NPR: Far right regions wish to split from Liberal States

[Iroscato]

These disgruntled people can refocus their energies on getting more sovereignty for Indian nations within America; you know, the groups with actual reason for being disgruntled.

Sigged in three, two, one...

[Rogue 9]

Simon, it can totally happen, so long as Congress and the State Legislature involved agree.

Which isn't going to happen. The legislature as a whole is unlikely to want to cut up its territory and the Senate is likely to take a dim view of packing itself.

It's...already happened? More than once?

Maine is a rather obvious special case (it's geographically separated from Massachusetts, of which it used to be a part, by several other states), and West Virginia was split off in the middle of the goddamn Civil War, obviously without the permission of the Confederate state legislature, by a rump loyalist legislature composed only of representatives from the mountain counties that were split off and a federal government desperate to regain territory as rapidly as possible.

[Terralthra]

Maine was discontiguous when it split, but contiguous at first. Kentucky also petitioned to separate from Virginia in the 1790s. Vermont was formed out of New York and New Hampshire. It's not without precedent.

Aside from which, any "packing the Senate" by splitting a state into Republican and Democratic sections would be mutual, since before the state would've been in play to elect either 2R, 2D, or 1R1D, and now the two states would (presumably) have 2R+2D.

[Simon_Jester]

Maine was discontiguous when it split, but contiguous at first. Kentucky also petitioned to separate from Virginia in the 1790s. Vermont was formed out of New York and New Hampshire. It's not without precedent.

Suffice to say that there's a reason it hasn't happened consensually in 200 years. The creation of those states was largely the result of settling conflicting land claims between the 13 colonies, whose original claim borders resulted from Crown grants which were sometimes silly (i.e. Massachusetts theoretically having a right to land stretching clear across to the Pacific), and sometimes mutually contradictory or impractical (i.e. expecting a state to effectively govern an area a thousand miles across, straddling a mountain range, before railroads and telegraphs).

That hasn't been an issue since 1800 or so. It was a hot-button topic at the time, but not applicable to current conditions.

Aside from which, any "packing the Senate" by splitting a state into Republican and Democratic sections would be mutual, since before the state would've been in play to elect either 2R, 2D, or 1R1D, and now the two states would (presumably) have 2R+2D.

Hm. That's an interesting point, I hadn't thought of it that way. Nevermind then.

[Silver Jedi]

Aside from which, any "packing the Senate" by splitting a state into Republican and Democratic sections would be mutual, since before the state would've been in play to elect either 2R, 2D, or 1R1D, and now the two states would (presumably) have 2R+2D.

Not necessarily. To use the example of California, currently both of their senators are Democrats (Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer); they haven't had a republican in either position in two decades.

If they allowed a conservative chunk to break away in the north, the only effect it would have on the senate is adding two more republican senators.

[Raw Shark]

Maine is a rather obvious special case (it's geographically separated from Massachusetts, of which it used to be a part, by several other states) [snip]

Much as they might like to believe in their own superfuckingglibertarianawesomeness, New Hampshire is really just one state, which you can drive straight from Massachusetts to Maine through.

[energiewende]

So once again the answer to disputes is "SECESSION!"

What's so bad about that? Everyone gets what they want, and the states will still be part of the USA, so it's not like they're parasiting defence spending or something.

If the US had simply amended the constitution to prohibit slavery and otherwise fully endorsed States' Rights, most of these modern day disputes would not be disputes at all. The coasts could become European-style social democracies, the centre and Texas could become more traditionally American market liberal states with minimal safety nets, and people could move freely between the two as according to their wishes. Tolerance could prevail, and no one needs to fight winner-takes-all battles at a national level and crush the other side utterly merely to preserve their preferred way of life.

[Terralthra]

Energiewende, is your position that the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery?

[energiewende]

No, my position is that after the war the reason the war was fought (slavery) became only one influence on the settlement, which also included damaging centralization of power that was unnecessary merely to outlaw slavery. Federalism is a good idea, once the basic rights such as freedom of person and movement are protected. The US Constitution even already did that; the only change necessary was to start counting blacks as people, and that's all that should have been done.

[Simon_Jester]

I submit that the US would have been disastrously weakened by such an arrangement. I suspect that in the modern world, we'd be a loose-knit confederation consisting of a few fully modern regions, plus a rural 'heartland' where economic conditions looked about like, oh, Brazil.

[energiewende]

Why? The internal states actually favour better policies for growth than the coasts. Their geography isn't as good for high population concentration, but the tendancy would probably be for people to successively migrate from high tax, overregulated urban centres to new frontiers where business is more competitive and funding a house and family is cheaper. Which is what happened in California a decade or two ago. Now it's happening in Texas, the Paciic North West, and a couple of other places.

If the opposite happened people simply move out of the hinterland into the cities, until the electorate in the hinterland is sufficiently changed.

Also is 'disastrously weakened' meant to be hyperbole - even if this did destroy the flyover states they're not exactly the prime contributors to US wealth and power (which, in the view of most on this board, is not beneficial to humanity anyway).

[Broomstick]

You do realize that the "flyover states" are the major agricultural regions of the US? Yes, California's Central Valley is an exception, but the grain and the meat don't grow there, they grow in flyover country. "Destroying" them is definitely going to affect the rest of the country in a negative fashion. Flyover country provides the bulk of food calories to the rest of the US.

Flyover country also contains some major urban centers like Chicago... not an insignificant contribution to the nation. The entire state of Texas, which, although highly flawed from my view politically, is also a bit important, containing about 1/4 of the US petroleum deposits. Most of the nation's mines are in flyover country. Or don't you think natural resources are important to a nation's wealth and power?

Once again you arrogantly make stupid statements demonstrating your ignorance of the US.

[energiewende]

Yes I was aware of that. Agriculture contributes 1.2% of the US GDP.

Illinois isn't one of those far right states. Texas would be a real loss, but US would still be the world's most powerful country without Texas.

But, before we go down another rabbit hole, my principal argument is that the original claim is absurd, even opposite of true. What you're latched onto is an "Even if I grant all your mistaken claims it still doesn't show...", which is necessarily unfairly favourable to his premise to start with. I am not going to discuss this for half a dozen pages.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Right. Not now. But what if the non-violence gets them nowhere? Are they just going to stay put and keep whining or escalate it?

The right wing extremists tend to skew towards being old, rich, or both; not groups that are very prone to personally going out and being violent. Such demographics are the sort that send other people out to do the fighting and the dying; but the extreme Right is presently lacking in young males, the sort who generally serve as cannon fodder. So large scale violence is unlikely.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see more isolated incidents of violence though. Another Timothy McVeigh type setting off bombs, or some small "militia" compound shooting up cops.

[Simon_Jester]

Why? The internal states actually favour better policies for growth than the coasts.

1) That is an article of faith on your part.
2) In the prolonged absence of federal subsidies these states would have drastically poorer economies
3) Go back far enough, and most of them were economically dependent on small elites who export natural resources or cash crops.

Seriously, look at the regions that the former Confederate states were in competition with for cotton export prior to the American Civil War. India? Egypt? These are not exactly modern economic giants, because let's face it, cash crop export is not a winning strategy for building up a strong 20th century economy. And like it or not, the power blocs that live within these regions tended to enable such non-winning strategies, even after the Civil War.

If we somehow removed the role of the federal government entirely, this part of the country would tend to have longstanding disadvantages, caused by decades of poorly funded education and facilities.

I'd expect that Texas would be a textbook example of a petrostate, and much of the Deep South would be a backwater still struggling to get power and phone lines into rural areas- with blacks still being second or third-class citizens effectively unable to vote, and with politics still being dominated by plantation aristocrats and their heirs who would still be groaning about how things had never been the same after the boll weevil took over.

How the Great Plains states turn out would be something of a tossup.

Their geography isn't as good for high population concentration, but the tendancy would probably be for people to successively migrate from high tax, overregulated urban centres to new frontiers where business is more competitive and funding a house and family is cheaper. Which is what happened in California a decade or two ago. Now it's happening in Texas, the Paciic North West, and a couple of other places.

If it were that simple, people would all move to, say, Brazil. It's not a wartorn place, costs of living are exceedingly low relative to the developed world, and so on... but it turns out that most people who live in a fully developed place don't want to move to a place that is not developed or underdeveloped. Federal transfer payments, and the advantages of being locked into the larger tariff-free trading zone that is the United States, have done a lot to ensure that the more rural states of this country didn't fall behind and become underdeveloped over the course of the 20th century.

Corporations may love to move to places with lower taxes, but they don't like moving to places where a large fraction of the population can't read. That sort of thing.

Also is 'disastrously weakened' meant to be hyperbole - even if this did destroy the flyover states they're not exactly the prime contributors to US wealth and power (which, in the view of most on this board, is not beneficial to humanity anyway).

Let's just say that I think it would be a very bad choice as a nation for the US to effectively have a third-world "autonomous region" in the middle of itself, created by the poor choices of local governments which needed extensive outside support to get their economies jump-started. Many millions of Americans would be worse off.

[energiewende]

Why? The internal states actually favour better policies for growth than the coasts.

1) That is an article of faith on your part.

As opposed to your assertion that increasing devolution for, say, Iowa would reduce its per capita income to 25% of the current value? That claim is so ridiculous it was an act of charity for me even to bother responding to you.

Anyway, economics is a science of sorts, not like physics, but nor is it just faith. Your claim that development aid amounting to low single digits % of GDP is the difference between Brazil and US economy, and institutions don't matter, is a claim of faith.

[Broomstick]

Yes I was aware of that. Agriculture contributes 1.2% of the US GDP.

Yes, but it feeds not only the US but contributes significantly to feeding a lot of other people. Food isn't a high value item... until there's a shortage. No nation does well if the people can't get sufficient to eat.

Illinois isn't one of those far right states.

Yes, it is. Chicago isn't far right and skews politics considerable due to sheer numbers of people but once you get outside that city Illinois is as red/right/Republican as, say, Indiana next door (which also has a skewed location called "Gary", another big city with blue/left/Democrat majority sitting in flyover country). The presence of a big city in a predominantly red state does have a notable effect.

Texas would be a real loss, but US would still be the world's most powerful country without Texas.

We'd be the most powerful nation if we lost any one state regardless of which one that is. Doesn't mean losing one would be a good thing.

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly, I think losing Texas might be a net win for the US, not in economic statistics but in overall quality of life for everyone else, just because of the political impact. Texas is one of the wellsprings of impractical radicalism in American politics and has been for twenty years.

Why? The internal states actually favour better policies for growth than the coasts.

1) That is an article of faith on your part.

As opposed to your assertion that increasing devolution for, say, Iowa would reduce its per capita income to 25% of the current value? That claim is so ridiculous it was an act of charity for me even to bother responding to you.

Anyway, economics is a science of sorts, not like physics, but nor is it just faith. Your claim that development aid amounting to low single digits % of GDP is the difference between Brazil and US economy, and institutions don't matter, is a claim of faith.

To be fair, drawing a comparison to Brazil is an exaggeration, except perhaps for a few places like Mississippi (which are horrible places as it is, with extensive federal aid).

However, look up the history of things like the Tennessee Valley Authority before you make up your mind. The American South in particular had a very prolonged 19th century, and in many ways never left it until they were pulled out of it by federal ties to the rest of the nation.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

An important distinction to make, energiewende, that you do not seem to be making, is that things would be different if the federal government devolved now after a century of high federal control than if it had never developed in the first place. Places that have benefited from federal influx of money and infrastructure can continue to reap those benefits for some time after federal control is released, but if such influx had never happened, there's no such possibility.