I think it’s time to give serious consideration to secession. The polarization is too deep. The other side too clear that they are morally superior. Yes the divorce will be hard. But if you think dividing of the community property and debts is difficult now just imagine what it’s going to be like after we make the deficit permanent.

I have spent most of my life understanding the mindset of many sides in debates, but no longer can comprehend the mindset of the other side. They are beyond me. I do not wish to be associated with these people. I want out.

Those of us in the secular, industrial, innovate, educated blue states need to decide. Do we wish to go for this ride? We pay for the red states. Do we really wish to fund their anti-secular, anti-diversity, anti-little-guy agenda? Do we want the wealth distribution of Arkansas to become the national standard?

Some political actors work by polarization. Terrorists for example. The forces of polarization have done their work in this country and they aren’t done yet. I say let them go.

15 thoughts on “secession

  1. Andrew A. Gill

    I used to consider myself a Republican–up until age 16, when I became enlightened and two years later joined the Libertarian party.

    I’m still a pretty conservative person, and in the past was a pretty socially conservative person (I’m better now, thanks). I’ve been thinking of writing a little summary of how Republicans think, though this assumes that I can still remember how to think that way.

    The problem is also that the Neocon movement is ideologically indistinguishable from an anti-paleocon ideology.

  2. Sam Ruby

    Who would you be seceding from? Arkansas?

    Arkansas has a low wealth distribution. Arkansas voted red. Something deeper is going on here.

    What we have learned is that big guys who wrap themselves in a pro-little-guy agenda appeal mainly to people whose houses have working plumbing.

  3. Ben Hyde

    Sam – You know full well that when I speak of wealth distribution I am speaking of the shape not the the “level”, and you know full well I stated from what we should succeed from the red states. Which, yes, includes the state you live in. If your intention is to bring me into a constructive conversation, don’t be cute.

  4. Pingback: Wayne Allen's Weblog

  5. Ben Hyde

    First: Wayne refrain from to dismissing my opinions by calling them childish. I am trying to find a way to resolve the polarization we got on our hands here. Name calling isn’t likely to help.

    The option of secession is exactly the option of opting out of one game and shifting into another. It looks to me like we are locked in a highly polarized fight with an opponent that is structurally unwilling and unable to compromise. We can continue the fight; we can give in; or we can change the game. Yes, I’m putting forward the option of changing the game.

    Regarding the marbles. Unlike many secessionist scenarios the blue states do tend to own the ball. Both sides believe they would be far better off culturally if they split. The blue states would be somewhat better off economically, if we move quickly. If we do this in a decade the blue states will be much better off because of how the debt is likely to be split.

    If the left is to stay in the Union we will need to become just as tough and inflexible as the right. An option I find very unattractive. I’d rather we remain reasonable, civil, and diverse. But if we are to hold onto the goal of remaining rational, civil and diverse then it seems to me that the path of least resistance is for us to leave.

    What does “wonky” mean?

  6. Anonymous

    You’re right, ben, name calling won’t help. But starting with “The other side too clear that they are morally superior.” and then describing the other side as incomprehensible is hardly the way to begin a constructive conversation. I am not uneducated, mean-spirited, or intolerant. I just disagree with you on certain policy positions,

  7. Stuck in Red

    After 10 years living in the South my only question is, “Why didn’t we let them go?” The North would resemble Canada and Europe. The South would resemble Mexico or South Africa. We Notherners by birth (or ideals) would be morally at peace and have a nice cheap place to vacation.

  8. Bill

    I agree with the original poster. History teaches we are two different people. The schism is as old as the Celt/Anglo wars fought in Britain. (Read Albion’s Seed) We could remain friends and good neighbors as long as we stayed out of each other’s governments. As a Mississippi native who has lived in Michigan, Indiana and Illinois, I have no desire to be like all of you enlightened ones. Godspeed.

  9. Wilder

    I’ve been in favor of this idea for quite a long time. My solution involves joining Canada, and we would allow Hawaii to become a sovereign ally nation, as they have been trying to regain their monarchy ever since they were taken into the union and it would be a kind gesture to allow this blue state way out in the ocean to once again be a self-governing nation. My new blog is an attempt to figure out a decent solution to our national division, and so far I can see only one sane option: Secession. If done peacefully, it would save us from what I believe is an inevitable civil war. We are really two nations being forced to live under one government, and no matter who wins any election (rigged or not, but that’s another subject…) the other 50% of the nation will be disenfranchised. We could be neighbors, and friends, but if the red states wanted to be mean to us, we could easily point out that we have all the means of production. We could even shed dependence on red state oil production by switching to an automotive industry based on diesel fuel. Biodiesel fuel is produced from soybeans, which the blue states can ALL produce easily. I think secession is an attainable goal and a good idea for both sides of the proposed new border.

  10. Thomas Veil

    I’m not sure about the Hawaii part, but Wilder makes some good points. I think it is futile to consider ourselves one nation anymore. You can blame both sides for that: the Republicans, for letting the fascist branch of their party take over; and the Democrats, for abandoning the people by running away from true liberalism instead of embracing it.

    And, of course, even secession would not accomplish anything if the Democrats of the USNA (to name the new country) continue to play footsie with the corporations. There is no quicker way to corrupt a government than to allow business to get inside of it. So any new nation would have to take a very strong stance against corporate interference. You know the (supposedly) inviolable separation of church and state? Think something similar, only for corporations and the state.

    But there’s no need to think that the USNA would necessarily be a poor nation. Many businesses have their headquarters in blue states. Even if they up and moved to the red states, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. We’ve been screaming for years about the anti-competitive nature of business today, the corporate monopolies, etc. Well, if existing companies actually left, we’d have all the more opportunities to start new, smaller ones. Don’t forget, the blue states have a huge chunk of the population, not to mention control of most of the major air- and seaports. That’s a big advantage. Combine that with anti-dumping laws, which would keep existing big companies from driving smaller new ones out of business, and you could have a fairly nice system set up. Not saying the separation would be smooth, by any means…but any trauma would only be temporary and, in the long run, quite likely to our benefit.

    It’s too bad it’s come to this kind of talk, because if the conservatives and the corporations hadn’t started getting greedy and wanting it ALL, driving people into bankruptcy and then telling them they can’t DECLARE bankruptcy, this wouldn’t be happening. I think we’re watching a once-proud democracy decay and die, and it’d be better to cut ourselves off from it than to die with it.

  11. Augs

    Secession, or the regionalization of North America, is in my opinion an inevitable development of the 21st century. For some time the world trend has been economic integration and political regionalization. Everyone sees the necessity of maintaining open borders, a common currency, and standard weights & measures throughout the United States.

    But with such intense differences in political preferences and cultural identity, why should this “marriage” be prolonged? NO continent-sized country ever founded on an idea (as opposed to common ethnicity or religion) has ever lasted. From Rome to the Holy Roman Empire to the Soviet Union, the “idea” changes over time, and different people develop vastly different understandings of what it all means.

    Living in the Northeast, why should my rights and taxing & spending priorities be determined in part by Senators from Idaho? Why should I have a say in how they live their lives? It simply doesn’t make sense any more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *