What is America about?

After getting into two highly acrimonious debates with individuals who are more interested in promoting political correctness than to listen to reasoned dissent, I have to ask myself what Americans think their country is about. 

The political division that currently exists suggests that there are three possible answers. The liberal would argue for economic, or redistributive “justice,” the neo-conservative would argue for power, and the libertarian for individual freedom. 

I have come to realize that constitutional and libertarian arguments will only make sense to those who value personal freedom – and it appears that for many Americans, that value is expendable. Those who see America in terms of economic equality or military power will support the notion that Ron Paul is an old crank who is off the rocker they think he should be seated on.  

"From each according to his gullibility,
to each according to his greed!"

The economic redistributionist rejects free enterprise, because it entails risk. Risk is unacceptable to the poor because they cannot, of course, accept financial loss; and is unacceptable for the rich because it creates wealth that (in their view) is not earned. Without risk, there is no opportunity, but for them that is a small price to pay. The end game, though, is to replace an elite based on wealth with one based on political correctness. For them, the goal is not really justice -- it is power for those who toe the party line. Their means is to write more extensive and tighter regulations to discourage anyone from taking any initiative that has not been blessed by their government.  

For such people, the charge of racism is a handy way to bully those who disagree with them. If you want to replace the welfare state, you are a racist. If you want an educational system that teaches young people how to find the truth, you are a racist. If you believe in the Anglo-American heritage of rule by law and would insist on using the English language so that everyone can fully understand that heritage, you are a racist. 

Those who see America’s purpose as being a military power see personal freedom as expendable to protect our “national security.” They cannot be persuaded by reasonable arguments that trade, diplomacy, and taking the moral high road can be effective levers to promote our national interest. They think applying the Golden Rule to international relations is ridiculous and perhaps even dangerous, and then they wonder why the Iraqis and the Afghans are intent on getting us out of their countries – after all, we came on a mission to build free and fair societies – according to our customs and standards. Ask the neocons about how they would feel if, for example, the Chinese invaded this country on the same basis, and they will mutter something about “American exceptionalism.” 

To a reasonable person, “American exceptionalism” is nothing more than arrogance, pure and simple. 

As I was recently reminded, those who see America in terms of power cannot understand any argument that undermines their almost religious belief that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest (or maybe second greatest) of Presidents. Yes, he preserved the Union, but was it really worth the cost: 660,000 battlefield casualties, the mass murder of Georgia’s civilians during Sherman’s March to the Sea, his blatant hypocrisy on slavery? The surrender at Appomattox began a process of consolidation into an all-powerful federal government that continues to this day. We had a Constitution to protect our rights. Why did he find it necessary to destroy it in order to save the Union? If the issue was slavery, he could have followed the lead of Britain and France (which Brazil later followed) and simply bought out the slaveowners, which would have been cheaper than going to war. If he valued freedom, he could have shown good faith to the Southerners who were willing to negotiate a settlement to prevent their secession.

When looking at mysteries of this kind, some wise people have said, “Follow the money.” Prior to the Civil War, wealth was fairly evenly spread across the land – North and South. Lincoln was backed heavily by New York bankers, who greatly benefitted from his rule. In the 1870s, wealth heavily concentrated in New York City, while the South was reduced to abject poverty, and would remain so for nearly a century.

Fergit, hell!

The evidence for each of my statements is easy enough to find in any standard history of the Civil War or Reconstruction; but of course, my bringing it up is “revisionist.” And, of course, the neocons join the liberals in promoting the notion that any white male whose family has resided in the South more than a generation or two is the absolute scum of the earth. That notion is completely contrary to reason if you believe that people are individuals who deserve to be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin or the accent of their voice; but Lord, don’t let Martin Luther King, Jr.’s beliefs stand in the way of those who loudly sing his praises! And Christians should keep their religion to themselves if they aren’t willing to idolize the state, support foreign wars, and promote social conservatism!

Just before I wrote this, I asked myself how anyone could believe in personal freedom and not let those who feel they have been wronged to form their own nation; especially when they respected law enough to follow due process as it was understood prior to 1865.

I thought I didn’t get it. Unfortunately, I do now. The way the Republican Presidential primary is shaping up, it is becoming clear that America is not about personal freedom. If President Obama is defeated in November, we will establish that America probably is not about redistribution of wealth, at least not the way the Democratic and Socialist idealists look at it. So I guess it's about power. We will continue to be ruled by those who have the most to gain from holding power.

It’s enough to make a grown man cry.

I’m finished ranting now. Please return to your regularly-scheduled programming.

A challenge to Gov. Strickland and Mr. Kasich

Support this. This is part of the platform of Republican gubernatorial primary candidate Ray McBerry, called "Georgia First." Mr. McBerry is promising, if elected to aggressively nullify unconstitutional federal statutes.

He also advocates abolition of all income and property taxes, right to life, Second Amendment gun rights, a clampdown on illegal immigration, rein in governmental intrusions on privacy and liberty, restrict eminent domain, ensure secure elections through auditable paper trails, and support for the idea of citizen initiatives.

Conservative Times reports that he is winning straw polls among Georgia Republicans.

Dissident Republicans? Libertarians? Constitutionalists? Here's your opportunity!

Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

Georgia paper fights secession trigger

The Georgia Senate's State sovereignty resolution has a secession trigger, which has one editorial board's knickers in a knot. The Valdosta Daily Times reports that in their poll following a column on the subject, approximately half of the respondents favored secession. They pull out the standard mainstream media arguments against the idea:

"Georgians would need a passport to travel to South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, or any other part of the U.S. Or if we just sneaked across the border, Georgians could be considered illegal immigrants in the U.S."

Technically, yes; but that would likely be a temporary problem. Georgia's secession would undoubtedly embolden other States (especially South Carolina) to do the same. As independent nations, the seceded States could negotiate something like a Schengen treaty to simplify movement among them.

"There would be no more federal funding for road projects, schools, construction, and various other amenities to which most Georgians have become accustomed. Of course, we could pay for all of these projects out of our own pockets."

And that's a bad thing? Georgians would also be allowed to keep all of the tax dollars they are sending to Washington! They could set up programs that meet their own needs, in their own way. The net result would likely be a large reduction in taxes.

"Meanwhile, what would happen to Moody Air Force Base and all of the other U.S. military bases throughout the state? The U.S. wouldn’t just let the nation of Georgia have them. Georgia couldn’t just block them off and hope the federal government wouldn’t make some effort to fortify the bases, reclaim them, etc. Perhaps, some folks may recall Fort Sumter, or something called the Civil War, for that matter."

Consider this, Georgians. You won't need all those military bases. You will think of national defense as just that -- defense of Georgia against foreign aggression. As to the War between the States (I'm surprised a Georgian used the über-Northern term), there is no reason secession could not be negotiated. The South is much stronger, industrially and morally, relative to the rest of the nation than it was in 1860. Given the desperate financial condition of the Federal Government, I wouldn't be surprised if offering the Feds, say, 2% of the national debt ($220 billion), spread over 20 years, proved sufficient to avoid war.

"And how many national and international businesses would want to locate in this experiment of a nation called Georgia? How many companies would remain?"

With lower taxes, your economy will boom. What does a corporation care what country it's in, as long as the conditions are favorable for business?

"How many folks would consider a General Assembly move to secede as nothing less than a coup?"

That's your call, Georgia. Apparently, half of the respondents of your poll didn't think it was a coup.

"How many Georgians would rather be considered Americans and move away? How many families would be split by secession, both within Georgia and throughout Georgia and the U.S.?"

There will be some who would prefer to remain in the United States. That is their right, and it should be respected. As to the families split by secession -- if the Republic of Georgia (uh, you're going to need a less confusing name), respects this right, the problem of splitting families is one for those families to decide.

"What do U.S. servicemen and women serving their country in Afghanistan and Iraq think when they hear that a state is considering secession from the United States of America? "

I imagine the troops from Georgia will be as divided as everyone else. If the purpose clearly is to expand the liberties of Georgians, reduce the tax burden, and enable the people of Georgia to develop their economy and culture in their own way, I imagine that most of the troops would prove to be in favor of secession. Soldiers and sailors have opinions like the rest of us -- they just choose to keep some of them to themselves while in the service.

"Secession would give a whole new meaning to those car magnets stating, “We support our troops.” The troops we support now will likely be the troops we would fight in the future. "

Rubbish. This is not 1860, people. It is more like 1775. Or, dear editors, do you think we would have been better off remaining in the British Empire?

"Secession is in the water"

... said New York State Senator Andrew Lanza of a bill he has introduced to separate Staten Island from New York City. The same article from silive.com discusses another proposal to make Long Island into a separate State (another idea that has been around for years) and makes a passing reference to a bill in Georgia in favor of secession.

I knew that the State sovereignty resolution SR 632 had passed the Georgia Senate April 1, but I had not read it closely. The resolution as presented in the link is wordy and dense (aggravated by the lack of breaks between paragraphs). However, it is the first resolution passed by a House of a State legislature to contain New Hampshire's secession trigger. This is a noteworthy milestone in American secessionism that should have attracted more notice at the time. Of course, the Atlanta media were not overly enamored with it, as shown in this column by Jay Bookman for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

As Mr. Bookman noted, even in Georgia's most conservative counties, two-thirds of the Republicans are still opposed to secession; so the resolution's timing is probably premature. Still, when we consider the state of the discussion as recently as January, secessionism has come a long way in a very short time.

And we have this declaration from Dan Weintraub in Vermont Commons, "It is time for Vermont to secede." Last October, Mr. Weintraub wrote a piece in Vermont Commons suggesting the idea half tongue-in-cheek. In today's post, he repents for not being more serious. His arguments echo those that have appeared in this space on many occasions, focusing primarily on the economic and environmental unsustainability of the Empire as it currently exists.

"Why secession? Simply put, because our nation can never recover from the decades of corruption and duplicity and greed that have led us to this abyss lest our leaders attempt to do so through means that are anathema to the righteous moral and ethical lives, hearts and minds of the citizens of Vermont. Our leaders will do anything to save the system. And we can no longer be party to such actions. It is time for us to leave...

"A nation borne of the dreams of Enlightenment righteousness has fallen prey to the greed and corruption and theft of the robber barons and Wall Street moguls. And it has gone on for so long, and the nation has incurred such massive amounts of DEBT, that no medicine can cure the disease. On every level, "large" has failed. Small communities--if prepared and coordinated---will be able to construct social, political and economic systems that will allow these communities to exist at a comfortable "subsistence" level."

Preach on, brother! At this rate, the July 4 State sovereignty rally in Columbus just might find some participants pressing for independence.

Virtual buckeye to Gabe McGranahan for the piece from silive.com .

State Sovereignty Resolution Update – 4/11/09

I’m a little behind on reporting State sovereignty resolution status, so I am hoping this will make up for lost time:

There is a report, unconfirmed by the Legislative Service Commission, that Ohio’s HCR 11 has been referred to the State Government committee, chaired by Rep. Ronald V. Gerberry (D-Austintown).

In Alaska, HR 9 was replaced with CSHJR 27. It passed the House Apr. 6 by a vote of 37-0 with 3 excused. The measure is under consideration in the State Senate.

The Tenth Amendment Center reports that the Senate version (SR 632) of Georgia’s resolution passed Apr. 1 by a vote of 43-1. Because it is not a joint or concurrent resolution, it will not be considered in the Georgia House.

Indiana’s SCR 37 was replaced with SR0042, which was passed by the Senate Apr. 9 by a vote of 44-3. Like Georgia, the resolution was not joint or concurrent.

HCR 3063 passed the North Dakota House by a vote of 52-40. It has been referred to a Senate committee, which will hold a hearing on it Monday, Apr. 13.

Now the bad news – according to the Tenth Amendment Center, HJR 27 in New Mexico has been tabled in committee. Other bloggers indicate that it may be dead in the water.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has endorsed that State’s resolution (HCR50). The Central Texas Register recorded the event thus:

“As the federal government spends us into generations of inconceivable debt, responsible state governments are trying to insulate themselves, protect their citizens and govern with fiscal common sense. Perry summed up what has become the common concern of people across the nation when he said:

‘I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state. That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.’”

The Central Texas Register believes that, with six state legislatures passing resolutions, and several governors, including Gov. Perry and Govs. Sarah Palin of Alaska and Mark Sanford of South Carolina, endorsing them, the movement is “bound to have some impact.” At the very least, Congressional Republicans are beginning to feel pressure not to go soft on fiscal issues.

Even more importantly, notes the Register, it shows that the people are demanding real grassroots change. Cosmetic changes, such as a new President, are no longer enough. The grassroots are calling for fundamental transfer of power away from bureaucrats and politicians and back to the people, who are using the power of State governments under the Constitution to hold the Feds accountable, and to end their abuses of power.

The Tenth Amendment Center writer Karen DeCoster is observing that the major issues driving the grassroots push for change are “guns, gold, and secession”. Yes, she wrote the s word! She notes how each is being applied to the effort to protect and enhance the liberties of the people. (Her reference to secession is more that of the secession triggers in the New Hampshire and South Carolina resolutions).

As I wrote a few days ago, a revolution is coming. Our challenge will be to manage it well.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 3/10

Will Wohler informed me by email that the Georgia resolution link was outdated. It has been replaced by the current resolution (HR280).

Rep. Steven Palazzo (R) introduced HCR69 in the Mississippi House Mar. 5.