Wednesday, October 03, 2007
TRYING TO REOPEN A QUESTION SETTLED IN 1865
American political extremists try to bridge an ideological gulf to hammer out an agenda for secession:
"Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully.
That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence.
"We believe that an independent South, or Hawaii, Alaska, or Vermont would be better able to serve the interest of everybody, regardless of race or ethnicity," said Michael Hill of Killen, Ala., president of the League of the South.
Separated by hundreds of miles and divergent political philosophies, the Middlebury Institute and the League of the South are hosting a two-day Secessionist Convention starting Wednesday in Chattanooga.
They expect to attract supporters from California, Alaska and Hawaii, inviting anyone who wants to dissolve the Union so states can save themselves from an overbearing federal government"
One of the major barriers to gaining momentum toward serious consideration of secession is the inherent lack of political attractiveness of the two groups pushing the idea. They wish a regional audience where their implicit political agenda is less marginalized than the current national one where their philosophy and motives are suspect as...well...tin-foil hat wearing wingnuts.
That being said, most separatist movements probably start that way - with groups trying to leverage relatively greater local acceptance as a wedge to accrue legitimacy vs. the state. For example, the wacky, chauvinistic, quasi-fascist, Pamyat parlayed minor grievances of the Russian majority population into a Russian nationalist wave against the USSR ( and Jews various other ethnic minorities)in the late 1980's.
Pebbles and avalanches.
American political extremists try to bridge an ideological gulf to hammer out an agenda for secession:
"Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully.
That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence.
"We believe that an independent South, or Hawaii, Alaska, or Vermont would be better able to serve the interest of everybody, regardless of race or ethnicity," said Michael Hill of Killen, Ala., president of the League of the South.
Separated by hundreds of miles and divergent political philosophies, the Middlebury Institute and the League of the South are hosting a two-day Secessionist Convention starting Wednesday in Chattanooga.
They expect to attract supporters from California, Alaska and Hawaii, inviting anyone who wants to dissolve the Union so states can save themselves from an overbearing federal government"
One of the major barriers to gaining momentum toward serious consideration of secession is the inherent lack of political attractiveness of the two groups pushing the idea. They wish a regional audience where their implicit political agenda is less marginalized than the current national one where their philosophy and motives are suspect as...well...tin-foil hat wearing wingnuts.
That being said, most separatist movements probably start that way - with groups trying to leverage relatively greater local acceptance as a wedge to accrue legitimacy vs. the state. For example, the wacky, chauvinistic, quasi-fascist, Pamyat parlayed minor grievances of the Russian majority population into a Russian nationalist wave against the USSR ( and Jews various other ethnic minorities)in the late 1980's.
Pebbles and avalanches.
Labels: 4GW, America, extremists, legitimacy, politics, secession, state failure
¶ 10:10 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Interesting. Most ardent secessionists I've talked to here in VT are hardcore libertarian.
I think another great obstacle to this movement gaining any momentum is the feasibility. Some months ago I contacted the director of Vermont Commons [1] and asked for a detailed account of just how in terms of economics, infrastructure, security, etc. Vermont could realistically attain independence. His response was an invitation to read his newsletter. In other words "dig for it!"
Most of what I found were reasons why Vermont should secede and little on how Vermont could secede. What I did find on the how looked a bit like this[2]:
"Could Vermont survive economically as an independent nation-state?
Unquestionably. Of the 200 or so independent nation-states in the world, 50 of them have a smaller population than Vermont’s 620,000. Five of the ten richest countries in the world as measured by per capita income are smaller than Vermont: Liechtenstein, Iceland, Luxembourg, Bermuda, and Cayman Islands. Independence does not mean economic or political isolation. Over 600 Vermont firms export nearly 24 percent of the state’s gross state product. We see no reason why this should change after independence."
A bit vague.
1. http://www.vtcommons.org/
2. http://www.vtcommons.org/faq
I think another great obstacle to this movement gaining any momentum is the feasibility. Some months ago I contacted the director of Vermont Commons [1] and asked for a detailed account of just how in terms of economics, infrastructure, security, etc. Vermont could realistically attain independence. His response was an invitation to read his newsletter. In other words "dig for it!"
Most of what I found were reasons why Vermont should secede and little on how Vermont could secede. What I did find on the how looked a bit like this[2]:
"Could Vermont survive economically as an independent nation-state?
Unquestionably. Of the 200 or so independent nation-states in the world, 50 of them have a smaller population than Vermont’s 620,000. Five of the ten richest countries in the world as measured by per capita income are smaller than Vermont: Liechtenstein, Iceland, Luxembourg, Bermuda, and Cayman Islands. Independence does not mean economic or political isolation. Over 600 Vermont firms export nearly 24 percent of the state’s gross state product. We see no reason why this should change after independence."
A bit vague.
1. http://www.vtcommons.org/
2. http://www.vtcommons.org/faq
A good alternate history novel could be written on the premise of the 1787 constitution being rejected and the articles of confederation remaining the law of the land. perhaps that would have led to a early civil war, or a series of civil wars?
Hi Sub,
I'm a moderate libertarian on most economic and domestic matters, I simply don't write about those topics much. However, Hard-core anarcho-capitalist libertarians seem wingnutty even to me.
hi A.E.
The ratification of the Constitution was a near thing. Several states could have gone their own way very easily.
Post a Comment
I'm a moderate libertarian on most economic and domestic matters, I simply don't write about those topics much. However, Hard-core anarcho-capitalist libertarians seem wingnutty even to me.
hi A.E.
The ratification of the Constitution was a near thing. Several states could have gone their own way very easily.
<< Home
