My long lost diary from yesterday chronicled some articles that cover discussions about secession of California for Blue People and South Carolina for Red People. So I'm recreating it, and have added some further information on legal opinion around the subject.
The idea proposed by idealists on both sides is that utopias can be created by simply seceding from the Union. In the case of the west coast, we would supposedly have a liberal utopia, and in the case of South Carolina, we would supposedly have a Christian fundamentalist utopia.
Both ideas are naive, and underscore a devolution in our ability to conduct politcal discourse. Like a child who grabs his/her marbles and runs home to mommy when he/she loses, the political equivalent are the secession proponents. These folks have even gone so far as to set up 527's for the purpose of taking their marbles and going "home".
But history has proven it will not work. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and a Red Utopia or Blue Utopia would in fact serve to further polarize rather than to foster a more perfect union.
More after the fold.
Before proceeding further, if you want to read the articles I referenced above you can find them:
Article on South Carolina secession from WISTV in South Carolina:
One man says he has the answer and his name is Cory Burnell, "The particular reason we've looked at this strategy is that we've come to the conclusion that across the nation, Christian conservatives really are having trouble getting any voice at the national level."
Burnell is the leader of "Christian Exodus ." It's a group of Christian activists who say the nation is so far off the proper path, they will move to a place where many already share their views, set up a Christian government and possibly, split from the other states.
Burnell says that place is South Carolina, "We looked at Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina because they're all Bible Belt states with Christian conservative electorates. They're relatively small as far as population goes. And then South Carolina has some additional attractions."
And here's similar talk from the Blue folks on the west coast according to the Portand Oregonian newspaper:
"The U.S. is too damn big," he says. "Small countries are best. They don't have armies careening around on the other side of world."
Callenbach points to collaborative governments, such as Oregon's watershed councils, which bring ranchers, environmentalists, recreationists and Native Americans together to attempt consensus on contentious issues.
"That kind of thing will grow a lot, no matter who is in office," he says.
And here's something from a 527devoted to the subject:
Even if the prospect of a new nation is never realized this movement will succeed in sending a message to the rest of America that we must stand up to the narrow cultural and religious agenda that has reared its head. California will not be a place where cultural, economic and religious bigotry will dominate the people who want to freely speak, freely live and freely love.
So reading through this, here's the message. If you're a Christian, the government is too liberal, so move to South Carolina and form a Christian nation. If you're a liberal, the government is too Christian, so move to California and form a liberal nation.
As you can see there is a logical fallacy in these positions, in that they can't both co-exist as real positions, yet you can see the comments in black and white. The opposing opinions do co-exist, but the proponents are attempting a "my way or the highway" solution. Democracy doesn't mean getting everything you want, nor does it mean acquiesing completely. It takes work, diplomacy, and a willingness to meet somewhere in the middle.
Okay, lest you remain of the opinion that a Red-Blue secession is the answer, here's a legal opinion on the matter, and it isn't as simple as some are making it out to be:
But the legality of secession nonetheless warrants serious consideration. Understanding why it is not a realistic option will help us understand the sense in which the United States is--for all its divisions--a Union.
As I will explain below, it is settled law that the Constitution does not permit unilateral secession: A state or group of states cannot simply leave the Union over the objections of the national government. However, the arguments that led to this settled understanding are hardly unassailable, and the Constitution is probably best read as permitting the mutually agreed upon departure of one or more states.
-snip-
Perhaps the best argument for Lincoln's view is one that he did not make expressly, but that can fairly be inferred from his general approach: Whatever the status of the states when they entered the Union, they perpetually gave up important attributes of sovereignty in doing so. Among these was--and is--a right of unilateral secession.
In this view, it is significant that Article VII sets out the provision for original ratification, and that Article IV empowers Congress to admit new States, but that no provision of the Constitution authorizes a state to leave the Union. The juxtaposition of what the Constitution says about states entering the Union and what it does not say about them leaving, indicates that the door to the Union swings in but not out.
But this inference is only that, and there was considerable uncertainty about the legality of unilateral secession in the first seven decades following the Constitution's adoption. That uncertainty was put to rest not by the superior strength of the anti-secessionist argument, but by Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox.
The military resolution of the secession question was then given legal force by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1868 case of Texas v. White. The Court ruled there that even Texas--an independent republic before it joined the Union in 1845--had no right to secede. "The Constitution," the Court said, "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."
So there you have it. The answer is to work things out in the political arena in a democratic fashion. IF you don't like the way things are, work to change them, but don't believe for a second that anything is solved by running away.