Ship of Fools: #Calexit

Thread: #Calexit Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020020

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Donald Trump won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote. The people of California, our most populous state, really don't like Donald Trump. On top of that, this is the second time in 20 years that the candidate who won California won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote. Given the way presidential elections are decided in the United States, candidates losing the popular vote but winning the electoral vote may become a more common occurrence in future elections.

The electoral college will not be abolished. What it's opponents see as a bug it's supporters see as a feature. Opponents of the electoral college will not be able to pass a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college for the same reason that they want to abolish the electoral college in the first place. Less populous states are not going to give up power so that people in California and New York can tell them how to live. Not going to happen.

What if California secedes from the union? California has the sixth largest economy in the world. They don't need the rest of the United States. I doubt the red states will try to keep California in the union. Civil War 2 isn't going to happen.

Would Washington and Oregon follow suit? Residents of Washington and Oregon living on the coast are as upset about Trump as Californians. Would all of California, Oregon, and Washington choose to leave? You can almost draw a line through all three states separating the blue from the red. Allowing the red parts of the states to stay in the union would make it easier for the coasts to leave. On the other hand, while fewer people live in the red areas, those areas contain most of the agriculture in the three states. You can't eat iphones. Of course, food can be imported just like everything else.

Is it time to amicably end the union? What the east coast? New York City and the surrounding metropolitan area could make it as a separate nation as well.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

There actually is a procedure for amending the Constitution. Secession? Not so much. So while I'm not holding my breath for an amendment abolishing the Electoral college, I'd give it somewhat higher odds than a massive secession crisis.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'd suggest looking at an atlas. Does anyone really imagine that the rest of the US would sit quietly by while the whole of the Pacific coast seceded, depriving the rest of access to the western seas + Alaska and Hawaii? Perhaps Hawaii might throw in its lot with the seceders, but would Alaska be happy to? And Vladimir Putin took advantage of the situation to grab it back, would the Alaskans be happy with that?

It ain't going to happen.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

There is no mechanism in the Constitution for states to leave the union, so one would have to be worked out. Since Congress has the power to admit new states, it's logical that Congressional approval would be required for one to leave. The Supreme Court ruled shortly after the Civil War that states may not unilaterally leave. I have always been dubious about the possibility that Congress would approve such a thing, but perhaps in the current climate the Republican-led Congress would. I think, though, that even if they were inclined to do so, it would take a very long time to negotiate the terms of our departure, by which point the impetus to leave might have dissipated.

More realistic discussion to me centers around how successful California's various leaders will be in their expressed defiance of federal actions distasteful to us. Will sanctuary cities stand firm if we lose federal funds? Can we keep California Covered (our state health exchange established under the ACA) going without federal subsidies for premiums? One suggestion has been that however much federal taxes are lowered state taxes be raised, in order to pay for things like healthcare. And what will happen in the courts when these disputes reach them? The famously liberal 9th circuit will probably be on our side; the Supreme Court, especially after Trump's pick is sworn in, not so much.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Also, will municipal leaders cave if the federal government goes forward with major infrastructure work?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The problem is that the US needs California. It is one of the bill paying states, the red states might decry Welfare, but they receive more federal tax money than they contribute.
link

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

The US needs all sorts of things people didn't vote for in the last election and aren't going to get! So maybe I should have more hope for #Calexit.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I thought some kind of 'Texit' would be more likely.

I was under the impression that Texas would be the most likely candidate to push for succession, with California, Washington and New York wishing that Texas would get on with it and leave everyone else alone ...

I suspect though, that some of the Mid-Western states aren't in exit mode but in 'Want their cake and eat it' mode.

But then, I'm sure things look very different if you live in Idaho, Nebraska and all those other places the rest of us would find hard to pinpoint on a map.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The US needs all sorts of things people didn't vote for in the last election and aren't going to get! So maybe I should have more hope for #Calexit.

My point was that Congress know where the money comes from and they would not allow California to leave.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There is no mechanism in the Constitution for states to leave the union, so one would have to be worked out. Since Congress has the power to admit new states, it's logical that Congressional approval would be required for one to leave. The Supreme Court ruled shortly after the Civil War that states may not unilaterally leave. I have always been dubious about the possibility that Congress would approve such a thing, but perhaps in the current climate the Republican-led Congress would. I think, though, that even if they were inclined to do so, it would take a very long time to negotiate the terms of our departure, by which point the impetus to leave might have dissipated.

More realistic discussion to me centers around how successful California's various leaders will be in their expressed defiance of federal actions distasteful to us. Will sanctuary cities stand firm if we lose federal funds? Can we keep California Covered (our state health exchange established under the ACA) going without federal subsidies for premiums? One suggestion has been that however much federal taxes are lowered state taxes be raised, in order to pay for things like healthcare. And what will happen in the courts when these disputes reach them? The famously liberal 9th circuit will probably be on our side; the Supreme Court, especially after Trump's pick is sworn in, not so much.

Yes. All this.

I'm actually finding the wildly wishful imaginings going on right now (faithless electors! recounts! calexit!) rather painful. They are expressing the same longing we all (well, most of us) are feeling for things to be different, and are expressions of our deep grief and loss (which seems to be mirroring the 5 stages of grief). But as such, for me personally they're just a continual reopening of a raw, deep wound. I don't know what it will take to heal the deep pain this election has wrought-- perhaps we never will-- but for me personally, the the wish-dream imaginings aren't really helping.

It's going to be very very heavy going for us lefties the next 4 (please God, only 4!) years-- the system is heavily stacked against us. We've got an uphill battle just hanging on to the advances we've gained in the last 8 years. Now is a time to rally our forces, be strong-- and be realistic about what is ahead.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I thought some kind of 'Texit' would be more likely.

I was under the impression that Texas would be the most likely candidate to push for succession, with California, Washington and New York wishing that Texas would get on with it and leave everyone else alone ...

I suspect though, that some of the Mid-Western states aren't in exit mode but in 'Want their cake and eat it' mode.

But then, I'm sure things look very different if you live in Idaho, Nebraska and all those other places the rest of us would find hard to pinpoint on a map.

Texas has the right temperament for a texit, but is mostly red, so they would have left 8 years ago, not now. Although Austin may want to exit Texas.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Ok, so here is the problem. Trump is inheriting a relatively strong economy, major terrorism is relatively difficult in America; the point is that all he need do is not fuck is too badly.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

If Alaska were to secede from the union--which I gather is often discussed as a possibility in Alaska--it would probably be taken over by one of its neighbors within a few months. I don't assume that would be Russia; it might be Canada, Japan, China, or either of the Koreas.

The problem with Calexit is that California gets
much of its water supply from other western states. If California were to secede, all of that would have to be renegotiated.

Various people have speculated about how to carve up the U.S. into smaller countries. Some parts seem likely: Dixie, Deseret, Hawaii. Other parts
seem more difficult to envision; where would the boundary exist between New England and the Great Lakes states? Would some parts join Canada?

By the way, do you assume these would all be republics? Would Deseret be a theocracy and Hawaii a kingdom?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
There actually is a procedure for amending the Constitution. Secession? Not so much. So while I'm not holding my breath for an amendment abolishing the Electoral college, I'd give it somewhat higher odds than a massive secession crisis.

If necessary, the constitution could be amended to allow secession.

quote:
originally posted by Enoch:
the western seas + Alaska and Hawaii?

Alaska and Hawaii aren't part of the continental US as it is. If Alaska and Hawaii stay part of the union, then the US has access to the Pacific Ocean. Russia only goes to war over Alaska in movies.

quote:
originally posted by RuthW:
More realistic discussion to me centers around how successful California's various leaders will be in their expressed defiance of federal actions distasteful to us.

Perhaps the federal government has too much power and the 10th Amendment needs to be enforced. Of course doing this would also require a new constitutional amendment. I've expressed support for a Notwithstanding Clause being added to the constitution.

quote:
originally posted by lilbuddha:
The problem is that the US needs California. It is one of the bill paying states, the red states might decry Welfare, but they receive more federal tax money than they contribute.
link

See...California can really stick it to the rest of us.

quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was under the impression that Texas would be the most likely candidate to push for succession, with California, Washington and New York wishing that Texas would get on with it and leave everyone else alone ...

Texas tried to leave once and that caused a war. As a compromise, Texas will stay and let California leave in peace. Sounds fair to me.

quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller:
Now is a time to rally our forces, be strong-- and be realistic about what is ahead.

From listening to Nancy Pelosi and following the race for DNC chair, your leaders don't appear very realistic about what is ahead.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Well, let's be honest here. If the election had gone the other way (popular vote to Trump, EC to Clinton) the GOP would be howling. Which is just to say that principle isn't even an issue here; it's the political equivalent of a football game. Policies and platforms be damned, this is all about tribalism and our guy (or gal) versus theirs.

Empty gestures of dissatisfaction (and the Calexit/secession movement is one of them) are useless. Taking to the streets and highways of the Bay Area won't stop Trump from doing a damn thing. But organizing effective political opposition just might.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by lilbuddha:
The problem is that the US needs California. It is one of the bill paying states, the red states might decry Welfare, but they receive more federal tax money than they contribute.
link
See...California can really stick it to the rest of us.

No, they cannot. The states do not have complete say* in how their money is distributed. In practice, the welfare states have more control over California's federal tax dollars than California does.

*If they have any over federal taxes.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Austin may want to exit Texas.

It was a condition of the Texas Annexation that Texas had the right to divide subsequently into as many as five separate states. There is historical precedent in partitioning Maine off from Massachusetts, and in partitioning Kentucky and West Virginia off from Virginia. So if Austin could work it out with the rest of Texas, that would be the most realistic of all these improbable scenarios. But whether the rest of Texas would let Austin secede is another question. They might be tired enough of having to argue with Austinians about everything that they would be willing to consider an amicable divorce.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
There is historical precedent in partitioning Maine off from Massachusetts, and in partitioning Kentucky and West Virginia off from Virginia.

Kentucky is only a half-example. It was partitioned off from Virginia under the Articles of Confederation, not the current U.S. Constitution. It was admitted to the Union, however, under the "new" Constitution.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Would all of California, Oregon, and Washington choose to leave?

Look, they're tectonically drifting towards NZ anyway, so we'll have them. Or if they're not they will be once they've got around the globe the other way.

But our grapes are better than California's.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by lilbuddha:
No, they cannot. The states do not have complete say* in how their money is distributed. In practice, the welfare states have more control over California's federal tax dollars than California does.

Yeah but isn't the claim that red staters are just a bunch of morons who vote against their economic interests all the time? All the smart people in California can play off that ignorance and get us to support Calexit. Congress will bow to popular support. Why not? Not like either party is really concerned about deficits.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Interestingly, as far as I am aware Britain wanted to recognise an independent Texas after the Texans nicked it off the Mexicans ... They wanted access to ports along the Gulf and also thought it would be cool to annoy the existing US states.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There's an interesting map someone's done which effectively divides the USA into 11 distinct cultural regions - and US friends tell me it's broadly accurate in terms of the 'territories' it identifies - and it's not a straight forward red state/blue state thing.

When I have more time I'll find it and post it here.

It has implications for Mexico and Canada too with overlaps with Hispanic and 'First Nation' territories.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Interestingly, as far as I am aware Britain wanted to recognise an independent Texas after the Texans nicked it off the Mexicans ... They wanted access to ports along the Gulf and also thought it would be cool to annoy the existing US states.

Texas was an independent nation from 1836 to 1845. I don't know but I would presume that they had normal diplomatic relations with Britain during those years.

[ 06. December 2016, 19:50: Message edited by: fausto ]

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There's an interesting map someone's done which effectively divides the USA into 11 distinct cultural regions - and US friends tell me it's broadly accurate in terms of the 'territories' it identifies - and it's not a straight forward red state/blue state thing.

When I have more time I'll find it and post it here.

It has implications for Mexico and Canada too with overlaps with Hispanic and 'First Nation' territories.

The idea originated in the 1970's among the reporters and editors of the Washington Post and was presented in a 1981 book by Joel Garreau called The Nine Nations of North America.

Here's a Wikipedia article about it, which includes a map. Here's a clearer map.

The original premise was adapted (some would say plagiarized) in a more recent book by Colin Woodard called American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America. The 11-region map can be found here.

[ 06. December 2016, 20:06: Message edited by: fausto ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Alaska and Hawaii aren't part of the continental US as it is. If Alaska and Hawaii stay part of the union, then the US has access to the Pacific Ocean.

Not if the west coast itself isn't part of the US any more, it hasn't. If the mainland coastline isn't part of the US, Hawaii and Alaska are cut off. They have no access to the US and the US has no access to them.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Alaska and Hawaii aren't part of the continental US as it is. If Alaska and Hawaii stay part of the union, then the US has access to the Pacific Ocean.
Not if the west coast itself isn't part of the US any more, it hasn't. If the mainland coastline isn't part of the US, Hawaii and Alaska are cut off. They have no access to the US and the US has no access to them.

...airplane...

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Not like either party is really concerned about deficits.

Such as unfunded pension liabilities for instance?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Texas was an independent nation from 1836 to 1845. I don't know but I would presume that they had normal diplomatic relations with Britain during those years.

Never presume normal diplomatic relations with breakaway regions, especially in the early years. From Wikipedia:

quote:
The British Empire wanted to maintain its diplomacy with Mexico, thus denying recognition of the Republic of Texas.

The British had a consulate in Houston and Texas had a consulate in London, but it seems like this was more akin to the American Interest Section in Cuba during the embargo. In other words, a pseudo-embassy that could conduct diplomacy without officially recognizing the government it was dealing with.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Texas was an independent nation from 1836 to 1845. I don't know but I would presume that they had normal diplomatic relations with Britain during those years.
Never presume normal diplomatic relations with breakaway regions, especially in the early years. From Wikipedia:

quote:
The British Empire wanted to maintain its diplomacy with Mexico, thus denying recognition of the Republic of Texas.
The British had a consulate in Houston and Texas had a consulate in London, but it seems like this was more akin to the American Interest Section in Cuba during the embargo. In other words, a pseudo-embassy that could conduct diplomacy without officially recognizing the government it was dealing with.

Thanks! I learned something today.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I doubt that California would be allowed to secede or even break into three states. They generate too much money for the rest.

I have been mulling over the likely demise of the ACA when Trump gets in. The problem with a state doing health insurance is that you get a lot of sick people migrating there. I'd like to see California, Oregon and Seattle (and maybe Nebraska) do a regional single payer health insurance. If they're lucky they could join Canada in negotiating Drug prices. And the anti government heroes of the red states could do what ever they want as individuals.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Palimpsest--

Only Seattle? Not the rest of Washington?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re California seceding, etc.:

There's a long-running move to create the state of Jefferson from Southern Oregon and Northern California. (Wikipedia)

The article has internal links to articles about the Cascadia (West Coast) independence movement, secession, and other attempts at new states. The external links section has several from the current Jefferson state devotees.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Alaska and Hawaii aren't part of the continental US as it is. If Alaska and Hawaii stay part of the union, then the US has access to the Pacific Ocean.
Not if the west coast itself isn't part of the US any more, it hasn't. If the mainland coastline isn't part of the US, Hawaii and Alaska are cut off. They have no access to the US and the US has no access to them.
...airplane...

1. That would still involve overflying either one or two potentially non co-operating states.

2. As was shown in 1948-9, even with the ability to overfly, it may be just about possible, but it is difficult to provision an isolated enclave without land or sea access.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I have been mulling over the likely demise of the ACA when Trump gets in. The problem with a state doing health insurance is that you get a lot of sick people migrating there. I'd like to see California, Oregon and Seattle (and maybe Nebraska) do a regional single payer health insurance. If they're lucky they could join Canada in negotiating Drug prices. And the anti government heroes of the red states could do what ever they want as individuals.

Nebraska is about as red as states come. If you are looking for other blue states in the region that might conceivably join this program, you would have to look to New Mexico, Colorado, and Hawaii.

I will say that there is sort of precedent for this kind of thing in the Clean Air Act. There are two sets of vehicle emissions standards- the national standard, and the California standard. States must at least comply with the national standard, but can opt in to the more stringent California standards. It works because California is a large enough market that auto manufacturers will willingly build vehicles that meet the higher standard rather than get cut out of the California market. If it were only Vermont, it would just make it impossible for Vermonters to buy cars.

I had never thought of using the same model for a way of introducing single payer, but it's not a bad idea. I can't see it getting approved in a Trump administration. But if we ever get a Democratic majority back in place, it might be something to consider.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re California seceding, etc.: There's a long-running move to create the state of Jefferson from Southern Oregon and Northern California.

I remember a movement in my youth to create the state of Roosevelt from New York City and the counties that are generally thought of as comprising the New York Metropolitan Area. Nothing ever came of it, though, and I'm probably the only person who remembers it now.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
The idea originated in the 1970's among the reporters and editors of the Washington Post and was presented in a 1981 book by Joel Garreau called The Nine Nations of North America.

Here's a Wikipedia article about it, which includes a map. Here's a clearer map.

The original premise was adapted (some would say plagiarized) in a more recent book by Colin Woodard called American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America. The 11-region map can be found here.

Interestingly, it looks like the Nine Nations of North America was a better predictor for this election than the Eleven Rival Regions, and might explain what happened. The more recent Eleven Regions model treats Michigan, most of Pennsylvania, and urban Wisconsin as the same region as New England, which would put those states squarely into the Democrat's easy win column. As it turns out, they acted as their own region, with the votes going to the guy who apparently had a better message on recreating manufacturing jobs, which is likely what the Nine Nations model would have expected them to do.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Enoch:
2. As was shown in 1948-9, even with the ability to overfly, it may be just about possible, but it is difficult to provision an isolated enclave without land or sea access.

The US has considerable assets based in Japan, Guam, and Hawaii already. Ships could go south just like the British Empire did in the ages of sail and steam. I'm trying to imagine a scenario where this is a problem. Who are we fighting in the Pacific? Let's assume China. Why are we fighting China? Why is Cascadia and Canada dead set on opposing our war efforts? I can't imagine a scenario. In any event, come a conventional war with China, first thing the US would do is seize the Panama Canal. I believe most navy ships can fit through the Panama Canal. Problem solved.

quote:
originally posted by Alt Wally:
Such as unfunded pension liabilities for instance?

There you go. Californians don't want their tax dollars go to paying for red state rednecks. Republicans don't want to be on the hook for California's unfunded pension liabilities. Doesn't matter who has a stronger case. We can make this happen!!!

quote:
originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I had never thought of using the same model for a way of introducing single payer, but it's not a bad idea. I can't see it getting approved in a Trump administration. But if we ever get a Democratic majority back in place, it might be something to consider.

See...that's an argument for more federalism. Blue states get single payer, sanctuary cities, and as stringent a gun laws as they can get passed in the state legislature. Red states can create a social conservatives dream. Truly let the states be labs for democracy. If we remain divided while insisting on a strong central government, the center won't hold. Congress will remain gridlocked. The executive branch will keep getting stronger and stronger. People are already terrified of what Trump will do. What comes after Trump?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Hopefully, not another 4 years of Trump ...

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Palimpsest--

Only Seattle? Not the rest of Washington?

It was a slip, but a lot of eastern Washington is a lot like Idaho. They probably wouldn't like the bump in state tax it would take to pay for this.
If they want to join fine. If they don't... they can do without state interference.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I had never thought of using the same model for a way of introducing single payer, but it's not a bad idea. I can't see it getting approved in a Trump administration. But if we ever get a Democratic majority back in place, it might be something to consider.

I'm not sure you need approval. If they kill ACA and don't get around to doing anything, then the states can and will fund their own programs. I'm sure Big Pharma would buy a few Congressman to prevent states negotiating as a block, but that can probably be outvoted.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Palimpsest--

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Palimpsest--

Only Seattle? Not the rest of Washington?
It was a slip, but a lot of eastern Washington is a lot like Idaho. They probably wouldn't like the bump in state tax it would take to pay for this.
If they want to join fine. If they don't... they can do without state interference.

So it's like taking Austin, but leaving the rest of Texas alone? [Biased]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hopefully, not another 4 years of Trump ...

Trump won't do anything that changes the price of cheese or salt so Cheshire should be just fine.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
the guy who apparently had a better message on recreating manufacturing jobs,

Possibly more effective, but not better.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Palimpsest--
So it's like taking Austin, but leaving the rest of Texas alone?

I fully support the right of Texas to secede despite the fact that their claim that they have the right negotiated when they joined the union is bogus.

I'm fond of General Sherman's comment when he was stationed there; "If I owned hell and I owned Texas I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas."

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Three representatives in the Washington State legislature from Eastern Washington just introduced legislation to divide Washington State into two separate states. The western side of the state generally votes Democrat. The East side generally votes Republican. They want to name the East side "Liberty." They would hope Eastern Oregon would also want to join this new state as well.

[ 09. December 2016, 03:49: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by Enoch:
2. As was shown in 1948-9, even with the ability to overfly, it may be just about possible, but it is difficult to provision an isolated enclave without land or sea access.
The US has considerable assets based in Japan, Guam, and Hawaii already. Ships could go south just like the British Empire did in the ages of sail and steam. I'm trying to imagine a scenario where this is a problem. Who are we fighting in the Pacific? Let's assume China. Why are we fighting China? Why is Cascadia and Canada dead set on opposing our war efforts? I can't imagine a scenario. In any event, come a conventional war with China, first thing the US would do is seize the Panama Canal. I believe most navy ships can fit through the Panama Canal. Problem solved. ...

It's rather more basic than that and it isn't about fighting a war in the Pacific against someone else.

The simple point is that if the Pacific coast of the US seceded, and Hawaii and Alaska did not want to join the secession state, they would be physically cut off from the rump part of the US by the new state. The rump US would be dependent on the goodwill of either the new state or Canada or both. The new state would be quite likely to be hostile, ready to do anything it could to make life for the rump US as difficult as possible. Adjoining states, such as Canada and Mexico, would put their own interests first.

I'm wondering if being born and growing up in a large continent wide single country rather than a continent peppered with small and often acrimonious states might blind one to certain things that are obvious from over here.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Enoch--

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The simple point is that if the Pacific coast of the US seceded, and Hawaii and Alaska did not want to join the secession state, they would be physically cut off from the rump part of the US by the new state. The rump US would be dependent on the goodwill of either the new state or Canada or both. The new state would be quite likely to be hostile, ready to do anything it could to make life for the rump US as difficult as possible. Adjoining states, such as Canada and Mexico, would put their own interests first.

I'm wondering if being born and growing up in a large continent wide single country rather than a continent peppered with small and often acrimonious states might blind one to certain things that are obvious from over here.

...or vice-versa, re the last paragraph...

I don't want the west coast--or any place else--to secede from the US. Maybe Cascadia could be more of a regional organization/alliance, **still made up of individual US states**.

I don't think Cascadia would necessarily be hostile to the remaining US. A lot of ranchers would be thrilled to get the Feds off their backs, I think.

Hostility would be more likely if the US forced us out, or tried to force its way *into* Cascadia after secession, that might well become a shooting war.
[Eek!]

Alaska and Hawai'i are cut off geographically from the "Lower 48" states, *anyway*. People in Cascadia would still want to go to Alaska and Hawai'i, so something would be worked out. And I suspect that modern aircraft can fly farther and more easily than they could 60 years ago, so supplying both A and H by air shouldn't be a huge problem. Then there are sea-going freighters. Trucks and trains to A would have to go through Canada or Cascadia. There might be new tariffs or trade agreements, but it could be worked out.

And the "rump" of the US would continue getting things from all over the world, and most likely would have some sort of trade with Cascadia.

OTOH, if people seceded, and only then realized the practical things they'd lost--Social Security (for retirees, the disabled, surviving children), welfare, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), military protection, school funding, financial aid for college students, etc., there might well be a lot of buyer's remorse.

FWIW.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Your ranchers would also be fed up with the tree-hugging liberals in their new country who also would like to preserve wilderness, not kill off species, etc.
flying supplies would not happen. It would still be cheaper by far to ship goods around your new country, import them from other countries or even Cascadia than fly them.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
OTOH, if people seceded, and only then realized the practical things they'd lost--Social Security (for retirees, the disabled, surviving children), welfare, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), military protection, school funding, financial aid for college students, etc., there might well be a lot of buyer's remorse.

All these things illustrate the difficulty of negotiating an exit for California or the whole west coast. Which is why it isn't going to happen. California is plenty big enough to be a country on its own and manage all of these things for itself. It's the process of getting our Social Security money out of the US, etc, that I can't see ever reaching an agreeable conclusion.

Far more to the point is how much California will be able to go its own way for the next four years within the system we have, given California's divergence from the rest of the country. That's the real question, not whether we're going to exit the union and how that might all work out. Exiting the union is in the realm of alternative fiction - entertaining, but not realistic.

[ 09. December 2016, 14:03: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Three representatives in the Washington State legislature from Eastern Washington just introduced legislation to divide Washington State into two separate states. The western side of the state generally votes Democrat. The East side generally votes Republican. They want to name the East side "Liberty." They would hope Eastern Oregon would also want to join this new state as well.

A group of counties in Northeast Colorado voted on whether to form their own state a few years ago, after they became frustrated at the bluer parts of the state trying to limit energy development. It wasn't entirely clear how they intended to break away, but it became a moot point when the measure went down in a few of the counties. They wanted to be called "North Colorado," but the rest of the state joked that we would only let them go if they re-branded as "South Nebraska."

This kind of thing is also likely the stuff of alternative reality only.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Three representatives in the Washington State legislature from Eastern Washington just introduced legislation to divide Washington State into two separate states. The western side of the state generally votes Democrat. The East side generally votes Republican. They want to name the East side "Liberty." They would hope Eastern Oregon would also want to join this new state as well.

The Republicans who proposed this have one West side liberal legislator joining them. He points out that the Eastern Half gets a lot of money from the Western half and they would be happy to spend it on the West Side.

None of this is likely to happen, it ups Congressional representation for the state which other states don't like.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0