Pages

March 31, 2010

Time to split the sheets

The Ominous ‘S-Word’ – Secession
by Timothy H. Lee at Big GovernmentAfter 230 years, are the American people coursing toward eventual divorce?
Our polarized society increasingly ponders what would happen if American conservatives and liberals simply agreed that their differences had become irreconcilable, and redivided the nation to go their separate ways. Which side would prosper and experience an influx of migration from the other? Conversely, which side would likely become a fiscal and socio-political basket case?

Any reasonable person already knows the likely answer. One need only compare the smoldering wreckage wrought by liberal governance in such states as California or Michigan with the comparative prosperity created by conservative governance in such states as Texas or Utah. We can also examine the past 400 years, during which immigrants abandoned Europe for an America founded upon the fundamental principles of limited government and individual freedom.

Regardless, the above hypothetical has become increasingly frequent among both conservatives and liberals in recent years.

Following the 2004 election that they confidently expected would vindicate their 2000 rage and send President Bush back to Texas, liberals only half-jestfully proposed that “blue” states secede and join a new “United States of Canada.” Conservatives replied with a collective, “don’t let the screen door hit you in the [posterior] on your way out.”

Now, with this week’s passage of ObamaCare despite ferocious and widespread public opposition, the faint reverberations from that restive elephant in the room became even more pronounced. Consider the words of Dennis Prager, an intellectual whom no serious observer would label a bomb-thrower:
We are in a non-violent civil war. I write the words ‘civil war’ with an ache in my heart. But we are in one. Thank God this civil war is non-violent. But the fact is that the left and the rest of the country share almost no values. The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America’s values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses. After Sunday’s vote, for the first time in American history, one could no longer confidently believe that the American system will prevail. And if we don’t fight for it, we don’t deserve it.
Or consider the commentary of Reason’s Tim Cavanaugh, who references the “s-word” in his article “The Rise of Decline:”
The recession has not just hustled the U.S. economy back to a late-20th-century state of nature that resists all efforts at reinflation, stimulus, and outcome management. It has created a conviction that American society itself, rather than just its institutions of government and public/private rent-seeking, is in collapse… We tend to miss something obvious: The problem isn’t that things are collapsing. It’s that not enough things are collapsing.
Even the mainstream Wall Street Journal ran a June 2009 weekend commentary on secessionist backlash entitled “Divided We Stand.”

For her part, Shikha Dalmia writes in her forbes.com commentary “Resisting ObamaCare, Gandhi Style” that Obama “might have set the stage for the largest civil disobedience movement since the civil rights era.” She notes that, “even if a few million Americans simultaneously refuse to abide by it or pay the fine, they could easily overwhelm the system.”

Whatever one’s views toward such sentiment, it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny the irreconcilable ideals of “red” and “blue” Americans despite efforts to reestablish unity. After all, George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 on a record of bipartisanship following eight years of extreme acrimony during the Clinton era. Eight years later, the acrimony had only increased and Barack Obama disingenuously campaigned as a moderate promising a “post-partisan” administration.

Just one year into his tenure, however, America has become more resentfully divided than any time in generations. Conservative “Scoop Jackson” Democrats have become nearly non-existent, as have liberal “Rockefeller” Republicans.

How will this resolve? Will we collectively weather this protracted turbulence, or will the centrifugal forces only accelerate? Dissolution obviously remains highly unlikely, but Yale University’s Bruce Judson notes in his book It Could Happen Here: America on the Brink that:
The United States is not the Soviet Union. Our economy is not as terrible. Our government is not as despised. But nobody thought the U.S.S.R. could collapse. Could everyone be wrong again?
Thomas Jefferson wrote in our Declaration of Independence that irreconcilable values sometimes make it “necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another.” Jefferson further recognized the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, stating that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles.”

Those on the left, ephemerally content because they possess temporary political control, mock such wisdom as anachronistic. They would be prudent to recall, however, that they said the same thing about CNBC’s Rick Santelli just one year ago when he launched the Tea Party movement that now threatens to hurl their political control into the sea.
________________________________

We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately can hang out over at my place.

15 comments:

Hoping the Blind Will See said...

An interesting idea whose time is fast approaching. I wonder how the government will react to that "little" event? Would really throw a wrench into their "Tax the rich, everyone on healthcare schemes" as everyone with money would flock to the state(s) that secede, and the gov wouldn't have enough people paying into the HC system to support their grand idea! Hmmm, Texas is looking mighty fine to me...

Woodsterman (Odie) said...

As each day passes AHC (after health care)someone is able to describe this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach a little better. The left will one day realize they need us. After all, aren't we financing all of their dreams ?

Opus #6 said...

Odie, the left wants nothing so much as to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. So much satisfaction with that. That the poor get poorer doesn't stop them, any more than it stops the socialists in Europe.

Nickie, I can't see secession. We are all too scattered. There are many many conservatives in blue states like CA. I see us defeating them at the polls, and they slink back to snark and backbite like they have for a generation.

Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...

Well the drum beats get louder everyday. For the left and right to simply agree to disagree and go thier separate ways is but a dream scenario. If such a situation wre to arise (and I dare say it is), this is a winner-take-all war.

This is how Americans work.

Did Americans tell King George "Well your Majesty, we will take only 6 1/2 colonies as we disagree with your polocies"?

Did Abraham Lincoln agree to let Jefferson Davis just to simply take half the exsisting Nation at the time and secede?

No my friends, neither side wil be packing for Canada soon. Take note that increasingly since the enactment of the unconstitutional healh destruction plan the MSM and others are using the term "non-violent".

There are 3 possible reasons for this;
1- They are stoking the flames in order for gun control, fairness doctrine and so-on to be passed quickly.
2- They know of what I stated above and wish to avert it.
3- A combination of 1 & 2 and are scared shitless by the thought that they indeed will lose.

Donald Borsch Jr. said...

"If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
Thomas Jefferson 1816

LL said...

Let's move the liberals to NORTHERN CALIFORNIA and the Conservatives can take Southern California (and all the water in Northern California).

Anonymous said...

LL... That's not my dream scenario. I'm for the Move The Liberals to Northern Alpine County movement.

Rhod said...

Interesting thought. States proposing it would have to somehow get past the Supreme Court's opinion in Texas v. White (1869) - which ruled secession legally impossible, in a case not specifically involving secession, but involving boundary claim bonds issued by the Fed Govt. I can give more info if anyone wants it.

But if the legality of secession ever got to SCOTUS in this era, it would only be to test the rule. De facto secession would already have occurred.

sig94 said...

Perhaps it comes down to this, can the federal government force the 25 Red States to toe the line? With or without forcible occupation by troops? These Red States (Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, N&S Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, W. Virginia, Virginia, N & S Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and Alaska) voted for Bush 43 in 2004. McCain couldn't carry them all in 2008.

This takes out the very heart of the USA and leaves an empty husk for the liberals to fight over. Let 'em.

Perhaps these moves will be facilitated by economic factors such as those in play during the Great Depression. The dependant slave populations of the Blue States will force ever more destructive taxation on the more economically viable Red States until the tipping point is reached. Then the question is "Where is the tipping point?"

I am having conversations like this with LEO's. We can't imagine that we're talking like this (secession - revolution - armed resistance) only 15 months into a new administration. So many are so very concerned and very, very angry. These are men who are trained to be in control when everyone else is not. These are not the people you want to piss off.

Anonymous said...

The following question is not meant as idle Banana Republic conjecture...

Is there a possibility that individuals within the upper echelons of our military are considering options to remove any destructive leadership in government?

sig94 said...

Nickie - I am sure that there are. But is there a nexus developing? Is there an embryonic leadership structure?

If something does happen at the national level regarding the negation of the current political leadership structure, something must replace it in a fairly short time or at least the movement to replace it must be in progress and completely transparent. Perhaps a new Continental Congress.

Until then, the States will have to step up to the plate. Things will get real interesting.

Some thoughts also need to be shared in a less open environment. The feds are already sniffing around and DHS has identified domestic groups as more of a threat than foreign terrorists. You are warned.

Starsplash said...

Rhod is right. The left is still following a comunistic manifesto. first disrupt the economy. Then instill a government that will act as your nanny. I say were gonna win. We are not voiciferous enough.

Never the less let us stomp them at the polls.

TS/WS said...

Hillary is negotiating The United Nations Small Arms Ban Treaty, as we speak!!!!
It is coming as soon as it can, like Sig said; only at the Current Administration Side of the Spectrum.
If the People don't call them out immediately we will be in it deep!

RightKlik said...

I sure hope we don't see anything crazy like a military coup, and I doubt we will. On the other hand, I don't think the "S word" is as fringy as some seem to consider it to be. The Québécois take the idea pretty seriously in Canada, n'est-ce pas?

So why shouldn't we? Sometimes it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.

Walter Williams touched on this topic very tangentially:

"...people fail to recognize or even wonder why our nation, with people of every race, ethnic group and religious group, has managed to live together relatively harmoniously. In their countries of origin, the same ethnic, racial and religious groups have been trying to slaughter one another for centuries. A good part of the answer is that in the United States, there was little to be gained from being a Frenchman, a German, a Jew, a Protestant or a Catholic. The reason it did not pay was because for most of our history, government played a small part in our lives. When there's significant government allocation of resources, the most effective means of organizing for the gains are those proven most divisive, such as race, ethnicity, religion and region.

As our nation forsakes our founders' wisdom of constitutional limitations placed on Washington, we raise the potential for conflict."

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/03/31/conflict_or_cooperation

Starsplash said...

@rightklik; Creating division is also apart of the communist adgenda.