Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Calexit Ramp
I have mixed feelings about the nascent California secession campaign (“Calexit”). As someone who splits his time between East and West, I worry about the potential complexity of dual citizenship and the hassle of frequently crossing an international border, though, presumably, the nation of California’s would be open. But it does strike me as a potentially interesting experiment.
Of course, the primary motivation of Calexit’s proponents is the national election of Donald Trump while the Golden State was racking up a four-million-plus vote surplus for Hillary Clinton. (In fairness, Mr. Trump would likely argue that, discounting illegal voting, the differential would shrink to a few hundred or so.)
There are other reasons not to take the lopsided election too seriously. I suspect most of us know Californians who didn’t bother voting because it was a forgone conclusion that Clinton would win a large majority of popular votes and, therefore, all of the state’s electoral votes. In other words, why bother if it doesn’t matter? If the landscape seemed more competitive, or if this were not a winner-take-all state, the results might have been significantly different. Mrs. Clinton would still likely have won, but the Trump campaign would have worked harder and spent more money, and conservative voters would have been more motivated.
Still, there is a part of me that’s intrigued by secession. It would present a kind of real-world laboratory situation that would confine some of our goofier politics—not to mention awards show—within an international border. It would also be interesting to see how a state that some claim has the world’s sixth-largest economy would fare as an independent nation. Would the economic separation and the need to negotiate trade deals be harder on California Nation or on the remaining 49 states?
I’m tempted to say that Calexit will never come to pass, but in this Trump Era, I have given up thinking that anything is impossible. So let’s play a mind game and try to imagine what might happen if Cal does, in fact, exit. Some results seem obvious, but the unintended consequences are likely to be legion. Some ramifications would be quite significant, while many more would be deliciously amusing. One thing seems certain: given the mood of the nation, a serious Calexit campaign would be more popular in the rest of the country than in California itself.
Published in Politics
Well Pat, I count 25 counties in California that did not vote Socialist in 2016. All of them had Trump up by ten or more points, and several had Trump up by 40 or more.
I would be willing to bet a couple paychecks that the people in those counties have no interest in leaving the country they love. What shall we do with them? I say let them continue to be California in the USA and the Socialist counties can become the Republic of Crap.
Seeing Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, etc. forced out of Congress would be a happy day for most Americans, I believe. Never having to see Jerry Brown again? Who wouldn’t love that!
What if an unsuccessful Calexit became the foundation for splitting CA into two new states: Canorte and Casur.
No, it lies in the size of its economy. Now, if those ideals lead to the largest economy and the highest standard of living, then those ideals are worth something.
If they lead nowhere, then they are just mere preferences, no more important than one’s favorite ice cream flavor.
There’s more to life than wealth. I’d rather be poor and free than rich and enslaved by a tyrannical government.
The fact that freedom tends to also lead to wealth and prosperity is the cherry on top, but not the foundation of my belief in liberty.
Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t; however, people everywhere need resources (and hence money) to realize their desires. The government cannot give people a purpose, but it can maximize citizens’ incomes so that they can do as they like.
I would also like to add that if we do end up living in a world where citizens under a government that we would call tyrannical are on average richer than those in the US, then the people under that foreign government are in fact freer (through their command of resources) on average than US citizens.
No, they really aren’t. If I can’t speak my mind, criticize the government, or worship at the church of my choosing, I ain’t free, no matter how much “command of resources” I have.
I’m sure the Zulu thought they were free, until a richer and more powerful people crushed them.
US citizens can think that they are free in, say, a China-dominated world, but in this world China could eventually become so rich and powerful that its people can do whatever they want to US citizens. So in this hypothetical scenario, a foreign government has the means to oppress and destroy you, regardless of whatever theoretical rights that you have.
Oh, great. Another foreign nation run by egomaniacs that We’ll be defending and sending foreign aid to all while They bad mouth America… wait… what difference would a cali exit make again?
So basically, you think the only things that matter in life are material wealth and political power. Oh wait, I forgot, you’re a progressive, so actually that makes perfect sense…
The government has to be agnostic about things that can’t be measured, but about things that we can measure (like material wealth and political power) the government must do whatever it takes to achieve an optimum amount for its citizens.
California’s significant Chinese population would hate having a military agreement with China. I imagine the Chinese population leaving to the mainland out of respect for freedom and human rights. (For China history buffs that would be incredibly ironic.) Furthermore, are liberal West Coast people so decadent and corrupt that they would sign up with one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet because they are mad at the most pro-gay marriage President in history.
So suppose studies established that states where citizens are united by a common religion tend to prosper more than states divided into bickering sects, would you support a policy to establish a uniform state religion and suppress the practice of all other non-state-sanctioned religions?
Always and utterly balderdash I say. Freedom matters and human rights matter. Maybe they never matter enough and definitely people everywhere aren’t nearly as interested in them as they should be but their will always be an appeal in liberty.
No, because it would not be the best policy to crush these sects if there is resistance.
If they don’t lead to anything material, how would we even know that they matter?
Why not?
I don’t know about the Chinese population of California, but I don’t see any contradiction in a nascent country forming an alliance with another country that oppose each other on a philosophical level. After all, the US formed an alliance with the French monarchy to secure its independence. That may have been the most oppressive government in the world at the time.
There is no way that any study can make conclusions accounting for all magnitudes of resistance. People feel strongly about their religion, so I wouldn’t recommend the policy based upon what I suspect would be a violent reaction to its implementation.
I’m sure that’s why Canada is terrified of America. Liberal democratic countries have a very strong tendency to be peaceful towards other liberal democratic countries. China has bad military and diplomatic relations with every neighbor except Burma because of territorial wars.
A country with a history of decency and liberty (especially British liberty) can have the power to crush a weaker country and not do it.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
The Eastern European governments and Russia had to have been alot worse.
Well, a lot of us in the non-coastal areas would be immediately looking to secede from the new California.
The British crushed smaller and weaker countries many times. I mentioned the Zulu in one comment.
The US does not desire the subjugation of Canada, but in the future a supreme China could desire the subjugation and enslavement of America, either through military means or economic pressure.
Even if it wasn’t the most oppressive, the king was an absolute monarch and the society was very oppressive.
True, but the experiment is playing out on the world stage. If China in fact surpasses the U.S. in economic and military might, according to your criteria that will prove the superiority of their ideals as well, including single-party rule, censorship, curtailed freedom of speech and the press, and suppression of religious minorities (see: Falun Gong).
It wouldn’t prove that all those things are the optimum policies, but it would prove that their policies and system of government are more effective for the Chinese people than the US system of government and policies are for the American people. I’m taking these two things as separate baskets of policies and systems. On an individual policy basis, it would be more difficult to judge each of the things you mention above.
Ha, no kidding. But I think the whole secession thing was decided in 1865 Mr. Sajak. This is just pouting and virtue signaling. CA would be a basket case on its own. By the way, is there any chance that subliminal (or overt if you prefer) pro-conservative or Libertarian puzzles can be made to put on the Wheel of Fortune show.
Won’t be the Nation of California for long.
soon would be Alta Mexico.
but California, didn’t get their chance to secede back then,
Secession 2: The West.
A new film by Oliver Stone.
Back by popular demand, and you’re gonna love it this time around. It’s gonna be HUGE. Big League.
Switzerland is another example.