Let's use this Op-ed as a starting point to discuss California secession (or other secession you like). I support a Union of CA (I am in CA) and NV, so we can still have Lake Tahoe and the Casinos! Also, do you think a war will happen if CA secedes? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/o...tml?ex=1171861200&en=c941148dc495bf10&ei=5070 Op-Ed Contributor California Split By GAR ALPEROVITZ Published: February 10, 2007 Washington SOMETHING interesting is happening in California. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger seems to have grasped the essential truth that no nation — not even the United States — can be managed successfully from the center once it reaches a certain scale. Moreover, the bold proposals that Mr. Schwarzenegger is now making for everything from universal health care to global warming point to the kind of decentralization of power which, once started, could easily shake up America’s fundamental political structure. Governor Schwarzenegger is quite clear that California is not simply another state. “We are the modern equivalent of the ancient city-states of Athens and Sparta,” he recently declared. “We have the economic strength, we have the population and the technological force of a nation-state.” In his inaugural address, Mr. Schwarzenegger proclaimed, “We are a good and global commonwealth.” Political rhetoric? Maybe. But California’s governor has also put his finger on a little discussed flaw in America’s constitutional formula. The United States is almost certainly too big to be a meaningful democracy. What does “participatory democracy” mean in a continent? Sooner or later, a profound, probably regional, decentralization of the federal system may be all but inevitable. A recent study by the economists Alberto Alesina of Harvard and Enrico Spolaore of Tufts demonstrates that the bigger the nation, the harder it becomes for the government to meet the needs of its dispersed population. Regions that don’t feel well served by the government’s distribution of goods and services then have an incentive to take independent action, the economists note. Scale also determines who has privileged access to the country’s news media and who can shape its political discourse. In very large nations, television and other forms of political communication are extremely costly. President Bush alone spent $345 million in his 2004 election campaign. This gives added leverage to elites, who have better corporate connections and greater resources than non-elites. The priorities of those elites often differ from state and regional priorities. James Madison, the architect of the United States Constitution, understood these problems all too well. Madison is usually viewed as favoring constructing the nation on a large scale. What he urged, in fact, was that a nation of reasonable size had advantages over a very small one. But writing to Jefferson at a time when the population of the United States was a mere four million, Madison expressed concern that if the nation grew too big, elites at the center would divide and conquer a widely dispersed population, producing “tyranny.” Few Americans realize just how huge this nation is. Germany could fit within the borders of Montana. France is smaller than Texas. Leaving aside three nations with large, unpopulated land masses (Russia, Canada and Australia), the United States is geographically larger than all the other advanced industrial countries taken together. Critically, the American population, now roughly 300 million, is projected to reach more than 400 million by the middle of this century. A high Census Bureau estimate suggests it could reach 1.2 billion by 2100. If the scale of a country renders it unmanageable, there are two possible responses. One is a breakup of the nation; the other is a radical decentralization of power. More than half of the world’s 200 nations formed as breakaways after 1946. These days, many nations — including Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Italy and Spain, just to name a few — are devolving power to regions in various ways. Decades before President Bush decided to teach Iraq a lesson, George F. Kennan worried that what he called our “monster country” would, through the “hubris of inordinate size,” inevitably become a menace, intervening all too often in other nations’ affairs: “There is a real question as to whether ‘bigness’ in a body politic is not an evil in itself, quite aside from the policies pursued in its name.” Kennan proposed that devolution, “while retaining certain of the rudiments of a federal government,” might yield a “dozen constituent republics, absorbing not only the powers of the existing states but a considerable part of those of the present federal establishment.” Regional devolution would most likely be initiated by a very large state with a distinct sense of itself and aspirations greater than Washington can handle. The obvious candidate is California, a state that has the eighth-largest economy in the world. If such a state decided to get serious about determining its own fate, other states would have little choice but to act, too. One response might be for an area like New England, which already has many regional interstate arrangements, to follow California’s initiative — as it already has on some environmental measures. And if one or two large regions began to take action, other state groupings in the Northwest, Southwest and elsewhere would be likely to follow. A new wave of regional devolution could also build on the more than 200 compacts that now allow groups of states to cooperate on environmental, economic, transportation and other problems. Most likely, regional empowerment would be popular: when the Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965, senators from across the country rushed to demand commissions to help the economies and constituencies of their regions, too. Governor Schwarzenegger may not have thought through the implications of continuing to assert forcefully his “nation-state” ambitions. But he appears to have an expansive sense of the possibilities: this is the governor, after all, who brought Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain to the Port of Long Beach last year to sign an accord between California and Britain on global warming. And he may be closer to the mark than he knows with his dream that “California, the nation-state, the harmonious state, the prosperous state, the cutting-edge state, becomes a model, not just for the 21st-century American society, but for the larger world.”
We provoked and fought a war to get it, we'll do the same to keep it. A large and growing portion of what keeps this country smarter (Tech sector), cooler (entertainment industry) and richer than the rest of world is in California; the rest of the country couldn't handle that loss of global influence (or subservience to it with such proximity to the remaining Union), let alone the accompanying economic and tax base. I also think conservative Southerners harbor some latent desire for "payback" for the Civil War. That being said, I do commend the pro-active nature of big-state Governors and big-city mayors to do Federal-type activities, but only as a practical matter rather than in accordance with some broader concept of states' rights.
More possible would be California splitting up into different states. There's a bit of North South rivalry. Norcal thinks we leech their water. Socal people don't seem to care.
By the way, you will also miss our wine and fruits. Believe it or not, agriculture is the largest industry in CA. As to whether there will be a war, I think if it happens it will be an even match. NY,MA and the like are most likely going to secede together with CA. Ideologically speaking, they will both be sympathetic to CA. Basically, we have that Jesusland vs United States of Canada scenario. Very even match-up but that also means the war will be extremely costly. I think the question is: in this day and age, would people really risks total war should the secession is supported by popular referendum like Quebec? As to state initiatives, of course each state should try to pursue its own initiatives. But then there is a limit to that. And the point of federalism is to make the big states sponsor the small states. The big states will always be tempted to secede. I don't think it will happen in the near future. But say when California grows to 30% of US's GDP, then there will be a huge incentive for CA to secede. 2005 CA GDP is 1.622T (13% of US GDP), growth rate from 2004 is 6.8% 2005 US GDP is 12.455T, growth rate from 2004 is 6% At this rate, it takes 111 years to reach 30% of US GDP, 87 years to reach 25% and 57 years to reach 20%.
That seems to be a good idea to keep CA in the Union. Then CA will have four votes in the Senate and its interest is better represented.
I think that's what the middle America and states around Louisiana think. But people on the coasts are more open-minded. Plus, we don't like the politicians from TX anyway.
I suppose they are too far back for people nowadays. People think more about the Bushes and also the representatives and senators who support Bush's policies unconditionally. TX is also now the home of the Big Oil. Its politics in the foreseeable future will be pretty similar to what we have now.
Very interesting topic ~ it's only a matter of time before the US splinters. If there is a massive economic collapse on one coast that is dragging down the economies of the states across the nation that is when it will happen. Of course this is still more than a century away.
You're inflating the importance of 46 yrs of electoral and congressional votes over that of 230 years of military and political history. The respective home states of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, the largest contributor of troops to the Revolutionary, Civil and two World Wars will not leave the union because of Emissions standards, National Healthcare and Abortion Rights (all of which I support). One of the reasons Congress has a Democratic majority is because they suspended their regional ideologies to deal with a national issue: the War on Iraq. Can you spot the made-up factoid in this post?
Of course, the author is just using Cal as a rhetorical device, but I get so sick of this from Californians or any other state, including Texas. Let's look at CA... Where would they be without Colorado River water and the massive water infrastructure put in place by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Feds? The fields would still be deserts and the water supply of SoCal wouldn't come close to what they need. Heck, even with the water, the fields would probably still be deserts without Federal farm assistance. Where would Cal be without Defense and Tech dollars (NASA, University grants, etc,) from the Feds? Where would Cal be without Interstate highways? How about energy? Malibu property values would certainly go downhill if the nation of CA had to put drilling rigs off the coast. Not to mention the enormous Fed infrastructure put in place to deliver electricity from the PNW to CA. While we're at it, let's have CA take over everything from earthquake monitoring to disaster response. I'm sure they could manage just fine by themselves when a big one hits LA. You can quote tax dollar distribution stats that show CA probably sends more out then they take in over the recent years, but there can be no question that the wealth of CA owes a huge amount to being part of the US and if they were to split, they would crumble just as fast. Now, I don't have that much of a problem with the central thesis of the article... I do think we will have to devolve some things, but the devil is in the details. I do know that any talk about any state leaving the union is absurd.
What you said might be true but that doesn't mean the Californians can't figure out anything after they secede. They can always to trade to get water and energy. Japan also has very little resource but it can still support a 125mil population in a size a bit smaller than CA. To say that CA can't thrive on itself is quite preposterous. As to disaster response, it is obvious you won't get much help from the Feds based on the Katrina fiasco. Still, the core of this matter is that CA gets less money from Fed than it contributes. This situation will worsen as long as CA is growing faster than the nation as a whole. At a certain point, the need to secede will be great enough to make it a reality.
Since we are on this topic already, does anyone know if California Republic and Texas Republic were valid governments with popular support? Or were they a ploy like Hawaiian Republic such that the United States could annex them?
I thought that's what the House was for; not to mention the fact that Texas and Florida, then New York and Pennsylvania, and then Illinois would all try to do the same thing a day later. Then Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands woud be all pissed.
Yes to both being ploys, but Cali was declared independent for less than a year and their efforts were wholly provoked and absorbed by U.S. in the overarching war with Mexico. Texas was around long enough to develop enough internal political strife (remember the state capital battle between Houston and Austin?) to be considered a legitimate sovereign state. They also founded the oldest law-enforcement agency in the country: the Texas Rangers.
I'll retract my original assessment about both being ploys: Texas was a suspected ploy, partly because of the belief that Sam Houston had spoken with President Jackson about colonizing Texas (even though he was by no means the sole or even driving force behind Texas Independence, just the starting QB at game time.)
