Activism

Which Model of Pan-Secession is Best?

My guess is that the constituents for pan-secession will include conservatives who do not feel they can ever win under the current system but do not want to go down the road of overt authoritarianism, liberals and leftists who have a “better off without them” attitude toward conservatives, libertarians and others who simply want less government or more localized government, centrists and others who simply want to keep the peace, and those who feel their particular tribes/sects/causes are going to be better served in the process (which could include a vast range of otherwise contradictory groups). But an even bigger question is what form pan-secession will actually assume?

The meme below has been in circulation recently. The main problem I see with this model is that the conflict tends to be local as much as regional. The scenario depicted in the image would just be 8 versions of what we have now.

May be an image of map and text that says 'How to Peacefully Break Up the United States The American Rockies The Great Plains Pacifica The Midwest New Amsterdam The mpire State Republic of Texas The Confederacy'

A critical commentator writes:

Several smaller federations (or even confederations) do not change the basic dynamic much. Much more locally-focused autonomy is needed – at least down to the county level – ultimately to even more granular size. Further, neither a formal dissolution of the USA federation or of any of its subdivisions (provincial level/ “states”) is actually required or especially desirable. Better a strong de facto devolution of practical power down to the local (level) while nominal higher groupings retain their ceremonial standing.
Models for this exist historically. One is the slow breakdown of authority of the Holy Roman Empire. Another is the devolution of the British Empire into the Commonwealth (with further levels of autonomy still being pursued [e.g. Scotland’s potential breakaway] ). Another structure reform would be a system of networking for fostering trade relationships and extradition between the local entities, which did not require members of a given network to be geographically contiguous. Additionally, multiple citizenships in a variety of locations should be possible for individuals without residency requirements. None of these improvements need to be the result of violent revolution. All can be achieved via relatively gradual evolution.
And my response:
Yes, in the past I’ve been asked why I promote the seemingly bizarre idea of dividing societies up into ideology-specific/culture-specific/issue-specific free cities, intentional communities, trade zones, eco-villages, or micronations, and the answer is because this is the only way a super-diverse society can potentially achieve peace without tyranny. I have cited the Holy Roman Empire as a model from the past as well. Also, the Greek cities, the Ottoman millet system, traditional Chinese village communities, Gandhi’s satyagraha philosophy, contemporary microstates like Lichtenstein, early utopian communities, the religious colonies in early America, federated tribal systems like in Native North America, Polynesia, and West Africa, medieval leagues, etc.

4 replies »

  1. I’m not sure I believe the future political structure will/can be planned. When our empire breaks, it will be because it will not have the power to hold itself together, and I’m not sure anyone but the localities will have the sway over themselves to decide. It would be great if some smart people could guide the breakup in a more diverse way, but it might just end up like 8 smaller versions of the US as you point out.

  2. The map does not represent the real factions at all. Rockies, Plains, and Texas have no conflict. 100 miles from the Pacific Coast and the entire population would likely rather side with the Rockies, Plains and Texas. Same with New Amsterdam and Empire State – those are not real divisions. Western Pennsylvania – well, just remember what leftists love to say, PA is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in the middle. But frankly, Pittsburgh is more “red state” than “blue state.” So, really, Philadelphia is just part of Bos-Wash Corridor.

    The Confederacy would be a culturally conservative bi-national state with voluntary segregation, but it’s likely the Black Belt would actually be independent.

    These “Divide the US” map are meant to obscure, not reveal, the actual political and cultural divides.

    The actual divisions are “Americans” vs. “Cosmopolitans.” The Cosmopolitans aren’t even American, they are “citizens of the world.”

    Some population resettlement would work quite easily. Move the Cosmopolitans on the East Coast to Bos-Wash, the Cosmopolitans on the West Coast to Greater San Francisco, the Black Belt to Georgia/Alabama.

    Seriously – that is all it would take. America – the Real America, without the Cosmopolitans, would likely devolve power to the states, so Texas could still be libertarian and Wisconsin could still be social-democratic.

    Really, it is the anti-American Cosmopolitans vs. basically everyone else.

Leave a Reply