Calexit: The “Bad Boys of Brexit” throw their weight behind move to split state
mercurynews.com
mercurynews.com
1. Republicans would win every national election for the foreseeable future. This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy.
2. The chance of a civil war would grow significantly as other states consider following California. I believe this to be true because let's face it, there are certain states that subsidize others. This has to be true, given the discrepancies of wealth between them.
3. Arguably much of the success of the United States comes from the cohesion between the states, hence the name. To leave the United States undermines its very existence.
Am I missing something?
EDIT: Also, more practically, would California even afford to maintain its current existence without the many subsidies it presumably receives as part of its membership of the US?
This is workable--if undesirable--at lower levels, e.g. Congressional districts [2]. It falls apart at the scales of Constitutional quantums, i.e. branches of the federal government and states. If your group can double its exposure in the Senate, why can't mine?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/court-say...
I think the US has poor democracy. The electoral college means my vote here in California doesn't matter (I typically don't participate in the charade of the presidential election although I do vote in other races, mostly state wide). Same for a Texan's vote.
I think Brexit was stupid so I'm hesitant to support Calexit, but I think the unfair system definitely fuels the flames. I have to admit it would be nice to live in a country where my vote would count no matter where in the country I'm from.
We don't have a great democracy. But it's a democracy. (If you can realistically discuss seceding, you're in a free country.)
Perhaps the fatal flaw of democracies is their No True Scotsman [1] tendency. If every democracy can tear itself apart when some fraction of it feels it is no longer a democracy, and if that threshold is too low, then non-democracies will outperform the democracies. (I do not believe this is the case.)
"Democracy" is not binary. You can embody the idea of "democracy" to various degrees. For example, the US is certainly _more_ of a democracy now that African Americans and women can vote. In the future, it may become even more of a democracy if every adult can cast a meaningful vote regardless of what state they're resident in.
> (If you can realistically discuss seceding, you're in a free country.)
I'm not sure this has anything to do with democracy. Canada peacefully seceded from the [non-democractic] Commonwealth in 1867.
If you only allow the same color in a country, then what do you need democracy for? And how can you blame people for being intolerant towards diversity?
IMHO, US is still too young a country, you need more time to and experiences.
Canada was still part of the Empire until 1982, and remains part of the Commonwealth of Nations. It absolutely did not secede from the Commonwealth in 1867 (which would have been difficult, since the Commonwealth wasn't officially established until 1931, and the Dominion of Canada was itself established from the unification of three separate British colonies—Canada, which became Quebec and Ontario; Nova Scotia; and New Brunswick—in 1867.)
For me it's an amusing thought to entertain as a form of escapism but I really hope people aren't taking this seriously. It'd be disastrous for both the country and California.
1. Asking people ignore slavery's contributions to the civil war is not reasonable.
2. Many states, California included to some degree, feel the very nature of the United States has been slowly eroding for some time with no real checks on that erosion. There will be a tipping point eventually. Peaceful secessions (with the option to re-enter the union if it's mutually agreed upon) seem like a good way for states to enforce the principles of federalism, especially since the national government, Supreme Court included, seem disinterested in that goal. Real violence seems the most likely when people feel wronged, unheard, and that they have no reasonable and peaceful way to address the issues. Keeping people trapped in a country they feel doesn't represent them seems like a recipe for violence, not a way to preserve the peace.
For the southern states, many wanted to keep slavery for economic reasons. It was very cheap labor, and banning slavery would have meant less money for Southern states imposed on them by outsiders who did not live their societies or work their jobs.
I see the same parallels here with CalExit. Even on this thread, people bring up how California unfairly pays more net to the federal government while red states take more federal resources. CalExit doesn't have the (IMO) moral reprehension of slavery, but from my perspective I see people upset that outsiders who don't share our lives and views are dictating our bottom line.
2. I highly doubt that the federal government would let any state undergo peaceful secession. A secession by its nature is a threat to the United States. Allowing states to leave will mean the states aren't united. Furthermore, it won't just be California. Off the top of my head, states like Washington, Oregon, and New York are generally as unhappy as California in with the state of our government, and allowing one state to leave will open the floodgates for other states.
This to me means the obvious consequence is violence erupts if we attempt to secede, even with peaceful intentions at first. As another user on this thread stated, California will not win an armed conflict. The US military is much stronger than our California National Guard.
I understand your political sentiments, and I do agree that the current state of national politics is a major issue. However, I don't see a peaceful CalExit as either practical or realistic.
Of course, there probably aren't strong opinions about this either way, but most red state citizens I know would have a more "good riddance" attitude about California leaving the U.S., especially if trade and travel were relatively open between the countries. Meaning, I don't see the political math adding up to total war in this case.
While it may not have been, independent of the slavery issue, at the time of the Civil War (though even that is debatable), the indivisibility of the Union is now a moral issue with a substantial segment of the population.
And, in fact, many of the things that would be defining issues for a California/US split under the current regime are moral issues that their supporters (on both sides, and in opposing ways) see as direct analogs to slavery. (Abortion rights on one side vs. rights of the unborn on the other being a prime example.)
> especially if trade and travel were relatively open between the countries
Why on Earth would you expect that either the current protectionist, closed-borders Washington regime or any hypothetical separatist Sacramento regime seeking to free California from it would support "relatively open" trade and travel?
Exactly, people are taking CalExit too lightly. Man, it's basically treason and people talk about it like growing up and moving out of home.
If there were 50 different states, hopefully w/ open borders - each state could dictate their own social programs. Some could be a lot more like Denmark/Sweden.. others more like the old U.S.A. where you fend for yourself, and look out for nobody else. Each state would be able to set their own agendas, taxes, etc.. -- There would be more competition between individual states to attract the best people/talent/companies/etc... to grow their economies.
I don't think it's a matter of what if, but when.
No one in California or the remaining union is committed enough about this topic to enter into a war. California couldn't conscript enough forces to defend itself without creating their own revolution.
> hope people aren't taking this seriously. It'd be disastrous for both the country and California.
When I first heard about this I wondered if it might actually bring about reform. But then I heard that one of the individuals pushing for it has ties to Russia. I apologize because that sounds like FUD but I feel hypersensitive about Russia sowing global discord these days.
With what military would the new California defend itself? What would stop the United States-sans-California from immediately annexing California as a territory, putting things in the exact same situation as now, but without any of the self-determination afforded by being a state? I don't know how realistic that is, but it's hard to reason about the hypothetical world where this proposal succeeds, and it seems like a serious risk.
Escape is not the solution. All it does is leave the world's most powerful country in the control of the people you disagreed so strongly with that you wanted to leave.
I lived in San Diego and spent a lot of time with active duty sailors + marines down there when I attended Community College. They were from all over the country, and the vast majority were from red states. I befriended active duty military from Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and South Carolina. Conversely, despite being a military city I only came across two people from California.
What I'm getting at is in the event of civil war I can't see the majority of armed forces in California supporting CalExit.
I would suspect that the parties would realign and there would still be healthy political competition, eventually if not in the short term.
> there are certain states that subsidize others
This meme is true in some respects, but contains a limited perspective. California is a net contributor of money, but other states are net contributors of other things. Young American technologists, for example, move to the Bay Area. They're not born and trained there to move to the Kentucky technology scene, at least that's not the trend yet. The ranks of the military is disproportionately filled by young people from red states. California is a net importer of water. And so on.
Yes, because it sends more to the federal government than it receives in subsidies.
Is the United States as a whole greater than the sum of its parts?
I really don't think this is likely. People mention this about every demographic change. How if women didn't get the right to vote, republicans would have won every major election. Or if immigration continues at the current rate, republicans will never win again.
But isn't it weird that the current demographics happen to be balanced almost perfectly between republicans and democrats? What's the probability of that happening by chance?
If California left, the median voter would move a bit to the right, sure. But the parties would move to follow the median voter as they always have, and balance things out. Maybe the Republicans benefit in the short term. But after being in power long enough, there would be more voters wanting change than are satisfied with the status quo. Which always happens eventually. And the cyclical nature of our democracy would continue. And the trends and demographics of the US are moving left in the long term anyway. Removing California only delays that.
California would immediately have 30% more money due to not funding the red states.
> 1. Republicans would win every national election for the foreseeable future. This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy.
Not a great argument to the blue states. Blue states really wouldn't care as they would leave the red staters and their corrupt congressmen to wallow in penury without blue state money.
> 2. The chance of a civil war would grow significantly as other states consider following California. I believe this to be true because let's face it, there are certain states that subsidize others. This has to be true, given the discrepancies of wealth between them.
The Civil War was won because the North had the population and the production. The blue states have the production and the population. The red states would not win if it came to civil war and, if things actually came to Calexit, it would be likely be CoastalExit.
In addition, the armed services are now very much "Just In Time". If you shut down California, you're going to have a very difficult time resupplying and repairing your army. California can simply let your army grind to a halt while waiting you out. Logistics through hostile territory is EXCRUCIATINGLY expensive. The army couldn't secure Baghdad; they'll have no hope with LA or SF.
Finally, Californians really don't begrudge helping the red states out. Honestly. What they begrudge is then getting stabbed in the back while doing so.
I think that every Representative, Senator, and Governor from a "taker" state should have to make public request and obeisance to the representatives of "giver" states on national television right after the State of Union or their state doesn't get any Federal money. It's just words, but too many people think that things "magically" appear in their states with no thought to what is actually happening.
> 3. Arguably much of the success of the United States comes from the cohesion between the states, hence the name. To leave the United States undermines its very existence.
Agreed. But how many times does it take cousin Clem having an accident with a gun before you decide it's safer to just not be around him?
> Am I missing something?
Yes, it won't be a vote that triggers CalExit--Californians really don't want to leave, by and large.
It will the Feds showing up and shooting some white people for <reasons> and then having a ham-fisted response that causes it.
If it were anyone other than Trump in the White House, I wouldn't worry about this happening. Sadly, this bunch look more than incompetent enough to trigger it.
Plenty, for Russia. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/why-russia-lo...
> The chance of a civil war would grow significantly as other states consider following California.
Not really, because California attempting to secede would guarantee civil war, both within California (which, has a very large and disproportionately well armed minority that would rather be governed by the current federal majority than the current state majority) and between California and the Feds (the latter spurred by the former if it didn't happen for other reasons), and chances can't increase beyond 100%.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia...
>> In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".
1. Democracy, in our current world state (i.e. in the modern mass media, social media, et cetera landscape), does not work and needs to be replaced;
2. Western democracy is corrupted to the point of needing to be rebooted (despite the necessary fact that this will result in a likely annihilation of much of the West's population and factors of production); or
3. The British and Trump cases cannot be generalized to all Western democracies.
I'm betting on 3, but I don't feel great about it.
Sounds like Scenario 3. (Note: Swiss American here.)
Either way, why would mass media make large democracies weaker compared to smaller ones. Separately, does this mean democracy is incompatible with an interplanetary species? Democracy being fundamentally unscalable is a Scenario 1 problem for anyone aspiring towards larger civilizations.
It's hard to be all things to all people. It's easier to be all things to a smaller, more targeted group of people.
I prefer to square this circle by making fewer things national issues. I seem to be in the minority in that opinion, but perhaps these sorts of discussions will make people reconsider the issue.
Federalism is a way to make the national government stronger by making it focus on its core competencies and leave more cultural issues (among others) to state and local governments.
Well then Trump happened and I started daydreaming about the west coast breaking away from the rest of the country. What would the ideal status after exit look like? It turned out what I really wanted is stronger states. It's interesting to suddenly see things from the other side. I'm glad I was fortunate enough to get this experience as painful as it is.
Is there any reason to think diseconomies of scale is limited to democracies?
I wish we could get rid of the electoral college and have approval voting. I truly believe that would be the best thing that could happen to the US. The political discourse would most likely become much more interesting and civil.
Wow, someone needs to proofread Mercury News...
https://www.salon.com/2016/12/29/russia-calexit-texit-dissen...
If we are a republic, states should have say as they did when this country was formed.
People in California should be able to live as they please, but still be part of the country. Too much centralization in DC is causing these feelings.
California also pays more than its share in Federal taxes and gets less in Federal spending. If you look at the Base Closure Commission list, CA lost 28. Mississippi isn't even on the list because they didn't lose any.
Your originalist argument means nothing.
If you want to debate whether the Senate should exist or not, or whether it serves a purpose or not, or whether how senators are allocated should be changed or not, then fine. But that's a whole other thread.
I'd also argue that the Senate serves the important purpose of preventing abuse-of-the-majority, a problem known as far back as Ancient Greek democracy and well-considered by the founders.
Getting rid of the Senate or making Senator allocation population-based with no further structural modifications would simply turn us into the United City-states of America. Which is great... if you live in a city and aren't a regional political minority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a
pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a
small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the
government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs
of faction.
This is Red State Moocherism. Mississippi exists only on the enforced generosity of the actually productive States.
The constitution? The desire of rural Westerners to not be directly governed by urban voters in Northeastern or Southwestern megacities? The incrementalism of Manifest Destiny?
Wyoming, followed by Vermont are the least populous states.