Should California secede and become an independent nation?

[cawacko]

A local columnist in today's paper. I know the dude is basically venting and gives one line lip service to costs but yeah, how would we pay for a military? Or pay for people's pensions etc.? Would we create our own currency? And by creating our own country will our costs not go up higher? We already see businesses and people leaving the state, that won't happen at a higher level with increased taxes/cost of living?



Should California secede and become an independent nation?


To encourage us to think about the unthinkable, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists sets a Doomsday Clock, showing how close humanity is (in metaphorical minutes and seconds) to the “midnight” of the apocalypse (nuclear or otherwise) and human extinction.

California may now need its own Independence Clock, showing how close we are to that seemingly unthinkable moment when our state has no choice but to depart the U.S. and become an independent nation.

That prospect recently drew unmistakably closer, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court.

First, justices overturned more than a century of legal precedent that had allowed communities in California to limit public gun possession — endangering laws that have spared us from some of the American epidemic of gun deaths by murder, suicide and accident.

Then, the court reversed Roe v. Wade and eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion — a right protected by our state constitution as a right of privacy and supported by majorities of Californians of every political party, region and demographic group.

These decisions were like earthquakes — unsettling but unsurprising, given the justices’ frequent expressions of contempt for California in oral arguments (a bias I wrote about last year). They were enacted by a far-right court majority that exists because America’s anti-democratic Constitution gives less representation and less voting power to Californians, both in choosing a president (who nominates justices) and in electing a Senate (which confirms them).

The two Supreme Court decisions follow a fusillade of recent federal failings that have damaged California and harmed our people. These include a pandemic response that cost nearly 100,000 Californian lives, a generation-long “war on terror” that killed more soldiers from California than from any other state, attacks on our efforts to end the drug war and police abuses, attempts to cancel our environmental laws, denial and delay of disaster aid, accusations that our elections are fraudulent, and the violation of the rights of our immigrants and their families.

To cope, California has had to behave more like a separate nation than a state. We have adopted our own immigration policy, signed our own environmental treaties with other countries, funded our own research on subjects from guns to stem cells (in response to federal restrictions on such research), and successfully pressured carmakers and other corporations to privilege our state regulations over national ones, just to name a few.

But creating a quasi-nation creates costs that are hard on Californians. We weren’t designed to operate as an island. How much more can a state handle, governmentally, economically, emotionally?

The Supreme Court made clear that we can expect no respite in the future.

I say this not just because the court, for the first time, canceled a constitutional right in the abortion case, or because Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence, declared that the courts should cancel the rights to contraception and same-sex marriage. I say this because the court’s method of decision-making does not account for Californians’ lives or preferences.

Both the guns and abortion decisions rely on peculiar readings of history — focused on American and English practices of the 18th, 17th and earlier centuries, generations before women’s suffrage, before the end of slavery, before California was even a state. The decisions employ a mode of historical analogy that lacks the rigor of palm reading, much less serious legal analysis.

The troubles will persist beyond this court, which, with the retirement of Stephen Breyer, no longer has a single Californian among its justices. Given our disenfranchisement, what is to stop a future Congress and president from canceling our abortion laws, our protections for women or gay people or minorities or immigrants, our climate and environmental laws or even our commitment to making it easier for our people to vote?

As an optimist, I’ve previously argued that democratic reforms in California and elsewhere could solve this American crisis. With more and better participatory tools — from citizens assemblies to proportional representation to national referenda — the U.S. could re-found itself as a modern democracy. But the open hostility to democracy of this court, and among much of the American political elite, suggests that any such reforms do not stand a chance.

Departing the union seems beyond the pale. But so is the behavior of the American government. That’s why, as fanciful as a breakup of the country might still sound, the Independence Clock is ticking closer to midnight.

Polling from last year showed growing support, among Americans of all political persuasions, for removing their own state from the U.S. A University of Virginia poll found 4% support among Biden voters and 52% support among Trump voters for blue or red states seceding to form their own separate nations. A Bright Line poll in June 2021 found that 47% of Democrats in West Coast states favor forming their own nation.

Is it time for California to go? Probably not. But it’s not too early to pack a bag and make a departure plan. We badly need an open and ongoing statewide conversation, including major media and our elected leaders, about independence.

The day after Roe v. Wade fell, I found myself coaching in a youth sports tournament, which starts every game with the Pledge of Allegiance. I stood and put my hand over my heart, but found that I could no longer bring myself to recite the words.


https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/...n-17285860.php

[T. A. Gardner]

It's more likely that California would break up into several states...

[NiftyNiblick]

California, Texas, and New York/New England should all be separate nations from the US.

Texas is a shithole no matter what, so it's the least important for them. They like the "Lone Star" image, however, and nobody else cares if they live or die anyway.

California would be one of the world's major economies on its own.

New York / New England would be better off as part of Canada.

The US is clearly a failed experiment and clearly surpassed by more modern democracies.
It's the oldest, continuous, unchanged government on the planet and looks it as it sputters along, one fuckup after another.

[cawacko]

California, Texas, and New York/New England should all be separate nations from the US.

Texas is a shithole no matter what, so it's the least important for them. They like the "Lone Star" image, however, and nobody else cares if they live or die anyway.

California would be one of the world's major economies on its own.

New York / New England would be better off as part of Canada.

The US is clearly a failed experiment and clearly surpassed by more modern democracies.
It's the oldest, continuous, unchanged government on the planet and looks it as it sputters along, one fuckup after another.

Who's defending all these new countries and paying for their military? Are they going to count on the U.S. to defend them (like many of the European countries do)?

[leaningright]

I love how when thing aren’t going our way politically we talk about secession. It’s not the first time I’ve read such talk. Like Cawacko said, the guy is venting here, as many often do when things don’t go their way. But yea, got to count the cost of that stuff we take for granted.

It seems like every other vehicle around here has a California tag on it. Several in a row are apt to have Texas tags on them. Why are people leaving? Why are they coming here? (Secretly I’d rather they stay put an fight it out) My neighbor comes here from Detroit. My co-worker just sold his place to a couple from Pennsylvania. Hopefully they leave any liberal policies in the states from whence they came.

[archives]

Who's defending all these new countries and paying for their military? Are they going to count on the U.S. to defend them (like many of the European countries do)?

Given the economic status of the areas “nifty” mentions, and what they contribute to the country as a whole, the better question would be how would want remains of the US survive on its own. And as for the military, who knows, perhaps it would be divided up proportionately, a mutual defense agreement among the remaining parties as per say NATO

No one is exiting anytime soon, the same chatter you see in the article is common in the NE and as we all know Texas, just makes for conversation

[zymurgy]

sorry, divorce is no longer an option. That was tried once. The Declaration Of Independence is just words to the king - you are stuck

[Jarod]

California, Texas, and New York/New England should all be separate nations from the US.

Texas is a shithole no matter what, so it's the least important for them. They like the "Lone Star" image, however, and nobody else cares if they live or die anyway.

California would be one of the world's major economies on its own.

New York / New England would be better off as part of Canada.

The US is clearly a failed experiment and clearly surpassed by more modern democracies.
It's the oldest, continuous, unchanged government on the planet and looks it as it sputters along, one fuckup after another.

We would be fucked without California and NY.

[dukkha]

sothern states felt much the same. it didn't work out. Change comes thru process.
I feel like saying the Fleetwood Mac song "Go Your Own Way" when it come to CA and NY
but you cant get emotional over secession.

[McRocket]

Ask Californians.

[BartenderElite]

It does make you wonder what America might look like in 100 or so years.

The divisions are so stark now; it's like the disparate groups have zero in common w/ each other. No common ground on which to build any foundation.

But yeah - like another poster said, without CA and/or NY, America would really struggle.

[cawacko]

Given the economic status of the areas “nifty” mentions, and what they contribute to the country as a whole, the better question would be how would want remains of the US survive on its own. And as for the military, who knows, perhaps it would be divided up proportionately, a mutual defense agreement among the remaining parties as per say NATO

No one is exiting anytime soon, the same chatter you see in the article is common in the NE and as we all know Texas, just makes for conversation

We still have to create a military and that ain’t free. Are we creating our own currency? I would assume yes. Who’s paying for all our unfunded liabilities and people’s pensions? We would now be on our own. And who’s to say all businesses currently here will stay here with all the upheaval of creating a new country?

I get it, it’s a vent but it ignores a whole lot of reality

[dukkha]

finally saw the Newsom ad targeted to Florida.. he goes on about book banning and a few (only saw it once)
the tag line is "freedom" - which is hilarious from Governor Lockdown

[Into the Night]

A local columnist in today's paper. I know the dude is basically venting and gives one line lip service to costs but yeah, how would we pay for a military? Or pay for people's pensions etc.? Would we create our own currency? And by creating our own country will our costs not go up higher? We already see businesses and people leaving the state, that won't happen at a higher level with increased taxes/cost of living?



Should California secede and become an independent nation?


To encourage us to think about the unthinkable, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists sets a Doomsday Clock, showing how close humanity is (in metaphorical minutes and seconds) to the “midnight” of the apocalypse (nuclear or otherwise) and human extinction.

California may now need its own Independence Clock, showing how close we are to that seemingly unthinkable moment when our state has no choice but to depart the U.S. and become an independent nation.

That prospect recently drew unmistakably closer, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court.

First, justices overturned more than a century of legal precedent that had allowed communities in California to limit public gun possession — endangering laws that have spared us from some of the American epidemic of gun deaths by murder, suicide and accident.

Then, the court reversed Roe v. Wade and eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion — a right protected by our state constitution as a right of privacy and supported by majorities of Californians of every political party, region and demographic group.

These decisions were like earthquakes — unsettling but unsurprising, given the justices’ frequent expressions of contempt for California in oral arguments (a bias I wrote about last year). They were enacted by a far-right court majority that exists because America’s anti-democratic Constitution gives less representation and less voting power to Californians, both in choosing a president (who nominates justices) and in electing a Senate (which confirms them).

The two Supreme Court decisions follow a fusillade of recent federal failings that have damaged California and harmed our people. These include a pandemic response that cost nearly 100,000 Californian lives, a generation-long “war on terror” that killed more soldiers from California than from any other state, attacks on our efforts to end the drug war and police abuses, attempts to cancel our environmental laws, denial and delay of disaster aid, accusations that our elections are fraudulent, and the violation of the rights of our immigrants and their families.

To cope, California has had to behave more like a separate nation than a state. We have adopted our own immigration policy, signed our own environmental treaties with other countries, funded our own research on subjects from guns to stem cells (in response to federal restrictions on such research), and successfully pressured carmakers and other corporations to privilege our state regulations over national ones, just to name a few.

But creating a quasi-nation creates costs that are hard on Californians. We weren’t designed to operate as an island. How much more can a state handle, governmentally, economically, emotionally?

The Supreme Court made clear that we can expect no respite in the future.

I say this not just because the court, for the first time, canceled a constitutional right in the abortion case, or because Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence, declared that the courts should cancel the rights to contraception and same-sex marriage. I say this because the court’s method of decision-making does not account for Californians’ lives or preferences.

Both the guns and abortion decisions rely on peculiar readings of history — focused on American and English practices of the 18th, 17th and earlier centuries, generations before women’s suffrage, before the end of slavery, before California was even a state. The decisions employ a mode of historical analogy that lacks the rigor of palm reading, much less serious legal analysis.

The troubles will persist beyond this court, which, with the retirement of Stephen Breyer, no longer has a single Californian among its justices. Given our disenfranchisement, what is to stop a future Congress and president from canceling our abortion laws, our protections for women or gay people or minorities or immigrants, our climate and environmental laws or even our commitment to making it easier for our people to vote?

As an optimist, I’ve previously argued that democratic reforms in California and elsewhere could solve this American crisis. With more and better participatory tools — from citizens assemblies to proportional representation to national referenda — the U.S. could re-found itself as a modern democracy. But the open hostility to democracy of this court, and among much of the American political elite, suggests that any such reforms do not stand a chance.

Departing the union seems beyond the pale. But so is the behavior of the American government. That’s why, as fanciful as a breakup of the country might still sound, the Independence Clock is ticking closer to midnight.

Polling from last year showed growing support, among Americans of all political persuasions, for removing their own state from the U.S. A University of Virginia poll found 4% support among Biden voters and 52% support among Trump voters for blue or red states seceding to form their own separate nations. A Bright Line poll in June 2021 found that 47% of Democrats in West Coast states favor forming their own nation.

Is it time for California to go? Probably not. But it’s not too early to pack a bag and make a departure plan. We badly need an open and ongoing statewide conversation, including major media and our elected leaders, about independence.

The day after Roe v. Wade fell, I found myself coaching in a youth sports tournament, which starts every game with the Pledge of Allegiance. I stood and put my hand over my heart, but found that I could no longer bring myself to recite the words.


https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/...n-17285860.php

It already happened. I call it the SDTC now.

[Into the Night]

It's more likely that California would break up into several states...

This will never happen. King Newsom will prevent it.