that these states understand that red states are as much entitled to these attributes of nationhood as they are.

We Need Systemic Federal Reform

13 Sunday Nov 2016

Posted by in U.S. Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Well, let’s see: rioting in the streets,  the possible breakup of our two-party system  into a multiple party system and growing calls for secession in major U.S states. When are we going to come to terms with the fact that we are two and possibly even three or more nations shoehorned into one?

When are we going to realize that a one-size-fits-all governing strategy simply can’t be imposed on us any longer? When are we going to embrace systemic federal reform?

Three Radical Solutions for Reforming – and Downsizing – America

08 Tuesday Nov 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

california_flagThe question has been raised more than once in this election: Given the deep, wrenching divisions in this country, is it possible that the 2016 election results, regardless of the victor, will draw some states closer to secession?

The Yes California Independence Campaign, whose Facebook page already has garnered 11,000  likes, announced that it will hold a get-acquainted session on the steps of the California State Capitol tomorrow, regardless of the election outcome.  Meanwhile, secessionist sentiment in Texas appears to be growing and will likely undergo a significant spike following a Hillary Clinton victory.

A Short History of American Secession

Of course, as a recent feature article in the Boston Globe observes,  there have been several notable precedents, one of which actually led to the formal secession of eleven Southern states and that culminated in the bloodiest war in U.S. history. But this only scratches the surface. Delegates to the Hartford Convention of 1814 vented their outrage over Virginia President James Madison’s signing of a highly restrictive embargo act, which rendered grievous harm to New England shipping interests.  Moderate delegates ultimately carried the day, though a few of the more hotheaded ones advocated secession and a separate piece with Britain.

Some twenty years later, South Carolinian rage over what they perceived as economically punitive tariffs led to the Nullification Crisis, which prompted  many to wonder if South Carolina and other Southern states ultimately would bolt the Union.

And in the years leading up to the Civil War, a number of abolitionists, claiming that U.S. Constitution amounted to a pact with the Devil, called for dissolution of the Union.

While I used to be favorably disposed to peaceful secession earlier in my life, I’ve reached the middle-aged conclusion vast advantages of the American market and the benefit of mutual defense significantly outweigh the benefits of secession.  But that’s not to say that wrenching, far-reaching reform in unneeded.

As I see it, the United States is in desperate need of thoroughgoing constitutional reform in at least three areas.

Downsize the U.S. Presidency

First, we are encumbered with a presidency that has grown far beyond the scope conceived by the Founders. It is bloated, politicized, imperial and demands a level of omnicompetence that is far beyond the capacity of anyone to supply. Sooner or later, the American presidency will have to be redesigned based on the ceremonial presidential models of Germany, Ireland or Israel or the hybridized French model in which the president is head of state and responsible for foreign affairs, leaving a prime minister (perhaps our case, the vice president) to manage domestic affairs.

Downsize the Federal Judiciary 

Second, in filling the breach left by the erosion of national consensus, reflected primarily in the erosion of congressional authority and effectiveness, the American judiciary has grown increasingly powerful and unaccountable – a development that the Founders scarcely could have conceived and undoubtedly would regard with profound alarm. This growth in the power and influence of the U.S. judiciary has produced several deleterious effects. For starters, the immense growth of the federal judiciary, which has occurred in tandem with the growth of the presidency, has created an unusually desperate high-stakes political environment evident in every presidential election cycle. Presidential elections are bound up not only in the selection of a chief executive but also in the judicial appointments that will be made over the next 4 to 8 years, which afford the chief executive a sort of second presidential life.

Scale Down the Federal Union 

Third, but certainly not least, this country is too damned big and diverse to govern from Washington, D.C. It’s growing increasingly impossible to govern this nation through a one-size-fits-all system. The current centralized federal system may have worked reasonably well a century ago when it was conceived by centralist progressives such as Woodrow Wilson, but it is ill-equipped to serve the increasingly diversified, digitized economic and political order that emerged in the late 20th century. This realization already is becoming evident among growing numbers of Americans, particularly in megastates such as Californiaand Texas that possess the people and resources to go it alone.

Much like the U.S. presidency, the federal system either must be scaled downed, or we will see increasing eruptions of popular dissent similar to those that gripped the country in 1814 and 1860.