There have been a number of posts and diaries at Daily Kos that focus on the secessionist tendencies within the GOP. They include the connections between Sarah Palin, her husband Todd, and the Alaska Independence Party, and the recent secessionist rants from Texas, including the Governor of Texas. Most of these posts have been derisive; many have been very funny to read. I'd like to suggest, though, that the secessionist leanings in the GOP should be taken with more seriousness. I've been kind of waiting for a more thorough examination of this tendency, but I haven't seen it (I may have overlooked a relevant diary; if so let me know). There is a well developed ideology that supports these secessionist factions in the GOP and I think it would be helpful to become acquainted, at least in passing, with this strain of thought.
If you want to take a good look at the source for the secessionists' views I recommend going over to lewrockwell.com. There is a search function at the bottom of the homepage. Type in "secession" and up comes numerous, hundreds of articles, all justifying secession. I belive that Lew Rockwell, and his website, are a primary source for secessionism in today's GOP. Just today, April 27, there is an article listing books about the theory of secession, a kind of recommended reading list.
The basic view of ideological secessionism is that secession is an inherent right. This is grounded in a stream of Austrian Economic theory as expounded by Murry Rothbard. The view, which I am summarizing as I understand it, is that individuals are autonomous (in the jargon of Austrian theory they are "self-owned") and because of that autonomy no one, and no government, should be allowed to interfere with the autonomous individual's rights, which include the ownership of justly earned property.
Following upon this basic analysis, they argue strongly, and repeatedly, that the South had the right to secede from the Union. Because of this they refer to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression". At this same site, therefore, you can find numerous articles framing the Civil War as an act of invasion and aggression against a legitimate act of secession, along with numerous articles framing Lincoln as a tyrant and aggressor.
There is a basic contradiction, even from a libertarian perspective, in this presentation. Left out of this analysis is that the Confederate States wanted to establish a slave state; that is to say a state in which slavery was legal. If individuals are autonomous, and their rights must not be violated, then what about the rights of those who are enslaved?
Once this point is raised it undermines the basic assumption of ideological secessionism; that people automtically have a right to secede. No one has a 'right' to form a slave state. No one, or group, has the right to form a state the purpose of which is to oppress.
All of this may seem very arcane and abstract, but I am convinced that the basis of secessionism today in the GOP actually has a foundation that those who oppose it should not ignore. It is too easy to paint those who hold secessionist views as cranks; and undoubtedly many of them are. But the rumblings of such a tendency have well-developed ideas behind them and, in my opion, it is best to meet these ideas head on.
For example, the secession of Slovakia from Czechoslovakia took place peacefully and by mutual agreement. It is a good example of a legitimate secession. But Slovakia was not setting up a slave state. Similarly for the secession of Slovenia from the former Yugoslavia. I would argue that the secession of South Ossetia from Georgia may also be an equally legitimate form of secession. Again, in none of these cases are the secessionist bodies attempting to strip others of their legitimate rights, to form slave states, or to enact other forms of oppression.
I'm not sure the same can be said for the contempoary secessionist movements within the GOP. What is it they want to do in their secessionist enclaves? Do they want to exclude Mexicans?, blacks?, gays?, atheists?, etc. Given that many of the essays justifying secessionism also seek to justify the Confederate secession, I think that there are serious reasons to question the legitimacy and goals of such a secessionist undertaking.
The current secessionist movement within the GOP seeks to blur or eliminate the distinction between legitimate secessionist movements and illegitimate movements. For example, they frequently use the American Revolution as a source for their secessionism, but the colonies at that time were suffering under taxation without representation, the military occupation of large cities, such as Boston, and the steady removal of legal rights. None of these apply to the secessionist groups of today.
Take, for example, Alaska secession. Alaska actually is receiving more money from the federal government, per capita, than any other state. It is a net beneficiary of federalism. Texas also receives huge sums from the federation of which it is a part. Neither Alaska nor Texas are excluded from the political process; they are fully represented. The same applies to all the secessionist movement in the U.S.
It is only by declaring that secessionism is some kind of 'absolute right', as Rothbard and his followers do, that these distinctions are allowed to become moot. For the rest of us, though, not blinded by the Austrian Economics ideology, these distinctions are central and allow us to cut through the secession deception.
Jim