Hacker News Reader

Comment by artpop | Hacker News Reader

This is starting to sound like the “Rim States” from the science fiction novel Black Man (Thirteen) by Richard K. Morgan. Basically the blue and red states separate in the future because they couldn’t resolve their differences. The blue states go on to prosper and the red states languish.

It struck me how plausible it sounded when I read it. Now with the commander in shit-the-bed Donald Trump and the rising tide self-destructive behaviour, it’s looking like a good option to me.

View on HN

While I'm happy that the states are picking up the slack, are you really insinuating that the Red states are leading to their own self-destruction, going on to "languish"? I'm saddened that people have this viewpoint over such a large swath of the country.

Red states have lower GDP, higher poverty, lower education, and are largely subsidized by blue states through federal grants.

I am not implying causation and there are other interesting facts (lower cost of living relative to wages in red states) but as it stands now if blue and red split it doesn't seem like it's all that controversial to imply red would suffer.

A little bit of googling turns up many interesting articles and interpretations of this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal...

Of course, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the article, but it's always funny when someone posts an article they didn't read. It directly contradicts what you're claiming:

> The red states aren't in fact poorer than the blue states. They're richer: that's why they vote more conservative and more right wing.

The article argues that people who make less move to areas with lower costs of living, because they have more purchasing power in those areas:

> Because those lower income places have even lower prices, making consumption standards higher.

That is, red states aren't poor because of red policies, they're poor because they're cheaper to live in.

Further, the article claims that blue policies hurt the poor!

> What we now need to go on and explain is why those nominally left policies, those blue ones, are so to the disadvantage of the poor they're supposedly helping....

I read the article. I don't think you read my comment. I posted the article to cite a positive interpretation of the statistics I claimed.

I made no claims about which policies were better or worse. If you have issues with the one claim I did make, that the implication that red states would fare poorly without blue states is not farfetched, I do not believe you have adequately articulated them.

From the article:

> Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states

You missed his/her point. We go on and on about this difference between the coast and, as those on the coast have dubbed them, the "flyover states" and then people act all smug about how they are leading to their own destruction and what not instead of being responsible and trying to educate and help. It's, frankly, pretty pathetic that this attitude is so pervasive. I'm not sure what you (not you specifically) are thinking, but if you think that these impoverished areas are somehow just going to go away or that (and seriously lol at this) somehow California is going to merge with Canada, you're (not you specifically) incredibly naive.

While I agree that many coastal liberals are often smug, the notion that people in other areas are groaning in the throes of oppression is not really founded in fact. Large parts of the country have great contempt for the more liberal enclaves on the coast and pour scorn on the people and civic societies established there. Try spending some time reading a conservative forum like freerepublic.com, though you might need eye bleach after you're done. There are a lot of decent, hardworking, and hard-done-by people in the midwest, South, other inland regions etc. etc. who don't want their economies exploited or their dignity insulted, and there are also some vicious mean-spirited people who habitually wish horrible suffering on others.

>the notion that people in other areas are groaning in the throes of oppression is not really founded in fact

Sure, that's not something I would believe so I don't disagree.

>Large parts of the country have great contempt for the more liberal enclaves on the coast

Wonder why that is?

>who don't want their economies exploited or their dignity insulted

Yet here we are. With their economies being exploited and their dignity being insulted.

You don't seem to be responding to my comment so much as random phrases from it, without making any substantive argument of your own.

I responded to individual points that needed to be refuted. The rest was just filler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Are you diagnosed with that? Otherwise I'm not sure why you posted that.

Background: I am a [former] republican, grew up in flyover country, from a family full of trump supporters, now I live in California.

I believe that the red states are going to languish for the following reasons:

1) Brain drain as young ambitious people leave

2) Public services (education, roads, etc) decrease in quality, increase in expense

3) Older folks increasingly capture all of the economic gains allowed in small towns through consolidation of local political power

It was once possible to be young and ambitious and moderately wealthy in middle America by starting and expanding a small business like a franchise or a car dealership, but if you try to do that now, you'll get crushed in city hall pretty much every step of the way.

I am very open to discussion/debate on this topic if anyone has differing views or questions.

Also from SV/CA. I think your points apply here:

> 1) Brain drain as young ambitious people leave

Tons of smart folks I know are leaving CA for TX or east coast.

> 2) Public services (education, roads, etc) decrease in quality, increase in expense

omg, this is CA. Have you driven a freeway lately?

> 3) Older folks increasingly capture all of the economic gains allowed in small towns through consolidation of local political power

CA to the letter.

I don't think you're wrong, just that what you're saying applies to us, too.

> Tons of smart folks I know are leaving CA for TX or east coast.

That is very true, but CA also has a large in migration of smart folks, leaving the number of smart folks here at a slowly increasing number. Small towns in red states for the most part don't see in migration from smart folks, the best people they have are the children of those residing there, and in my experience the ambitious ones chose to leave.

> omg, this is CA. Have you driven a freeway lately?

CA supports a relatively dense living situation compared to many areas in 'red states'. While CA might not have the best roads, they have the population and economy to support their maintenance. Many areas in red states have decided to stop paving their roads all together, and are crushing them back to gravel, because the cost of maintenance is unable to be supported by the population and density of people using them. We are definitely at "peak road" in red state America.

> CA to the letter.

Yeah, but I can also get a cushy corporate job in California. Most of the people I knew from [small town in a red state] that stayed either inherited a family business, got hooked on drugs, or settled into the life of mid/low paying government work.

> [small town in a red state] that stayed either inherited a family business, got hooked on drugs, or settled into the life of mid/low paying government work.

Again you describe CA. Outside the coastline (sometimes inside the coastline, especially past Marin to the OR border), this is very much the case in CA. The central valley is home to some of the most impoverished rural towns in America. Louis Theroux has a fantastic documentary that hits this point: https://documentarystorm.com/the-city-addicted-to-crystal-me...

I think it's more reasonable to apply your thinking to counties rather than states. I'm in a deep red state, but the county I'm in is slowly turning blue as tech companies move in and startups grow.

Also, red counties are where most of the food comes from. The farmers who have made it this far (through extreme competition in the food market) are quite innovative, clever, and ambitious. I wouldn't count them out. They don't want big business in their towns, but they also depend on basic services like filtered water, police, a fire department, and hospitals, and they'll make sure those continue to survive.

Agreed.

There seem to be a lot of microscale effects where people are moving from [small town where they grew up] to [moderately sized regional center], and most of my experience comes from seeing family members and friends still living in [small town where they grew up].

there are enough example states to refute it. hell Illinois is poster child for failed Democratic policies and their debt is now junk status. Quite a few other blue states are in the same boat with exploding debt.

blue states tend to be such only because of dense city populations in super cities; discounting California. Get outside those big metropolis with their outsides voting power and it shifts.

I am a decidedly red state and not one of the claims is valid so I seriously doubt its valid all places. thousands of successful small businesses are started each year. Where you will get crushed in big city blue states where regulation protects incumbent businsses even more than in rural areas (let alone taxes)

Yea, TBH, this is more of a view about "cities" vs "rural area" and less about "red state" vs "blue state". Id much rather live in the most densely populated county in Nebraska than the least densely populated county of NY/CA in terms of health/opportunity/economy/etc.

do you think your analysis applies to states like texas, virginia, arizona, north carolina, georgia, utah, etc? even the in-between states such as colorado and florida were doing fine before the blue takeover of 2005+.

i've been to all of these places in the last 10 years and they're all doing more than fine.

it seems to me only a handful of states over-whelmingly tied to particularly depressed sectors of the economy are the ones losing their people and tax revenue. and a lot of those were blue states just 5 years ago!

I would limit my "expertise" to rustbelt/midwestern areas, but from what I've seen in both data and experience, things tend to be more correlated with overall density metrics than specific location, and there are a lot of microscale effects. For instance, many ambitious people in the midwest are relocating from [small town they grew up in] to [regional center], like moving from avondale MI to Grand Rapids MI. The macro effects of outmigration from MI en mass show little info, but on a micro scale, people are leaving their smaller counties and moving to more dense ones. Over time, smaller regional centers like Grand Rapids grow, but the 200 miles of 'small town America' surrounding it grow older, more disconnected, less healthy, and less educated.

Interesting you picked those states, of those states, all but North Carolina have been becoming bluer. Using 2012 vs 2016 presidential margin of victory, with blueness being positive, Texas went −15.78% to -9.00%, Virginia went 3.87% to 5.32%, Arizona went −9.06% to -3.55%, North Carolina went −2.04% to -3.66%, Georgia went −7.82% to -5.13%, Utah went −48.04% to -18.08%.

I think you can interpret that as, prosperity leads to bluer policies, or bluer policies causes prosperity, or possible a little of both.

Maybe do a comparison next time there's a more traditional Republican candidate running to get a better idea of how much bluer a state is becoming.

Or compare midterms. Presidential elections can be wonky. Surely you don't think Wisconsin has made a dramatic red shift based on 2012 vs 2016, do you?

Considering for gubernatorial it went 53-45 blue in 2006, to 52-46 red in 2010, to 53-46 red in 2012 during the recall, and back to at 52-47 red in 2014; yes, I do think Wisconsin swung redder as a whole.

haha, except you left out all the states that don't adhere to your hypothesis, like the ones that won the presidential election in 2016. kind of a big oversight.

Except that there is overwhelming truth to it. There are now, effectively, two economic models for states to follow, and they're very partisan models. There is the California model (high taxes, high minimum wage, strong environmental standards, strong labor protections, etc) and the Kansas model (cut taxes, privatization, gutting protections). California's growth rate compared to Kansas' growth rate is a matter of night and day.

California is by no means a utopia, but if you're using the standard metrics of a healthy economy, blue states like it are doing things right, and red states like Kansas simply are not.

There are not 'blue' and 'red' states -- this is an artifact of the electoral college. There are huge 'red' zones mixed throughout 'blue' california. Usa on the whole is purple.

EDIT: Yes, I'm aware of distortions in the electoral college. My point is that some people seem to think that California is this massive blue block and that rural population you know, doesn't matter. The divide is not "red state" vs "blue state" it's cities vs. the rural. Yes the cities have more population. But the rural population exists and if you go for separation they would have to come along too, and maybe they would have something to say about it (such as breaking their rural portions off from your state and rejoining the rest of the USA, for one).

There are huge 'red' zones mixed throughout 'blue' california.

Geographically, yes. But land doesn't vote, people do. By population, it's a huge spread. Hillary beat Trump by over a 30% spread. 61.73% vs 31.62%.

Most of the big "blue" states are similar. In Illinois, it was a 17% spread. Over 22% spread in New York.

That doesn't change the fact that nearly one out of three Californians voted for Trump (of those who voted, anyways). It's a huge spread politically, but 32% of the population isn't something that can just be handwaved away.

You're not disagreeing with his point at all. 60% blue and 30% red still looks like purple to me.

Even the most staunchly blue states have a huge red contingent - and vice versa.

States also have governments which make decisions (like the one being discussed here). That said, the grandparent comment is a massive oversimplification. California itself had tax revenue problems not too long ago.

California itself had tax revenue problems not too long ago.

In 2011, they had state-wide tax revenue of $282 billion. That was the year Jerry Brown followed Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor, and a series of tax hikes were put into policy.

In 2015, tax revenue was $405 billion.

So what you're seeing is a shift in policy from Schwarzenegger to Brown, and a closing of the revenue gaps because of it.

California has "red" areas, yes, but at the level of state government they are drowned out just as they are in the electoral college. State-level policies are heavily "blue".

As party sentiment goes, yes, but as far as policy and control goes there are some significant differences.

You might have cause and effect backwards (hard to know when you can't do experiments) but having a strong economy and wealth due to say Silicon Valley, Hollywood, or Wall Street (however those were created and sustained) might allow people to choose to have "(high taxes, high minimum wage, strong environmental standards, strong labor protections, etc)".

WA state has strong protections and environmental standards, but I wouldn't consider it high tax (no income tax for instance). Is it an outlier?

We have higher sales tax than most, which is regressive and disproportionately impacts lower incomes. Property taxes in certain areas (Seattle) can be higher as well.

But the lack of income tax and higher wages make up for it. My tax burden is about 30% of my income, whereas in other states, Red and Blue alike, it would be anywhere from 30-40%. In general it's a low tax state, which is great for high income earners but not great for the state budget. We've had constant battles over funding education and Washington schools are woefully underfunded.

A point: Seattle, City of has a lower total property tax rate (9.9%) than over half of the other cities in King County.

[0] - http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/assessor/Reports/annual-repo...

I didn't notice this until it's too late to edit. I made two mistakes:

First, Seattle's tax rate is 9.25 cents per $1,000, not 9.9 cents.

Second, I made a display error. The rate is not 9.9%; that would be very high. It is 0.925% (just under 1%).

I live in the city and actually didn't know that, good to know.

And things like this

http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/01/california-gov-jerry-brown...

What about Texas?

I'm not sure you can take the economic analysis and simply break into red vs blue. It's interesting to look at rural vs urban within those states too.

Texas isn't as strongly on the same policy track as many red states, and it also has a strong oil industry as a big input into it's economy. Though I think they have been looking forward and trying to diversify more recently.

I had a caveat in there about Texas that I decided to remove, should have kept it, but I'll respond here instead.

I think Texas' situation is too unique. They're effectively a petrostate right now. Now, they seem to be doing the right thing with things like the PSF and PUF, so I'd say that their approach, like their politics, is deeply purple, and it's not a terrible approach. But it's very specific, and not necessarily a model that other states can use.

Oil is only about 15% of the Texas economy, I would hardly classify it as a "petrostate". Real estate is a larger percentage of California's economy.

> I think Texas' situation is too unique. They're effectively a petrostate right now.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that California is ALSO a petrostate.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/03/the...

Yes, California is third on a list where Texas is 1st. I don't think that disproves my point. Texas produces 35% of the country's crude oil.

In March of 2017, California produced 14,907,000 barrels of crude oil. Texas produced 102,443,000. That's 7x more. Play that against the fact that Texas' GDP is 2/3rd of California's. Oil has a massive impact in Texas that it simply doesn't have in California.

Texas and California are diversified economies. Texas is more exposed to the oil & gas industry. However, it is still not a petrostate. Which state is the closest to being a petrostate? Alaska (25% exposure).

It is very easy to validate this. Look at the price of oil. It has taken a massive beating over the last years.

Oil Price History: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DCOILWTICO/

If the state is truly a petrostate, it will clearly be reflected in its GDP.

California: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CARGSP

Texas: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TXNGSP

North Dakota: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NDNGSP

Alaska: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AKNGSP

Note the massive drop in oil prices after 2014. Alaska's GDP drops around roughly the same period.

Now let's compare this to ACTUAL petrostates.

Saudi Arabia: https://tradingeconomics.com/saudi-arabia/gdp

Columbia: https://tradingeconomics.com/colombia/gdp

Brazil: https://tradingeconomics.com/brazil/gdp

Norway: https://tradingeconomics.com/norway/gdp

Mexico: https://tradingeconomics.com/mexico/gdp

Kuwait: https://tradingeconomics.com/kuwait/gdp

Russia [1]: https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp

Iran [1]: https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/gdp

[1] Sanctions

See the shortfall in GDP, that is a PETROSTATE.

This is not a good measurement to determine the exposure of the industry to overall economy. It just shows the amount the barrels that can produce. The reason why there is a massive increase in production is due to shale (fracking). The cost of producing oil through fracking is a lot higher than pumping it out of the ground. Because they still have to sell it at market prices, the margin is a lot less for these producers. To compensate for this, these producers have to frack more out of the ground to stay afloat.

Shale Exposed

Texas Field Production of Crude Oil: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...

North Dakota Field Production of Crude Oil: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...

Non-Shale Exposed

Alaska Field Production of Crude Oil: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...

California Field Production of Crude Oil: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...

I forgot that this is the wrong site to use hyperbole on.

No, it's not literally a petro-state. I stand by my point that it is not a reproducible model for other states.

Texas will support the rest? Ok.

It's not really their 'own self-destruction' in so much as that the world over coastal regions tend to be a lot richer than inland areas. If you took a 300 Km swath of all the land bordering the oceans world wide you'd have captured a very large portion of the wealth.

Of course there are some exception (Switzerland comes to mind) and large inland cities tend to be at least a lot wealthier than the surrounding country side but as a rule it is a pretty good one.

Yes, it is sad. But people in the developed countries are relatively free to move around and it can be a conscious choice to live in a place that is a bit slower paced and has a different landscape.

I think a lot of left-wingers have difficulty reconciling the fact that poor people often don't vote left - and in the case of their two largest recent defeats, Trump and Brexit - they overwhelmingly did not.

The barely concealed contempt against those ignorant working class people who didn't vote the right way is fascinating - especially since the left consistently takes the moral high ground on the working class.

Don't forget all that poor people vote at far lower rates than middle class and rich people. Rich & middle class white people and culture war evangelicals with a small but relatively unusually large smattering of poor people in a few key states put Trump over the top.

Why bring up the race of voters? Do you have a problem with white people voting?

Needlessly polarizing comment.

Trump managed to lie his way into power, no politician in recorded history has said so many things that were patently un-true in order to get to where he is today.

Those 'left-wingers' you refer to are also right wing, the United States doesn't currently have a left wing, all it has is right wing and elitist (or maybe slightly more right wing).

A functioning left would probably take more votes away from the Republicans than from the Democrats. Good luck getting that off the ground with the electoral college and the influence of money the way things are today.

I'm from Louisiana and I'm not saddened to see this at all. It's the god damned truth. Just try taking a road trip down there some time.

Well if you sort the states by per-capita income and compare electoral votes in the last election:

* Top 25 states 213 D / 52 R

* Bottom 25 states 11 D / 252 R

so it might seem like there's believable evidence that red states are behind and it correlates with political affinity.

If you adjust incomes for cost of living, the notion of which states are "behind" has much less correlation to political voting patterns. Here's a comparison from the Bureau of Economic Analysis: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/10/05/which-stat...

According to this comparison, after accounting for cost of living the average Arkansas resident has more disposable income than the average Californian. Having lived in both states, I agree with this (but my friends in California can't fathom this).

There was an interesting analysis a while back that showed US states and presented which ones contributed the most federal taxes, and which received the most federal aid -- and then showed that breakdown according to political affiliation.

From what I recall, many of the "red" (majority Republican) states receive significantly more federal aid than they contribute in taxes, and many "blue" (majority Democrat) states contribute much more than they receive. I can't find the exact analysis I'm thinking of, but here are some articles with similar data:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-s...

> The reddest states on that map at the top—Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine—have exceptionally high poverty rates and thus receive disproportionately large shares of federal dollars. Through a variety of social programs, the federal government disburses hundreds of billions of dollars each year [...]

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens...

> As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes.

> Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. [...] Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/

Yep. The Democratic states not only enjoy diminished influence through a representation sham, they're also forced to finance bad ideas & issues that are morally diametric to their own. This is really a story as old as time when you think about it in that light, it's a powder keg.

It's not surprising that the poorest states would both pay the least taxes and receive the most welfare, that's just the way the math works, regardless of anything else about them.

That Business Insider link directly contradicts the Tax Foundation numbers. Business Insider puts North Dakota and Virginia near the top, but the Tax Foundation puts them at the bottom.

Don't forget that we are all subsidising the states with high state and local taxes via the federal tax deduction. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-deduct...

> That Business Insider link directly contradicts the Tax Foundation numbers. Business Insider puts North Dakota and Virginia near the top, but the Tax Foundation puts them at the bottom.

That is because the Tax Foundation is (rightly) looking at Federal aid that hits state budgets while Business Insider us making the mistake so many others do of totalling Federal spending. It is not accurate to claim a state where the government chose to site a national lab or a bunch of military bases (or where the actual organs of government I are spilling into, like Virginia and Maryland) is receiving "welfare" from the Federal government.

Your comment was reasonable until you called him "commander in shit-the-bed". I'd suggest holding back on that kind of rhetoric if you want people to consider your opinion.

It's unfortunate that you're downvoted. Civility is of the utmost importance, especially when the command in chief has so little of it, publicly.

It's a way to build bridges, and when we're talking about states separating, that's especially important.

Civility is very important, but it is not of the utmost importance. I'm being pedantic, but not in the linguistic sense; when you're faced with existential threats or severe attacks upon one's moral principles, then it's appropriate and sometimes even necessary to express anger.

Suppose, for examples, that the allegations swirling around DC these days are well-founded and the administration has been lured or willingly entered into being co-opted by a hostile foreign foreign power. For all the jokes over glowing orbs and handshakes, there's a strong argument that the post WW2 international political consensus is under deliberate attack designed to create strategic instability.

If you're a student of history, this is deeply worrying, and there's a small but realistic chance of the US sliding into autocracy and a similar chance of a third world war breaking out in the coming years. Not every conflict can be solved by polite engagement and mutual understanding. If you are dealing with a bad actor who does not subscribe to your moral calculus, then putting civility above all else can mean putting yourself at a significant strategic disadvantage.

surely you are aware of the increase in racially and politically motivated violence across the country. I can readily direct you to prominent political figures with significant public followings who are openly advocating ethnic genocide within the US; nazis, to put it bluntly. IT is facile and dangerous to sugarcoat things for the sake of preserving a superficial tranquility.

I'm not defending the crude comment above, but asking you to take a little time out to evaluate your political norms and mores while you have the space in which to do so, lest you find yourself taken by surprise by future events.

Don't think you should be dv'd either. We need to remember to respect the office even when we don't respect the person.

Eventually "our person" will once again hold the office of POTUS and we'll need it to be a respectable position of power.

That sentiment hasn't been the norm for at least 8 years. Obama was highly disrespected.

could work out that way...I can see a similar alliance on things like healthcare, education..etc...of course civil rights could be a complicating factor.

S&P, Moody's Downgrade Illinois to Near Junk, Lowest Ever for U.S. State https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-01/illinois-...

At the state-level, Illinois has the fewest government employees per 1000 citizens. Source: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-ap-data-states-shed...

Our medicaid costs are below the national average. Per-capita education costs are also some of the lowest (at the state level - IL depends heavily on local property taxes)

Our Republican governor has been unable to cut any state-level waste for that very reason: The entire state government is already runs lean.

We're in a budget mess because of pension obligations, not because we're a bunch of hippie spendthrifts.

> We're in a budget mess because of pension obligations

Let me guess, that's also the fault of the Republicans.

I know it sounds nuts, but why not merge into Canada? Just get Oregon on board and you are golden.

It's unconstitutional and would trigger a second civil war? The federal position on the secession question has been pretty affirmatively settled: "no."

Quite a few conservatives have been planning a second civil war anyway due to demographic anxiety about whites no longer having an absolute popular majority, and their goal is to instead establish a majority white ethnostate founded on hardline religious principles. I'm not being hyperbolic here, and will happily supply you with abundant academically rigorous documentation of this. It's not a fringe movement either, but one of national scope and ambition that has been following a gameplan first developed in the 1980s.

Now, I don't expect the western states to secede any time soon, but by 'soon' I mean within the next 5 years. A breakup of the US is fairly unlikely, but large-scale civil unrest is a significant and real possibility.

There is a distressingly large portion of the country that would love to see California leave the us. (Or Kansas or Texas or New York).

Wouldn't a constitutional amendment resolve this?

Sure, but if the point of separation is to resolve a crisis where two sides can't agree I don't see how you'd get them to pass the one piece of legislation that requires the ultra-highest bar of consensus, across both the state and federal levels of government.

A group leaving the country doesn't give 2 shits about the constitution. It comes down to how much you are willing to fight for it, and both sides would end up with nukes.

Mostly because no cost would be seen as too high for maintaining access to the Pacific. Also, the Pacific Coast and Sierra Nevada range are crucial elements of US defense strategy. The US also has some substantial military bases and accompanying sympathetic populations in CA, especially in the San Diego area.

Seems like these problems are solvable. Give the USA some corridors to the Pacific, going through low density areas. Keep the military bases and a unified defense strategy; California can pay USA for defense. US has military bases in lots of countries; why not in California?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor

We'll trade you Alberta for the West Coast. I know, you're probably telling yourself "This is a terrible deal! Cali has a bigger population and economy than all of Canada!" But just remember, we helped you score Alaska for dirt cheap, so you owe us one.

Because states can't leave the Union.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among..."

I mean, I really want us as a country to follow the agreement, but not so badly that I want to dissolve the entirety of the United States and legally unravel our entire country over it. This, IMO, is not Civil War-worthy.

Would anyone be under any illusion that an armed US retaliation against the Pacific Northwest joining Canada would be anything other than just an invasion.

"... it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted.

Ie, Civil War.

I'm not sure why it hasn't happened before. We've built this patriotism about our specific borders as if that's the thing that holds us together...when in reality our borders are the result of a crazy delusional idea called Manifest Destiny from the 1800s. Californians have about as much in common with Alabamians as they do with Australians.

From a purely pragmatic perspective we should probably break up the US anyway. Our political divisions have gridlocked progress basically to the point of no return. We're basically legislating and repealing the same damn things every couple of years.

> Californians have about as much in common with Alabamians as they do with Australians.

Californians in Redding have about as much in common with Californians in San Francisco as Californians in Crescent City have in common with Californians in San Diego as... oh wait. I suggest you spend a little more time traveling around CA before you form such an absurd opinion about these mythical "Californians."

I grew up in Stockton, I know precisely how diverse California is.

Now I'm just plain confused -- how could somebody who grew up in the Central Valley and regularly saw trucks with confederate flags feel that Californians are some bloc that are so dissimilar from Alabamans? I'd argue that San Franciscans are way, way closer to Sydneysiders than Alabamans, but that's besides the point and misunderstands what sets the US apart from other commonwealth nations culturally. While in some ways there are huge differences, there is a common vein.

Because it has practically nothing to do with our political divide (you can find left and right anywhere in the world) and everything to do with geography and how it shapes the things we care about.

For example, find me an Alabamian who cares about how the Oroville Dam situation is resolved. Or whether California regulates housing growth at the state level instead of the city level. About how to fund or build CHSRA. Or how to preserve Sierra Nevada forests from climate change and pestilence. Or even how to build sidewalks in suburban Merced.

These things materially and significantly affect Californians, but Alabamians and Australians honestly couldn't give a fuck. But for Californians they get drowned out, both financially and in mindshare, by things that are of far less consequence. We send the majority of our taxes into to the federal ether, never to be heard from or seen again, and it should be the other way around.

Show me a government that is successful, prosperous, and popular with its people, and I'll show you one that is limited in geographic scope.

You're right about your overall point of the common vein, but your statement about Stockton seems a bit uncharitable. I lived in Stockton for 3 years and never noticed all the trucks with confederate flags. Sure, it was 20 years ago but I can't recall even one such truck.

Not in the urban centers at the bottom of the valley, but in the Sierra Nevada and its foothills. You're way less likely to encounter people like that in the Bay Area or around LA.

> I'm not sure why it hasn't happened before.

It has been tried before, but the results weren't great.

It's unfortunately more about rural vs urban as others have pointed out. Ian Buruma's "Occidentalism" which is my favorite nonfiction book does an amazing job analyzing that situation in very terse and well researched form.

The difference between Californians and Alabamians is more in line with the difference between Urban vs Rural. You will find similar differences within the UK, Australia, Germany and basically every other advanced country.

Patriotism is barely related to any borders, but the culture of a group of people snapshotted in time. Unfortunately, so much tension in the world comes from reality and cultural fluidity outpacing any snapshot.

The blue states go on to prosper and the red states languish.

The inverse of Atlas Shrugged, as it were.

I doubt it gets that far, but it really does seem like something needs to change. The country doesn't necessarily need to shift as far left as california, but right not a set of old laws working with the modern shift towards cities is really reducing the power of a vote in CA/NY. That's a pretty big problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com