Secession… Again?
Introduction
Progressive writer Nathan Newman, in a recent article, “The Case for Blue-State Secession,” published in The Nation magazine, advocates a rather drastic remedy for the failure to enact desired policies advocated by liberal progressives. That remedy is secession from the United States, but this time by the so-called “blue states,” which are traditionally liberal and tend to vote for Democratic candidates. For anyone familiar with history, secession has been tried before, specifically in 1861, with disastrous results. Although Newman makes some valid points, actual secession would leave the United States seriously weakened, would more than likely leave no one satisfied, and would probably have negative unforeseen consequences.
How Did We Get Here?
Over the years, even decades, the United States has become more and more politically polarized, with each side treating the other as more like enemies rather than simply political opponents. It was exacerbated by the election of Donald Trump, who clearly made no effort to reach out to those who didn’t vote for him, and worked up his supporters sometimes into a frenzy to oppose peceived enemies — the press, the “deep state,” Democrats, immigrants, minorities, or anyone else he simply did not like. It culminated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, by his supporters unhappy with the results of the 2020 election. Newman states, “The Confederate flags waved during the Capitol Hill riot followed planning for the insurrection in a Facebook group called Red-State Secession, amid a wave of demands for secession by red-state leaders and conservative commentators.”
Newman advocates secession by the blue states because he feels that too much of the government has become undemocratic, specifically the Senate, where because of its very nature, 50 Democratic Senators represent far more of the population than the other 50 Republican Senators, many from a lot of smaller states.
This distorted image (below) represents the size of each state in relation to its number of votes in the Electoral College. It is clear that when adjusted for population, the blue states are more influential than it would first appear. This is part of Newman’s argument for vote reform which would prevent the loser of the popular vote from winning the Presidency, and for reform preventing minority rule in the Senate
However, Newman should revisit why we have a Senate in the first place. According to https://chapter8congress.weebly.com/2-why-we-have-2-houses-of-congress.html, the Framers chose a bicameral (two-chamber legislature) because unicameral systems hadn’t worked well in the past, a two-house system allows for checks and balances, and by having equal representation in the Senate, smaller states would have their concerns at least listened to and addressed. It was the Connecticut compromise which was adopted and made part of the Constitution. Had it not worked out that way, nearly all legislation would be decided and enacted by New York, California, Texas, and Florida, the four most populous states. Smaller states would rightly feel that they were being ignored and run over roughshod.
Many critics believe the current system has worked fairly well. It allows for airing of different points of view, prevents sectional legislation (laws designed to benefit only one or a few states or a small constituency), and allows time for review. A major criticism stated by Newman and others, is that the system is too slow, and important legislation is delayed to the public that needs it. Here is a humorous and somewhat cynical take on how a bill becomes a law, this scene from the classic movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (1939):
Where Do We Go from Here?
Newman acknowledges that blue-state secession is drastic, and critics who state that millions of people who are liberal progressives living in red states would be left behind by such an action, to be at the mercy of Republican policies. Bitterness and anger would surely become a permanent state of our politics, compromise would be nearly impossible, and little would be accomplished. With the current Covid-19 epidemic, measures to get it under control would probably be impossible, and the consequences could be catastrophic.
A second problem with secession would be the geographic difficulties. The blue and red states are discontiguous — blue states on the west and northeast coasts, plus a smattering of individual blue states in a sea of red states. How would people travel from a blue state to a red state, or vice versa? Would they need passports? Or would some states close their borders to others?
A third problem is that Newman favors using secession as a threat to force the enactment of desired policies, never intending to actually do it. However, suppose the other side decides to call his bluff? What then?
Finally, Newman fails to acknowledge the changing politics of the blue and red states. Which states are red and blue are changing, as evidenced by what happened in Georgia in the past presidential election and its senatorial runoff election last month. Georgia had been solidly red for many years, and yet turned blue (barely) this last time. Another example is Texas, another red state which is slowly turning purple, according to political analysts, due to changing demographics.
Conclusion
Clearly, secession is a drastic and probably unworkable remedy for those dissatisfied with the current state of American politics. Both sides have advocated for it at one time or another — some red states and conservative commentators mentioned earlier and which more than likely led to the attack on the Capitol, and now an article by Nathan Newman calling for blue state secession in The Nation magazine. Perhaps now is the time to step back and let cooler heads prevail. Surely there are people of good will on both sides who would be willing to come together and hopefully lower the temperature of our current political rhetoric.
