In the wake of last Tuesday’s election results, there’s been some talk on the left about the possibility of the blue states seceding from the red states. Most of this talk has been tongue in cheek, but divisions in the country are deep enough right now that the idea of secession has a better chance of making headway now than it has had for a long time. Although Austro-libertarians are no great fans of either red-state values or blue-state values, I think we could benefit by pushing this idea; see my comments here:
http://praxeology.net/unblog11-04.htm#07
http://praxeology.net/unblog11-04.htm#08
{ 19 comments }
Thats a good idea, Professor Long. I had been thinking of the same thing when some political sites started mulling over how bad it was that the country was ‘divided’. I think it could be an excellent opportunity for secession.
The problem would really be selling the whole idea to either left, which favors just about every morally corrupt idea around, and the right, which favors itty bitty bits of liberty here and there.
Hopefully Bush would push really hard on the country, what with new privacy interfering laws, more government regulations and spending, and still more laws like Patriot Act which take away more of our freedom and right to privacy. I think that this would make a truly divided country even moreso, and might be an excellent shot at secession.
After that the real battle would begin though… seceeding from the itty bitty liberty conservatives, or from the increasingly ugly liberals.
Roderick said: … other countries have accordingly as good grounds for lamenting their lack of representation in American politics as American colonists in 1776 had for lamenting their lack of representation in the British Parliament. [end of quote]
I don’t think that a lot of those other countries would be complaining, were they not so lazy and socialist to the point where their economic modus operandi is to keep their currency low in order to sell to the Americans, underfund their military, and tax the hell out of their citizens in order to fund “entitlements”. That goes for countries like Canada, Japan and Mexico.
The other major sources of complaints about American hegemony are countries which have their own imperialistic ambitions and which given a crack at world or regional domination would certainly exceed the Americans in rapacity. In this category belong Russia, France, Iran and China, and they deserve no sympathy whatsoever.
That said, I too find secession a tempting option to solve some of the problems in my own country (Canada), but a little caution is warranted. You might get a Velvet Divorce, or you might get Antietam. Consider these two facts carefully: the USA is not really split regionally at all, if you look at a map showing county-by-county electoral results – it’s split between city and country. And, you have a huge army reserve and national guard force who are overwhelmingly devoted to the Red cause.
I have heard some of my townsmen say, “I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico – see if I would go”; and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute.
The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whose own act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the state were penitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, but not to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment.…
Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform. Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves – the union between themselves and the State – and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury?
Hmm. So in the US red is Republican and blue Democrat? How did that come about? Red is traditionally the colour of socialism (Labour/Democrat, communicsts, etc.), and blue of conservatism.
[Of course the US reverses the meaning of "liberal", too...strange]
Peter, the whole “red state”/”blue state” dicotomy occured after the 2000 presidential election. I forget who was responsible for it, but an organization published a map of the US and had all the states Bush won in red and all the states Gore won in blue. Later on, another map was published displaying a nationwide display of the counties going for either candidate, also with the same color scheme. After a while, the meme took hold and now we have the dark humor of calling Republicans “red.”
In the bad old days, a large population was required to raise a sufficient army and navy to defend one’s borders, Switzerland being the exception that makes the rule. Thanks to nukes, suitcase bombs, cruise missles, and MAD, this is no longer the case. What Col. Colt did for the people, Einstein did for the nations.
This USofA is geographically to large to govern efficiently. I suggest dividing into 4 sovereign nations under a commonwealth such as GB, Canada . . . . the states west of the Rockies, between the Rockies and the Mississippi, and along the Mason-Dixon Line. Each state would have sufficient population, sufficient food production, and access to the sea lanes.
An article in my local paper was written on this topic yesterday, that the division between blue and red states isn’t as striking as you propose. The division is between urban and country areas. Even Bush won 45% of the californina vote, so what about the 45% of people who support him? You’re going to succede with that little majority? The point of the political system in the united states is slow, steady change to conform to the values of the populace. I much like better that current situation of governance in oregon compared to my government running by itself. My state government extorts and blackmails our populace, so I, as well as the other 40% or more of the population that supports the way things are now, would be very pissed off. Those who wish to seccede can take thier ass to canada or elsewhere and no longer be ruled by the evil bush and his war mongering believers. But don’t think of comming back when you fall ill.
Work within our system if you want change. Can “59 million people be so dumb??”
Andy,
People living in Canada have every right to use the money they earn here to go south for medical treatment. Not many American doctors will pass up the chance at increased revenue, either.
Win-Win. The provincial government saves on the cost of treating a patient, plus an American doctor gets a little richer and can afford to pay his/her employees. Things will be even more cross-border friendly once Canada moves away from socialized medicine (although that will be the toughest political nut to crack).
I made a conscious decision this year to not get a flu shot, hoping that one more elderly (at least I hope elderly) American could come up here to get one. Should I be ashamed of myself? This is, after all, a socialized Canadian system, so anyone outside Canada should “rightfully” be excluded.
The fact that the blue states contain many red voters, and the fact that blue-state policies would also be oppressive, are objections to blue-state secession only if one thinks of such secession as the final goal. But the secession of the blue states is from my point of view only a steeping-stone to the secession of further regions from the blue states, and of further secessions from those regions, and so on until everybody has the political system they prefer.
Stepping stones … I like it. In Canada there is a famous retort to Quebec separatists, who wish to create a new country containing 100% of the territory of their current province: “If Canada is divisible, then so is Quebec.”
Indeed, the Miqmacs always say that if Quebec separates from Canada, they’ll separate from Quebec (and they live in all the lucrative hydro-generating regions of the province).
By the way, a minor problem with the red state/blue state split idea is that, if you look at county-by-county maps, the land area in the US occupied by Democratic voters is so strikingly small. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the blue counties’ land area is in sparsely-populated rural southern areas (which I imagine are inhabited either by black people or conservative yellow-dog Democrats, or both) who presumably be swept along into Jesusland prior to the latter stages of intrastate secession. Now, I don’t see this as an important material problem, but it might be a PR issue if the Kerry faction realizes it is just going to wind up with a series of city-states.
“By the way, a minor problem with the red state/blue state split idea is that, if you look at county-by-county maps, the land area in the US occupied by Democratic voters is so strikingly small. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the blue counties’ land area is in sparsely-populated rural southern areas (which I imagine are inhabited either by black people or conservative yellow-dog Democrats, or both) who presumably be swept along into Jesusland prior to the latter stages of intrastate secession. Now, I don’t see this as an important material problem, but it might be a PR issue if the Kerry faction realizes it is just going to wind up with a series of city-states.” – Otto Kerner
It’s not much of an objection to secession, actually. For example, geographically large, but sparsely populated, rural “red” areas in blue states with concentrated urban populations of “blue” voters would still be included, if those blue states were to secede. Minority populations of “red” voters living in seceding “blue” states would not have any justifiable right to strip those states of their land.
“Minority populations of “red” voters living in seceding “blue” states would not have any justifiable right to strip those states of their land.”
Frederick, if I own a farm, isn’t it “my land” and not “the state’s land” ?
“Frederick, if I own a farm, isn’t it “my land” and not “the state’s land” ?” – Ohhh Henry
First of all, Ohhh Henry, can anyone really own the land? Didn’t “we” take the land, by force, from those who were here before? Since the “ownership” of land is about having the power to do so, actually, you can “own” the land, conditionally, as long as you stay in the State. You can’t leave the State and take the land with you. That’s the truth of the matter.
P.S. – When you purchase land, you don’t purchase the right to remove it from the State where it is located, and when you inherit land, you don’t inherit the right to remove it from the State where it is located.
Also, Ohhh Henry, if you “own” land in a State that secedes, you will still have the right to sell it and move out, if you don’t wish to continue residing there. If you try to take it with you by force, then expect to either be kicked out of that State, or imprisoned, with “your land” being confiscated by that State.
Check out: http://www.thestranger.com/2004-11-11/feature.html …:”It’s time to state something that we’ve felt for a long time but have been too polite to say out loud: Liberals, progressives, and Democrats do not live in a country that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Canada to Mexico. We live on a chain of islands. We are citizens of the Urban Archipelago, the United Cities of America…”
It is “short-sighted” to dismiss the cultural differences that tend to exist between the Northeast, the Northern Midwest, the West Coast, and the rest of the country, including the South, the Southern Midwest, and the Western Plains Region. These differences are not just based upon whether or not people vote for the Republican or the Democratic candidate for president, although that is an indication that these differences do tend to have a geographically significant distribution. For example, many Southern Democrats are more like Republicans, in many ways, than like Northern Democrats. Also, many Northerners who vote Republican in presidential elections have values that differ from the “values” of Southern Republicans (and from Southern “values” in general). Over time, if more people move to where they can live with greater numbers of “like-minded” people, the secession of States and the formation of new political unions may become more and more feasible. This, however, will take time.
Comments on this entry are closed.