Critics are coming out of the woodwork

The unionists are getting scared. I have seen a growing number of blog posts and articles sharply critical of secession and nullification. For some reason, they came out in force today. Here is a sampling from today’s Google alerts on secession:

“Secessionist talk is unpatriotic”

Here’s one for you, Old Rebel: The Crimson White, student newspaper at the University of Alabama, asserts that “secessionist talk is unpatriotic.” The writer, Jonathan Reed, took a look at the secessionist discussions taking place in the Texas gubernatorial campaign, and called them “frightening.” When Debra Medina quoted Thomas Jefferson’s “the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots,” Mr. Reed concluded that the “tyrants” were all of us as Americans. “They’re our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. They’re people who work 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., watch college football and go to church.” Mr. Reed characterizes “patriots” as “people who believe in America until it raises their taxes.”

He adds:

There was once a day when patriots fought and died for one America. Not just for the land and the people, but for the idea that democracy, despite its occasional faults, can make the nation as a whole work for everyone. When we think of patriots dying in a bloody war, we don’t think of them as fighting for freedom from a government that was fairly elected by a majority of the people, we think of them as fighting against tyrants who threaten people’s essential life and liberties and who offer the people no other recourse.

Mr. Reed, everyone I know in the liberty movement also believes that we should work to make the nation as a whole work for everyone; but, as Sebastian Ronin says, "The free election of the masters by the slaves does not eliminate the master-slave relationship." The federal government is not democratic; it is kleptocratic (best government money can buy) with a thin democratic veneer.

The difference between patriotism and nationalism is knowing when loyalty to the nation becomes contrary to loyalty to the principles on which that nation was founded. We have tried reform for 40 years, and we have failed. The disease of tyranny calls for stronger medicine, so we are working on nullification, and if that fails, secession.

“The Lefty Republic of Vermont”

This one is unusual, in that the writer does not object to secession per se, but to the fact that secession can promote liberal ideals as well as conservative ones. The blog, Thoughtcrime, sounds a little too Justus Twp. white supremacist and anti-Semitic to suit me, and the writer admits that he is a bit envious of the recent article in Time about Vermont's secessionist slate. Unfortunately, he adopts the liberal tactic of namecalling:

The Vermont secession campaign is run by a bunch of hippie-dippy 60s retreads, Jewish and liberal academic types in turtle-neck sweaters and sports jackets with patches on the elbows who drink glasses of Chardonnay in lefty natters at cocktail parties in Burlington and Montpelier… The Northwest Front is frozen out, as for that matter are the libertarian secessionists in New Hampshire and the Christian fundamentalists in South Carolina. Nonetheless, when the topic of secession is found in the pages of Time, truly one of the pillars of the mainstream media, it means that secession is being taken seriously.

I have my differences with the Second Vermont Republic, but if I cannot live in a Republic of Ohio, I would rather cast my lot with the “hippy-dippy 60s retreads” than with the mountain men in the “Northwest Front.” I guess it’s a cultural thing. Or maybe because I have lived in a state that has had an ethnically and racially diverse population for many years, I don’t feel threatened by it.


"The Palin Doctrine: Lie"

Okay, here we go again. The blog What They’re Feeding Me is pulling out the old Todd Palin was a secessionist, therefore we can’t trust Sarah argument. I'm not sure I can trust Sarah, either, but not for this reason. The author, Shawn Gray-Fleek, begins by asserting “Todd Palin, known secessionist, was the real governor of Alaska…” He accuses Sarah of trying, and failing, to cover up the fact that Todd was a secessionist. Now if Sarah was so embarrassed by Todd’s secessionism, why did she speak to the Alaska Independence Party?

Anyway, Mr. Gray-Fleek has nothing but contempt for secessionism, calling it “an utmost disrespect for the law of the land” (emphasis his). For him, secessionism is based on what he calls The Big Lie:

The Big Lie is that the “government is the problem.” Why would you elect a person to an office they [you?] don’t respect? Reagan will [will? President Reagan died in 2004, or didn’t he get the memo?] project annoyance at a nation left to us by wiser folks than any of us dummies. Reagan will claim a down-home attitude, at its heart the nationalist impulse. It will be the crucial test of Sarah Palin’s Shadow Presidency if she makes any sort of "decisions,” in her Shadow State of the Union, since she holds no office currently. If she says “we should destroy the government” who is she suggesting do this? Teabaggers in the room, people watching aghast on Fox News? Sponsors are paying her $100,000. She’s helping the wealthy keep so much more. Perhaps they will “secede” in name only, simply start their own social contract and move to Texas or something. They want to destroy a democracy that the world admires for the selfish interests of the wealthy. [Emphasis in the original]

Now, the truth is coming out. Mr. Gray-Fleek’s animus against secession is deeply rooted in socialist rhetoric, as evidenced by his last sentence. The liberty movement, which includes, but is not limited to the Tea Parties, is more united on the reverse of what he wrote. That is, we want to destroy an empire that has catered to the selfish interests of the wealthy in order to restore democracies that the world will come to admire. Secessionism is not the same as anarchy (and believe me, I am no anarchist, to the consternation of some of my Libertarian friends). Most secessionists do not seek to abolish government, but to make it more accountable to the people by reducing government to a human scale.

Mr. Gray-Fleek does raise some legitimate concerns, particularly about the environment. If we believe that government exists to protect us, then environmental protection is part of the package – but there are right and wrong ways to protect the environment. Without bringing up that whole can of worms again, let me just suggest two ways the environment can be much more efficiently protected: (1) Develop and apply an accounting model to ensure that environmental costs are paid by those who make the messes; and (2) in place of an activist model where the government insists on compliance reporting, develop a more passive model that facilitates lawsuits against polluters.

Mr. Gray-Fleek continues:

The big lie will be repeated endlessly: the government is your enemy. This is primarily why people don’t vote, is the Big Lie. They are scared of government. If only the people would realize they could get the government they all secretly agree they want, a fiscally conservative but socially liberal one where all of us can be our religion or sexuality and smoke our dope and stroke our gun. If
all of us voted, we’d have that government. [Emphasis in the original]

People aren’t scared of government, they’re frustrated with it. We realize now that we can’t get the federal government we “secretly all want” for two reasons – the moneyed interests that control the Congress and the Presidency won’t let us, and what we “secretly all want” varies from state to state. Vermonters want to be “localvores” (supporters of local agriculture and simple living), the Confederates want to restore their Southern culture, and the mountain men just want to be left alone as mountain men have always wanted to be left alone. Here in Ohio, we just want to regain control of our state government and have the ability to budget our resources in the most rational way, free from federal interference. We are convinced that we can run state government much more efficiently than the feds can, with lower taxes and better services.

Mr. Gray-Fleek continues, "Health care saves money and makes sense to everyone but the Teabaggers, who believe the lie." Then why does a recent poll (Jan. 29-31) show that only 36% of Americans favor the health care proposal? Or is democracy only valid when it supports Mr. Gray-Fleek’s agenda?

The big lie turns the people into cynics. 'What’s the point of voting?' they will say. Then Reagan will come along and inspire them to do something stupid, like vote in favor of the lie.

The point of voting is to steer government in the direction that the people want. When government repeatedly ignores the will of the people by bailing out banks that should have been allowed to collapse, engaging in foreign wars that have nothing to do with our national security, and spending trillions of dollars we don’t have in a way that threatens to wipe out our life savings through hyperinflation and cause the collapse of Social Security and Medicare, the people have the right – in fact, the moral obligation to themselves and their posterity – to correct the evil that is confronting them.’’

Thomas Jefferson would have accepted nothing less.