Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The New Secessionists
These groups at least grasp that the old divisions between liberals and conservatives are obsolete and meaningless. They understand that corporations have carried out a coup d’état. They recognize that our permanent war economy and costly and futile imperial wars are unsustainable and they demand that we take popular action to prevent citizens from being further impoverished and robbed by Wall Street speculators and corporations.
“The defining characteristic of the Second Vermont Republic is that there are two enemies, the United States government and corporate America,” Thomas Naylor, who founded Vermont’s secessionist movement, told me when I reached him by phone at his home 10 miles south of Burlington. “One owns the other one. We are not like the tea party. The underlying premise of the tea party movement is that the system is fixable.”
Naylor rattles off the stark indicators of the nation’s decline, noting that the United States stands near the bottom among industrialized countries in voter turnout, last in health care, last in education and highest in homicide rates, mortality, STDs among juveniles, youth pregnancy, abortion and divorce. The nation, he notes grimly, has trillions in deficits it can never repay, is beset by staggering income disparities, has destroyed its manufacturing base and is the planet’s most egregious polluter and greediest consumer of fossil fuels. With some 40 million Americans living in poverty, tens of millions more in a category called “near poverty” and a permanent underclass trapped by a real unemployment rate of 17 percent, there is ample tinder for internal combustion. If we do not undertake a dramatic reversal soon, he asserts, the country and the global environment will implode with catastrophic consequences.
The secessionist movement is gaining ground in several states, especially Texas, where elected officials increasingly have to contend with secessionist sentiments.
“Our membership has grown tremendously since the bailouts, since the tail end of the Bush administration,” said Daniel Miller, the leader of the Texas Nationalist Movement, when I spoke with him by telephone from his home in the small town of Nederland, Texas. “There is a feeling in Texas that we are being spent into oblivion. We are operating as the cash cow for the states that cannot manage their budgets. With this Congress, Texas has been squarely in their cross hairs, from cap and trade to the alien transfer and exit program. So many legislative pieces coming down the pike are offensive to people here in Texas. The sentiment for independence here is very high. The sentiment inside the Legislature and state capital is one of guarded optimism. There are scores of folks within state government who are supportive of what we are doing, although there is a need to see the public support in a more tangible way. This is why we launched our Let Texas Decide petition drive. We intend to deliver over a million signatures on the opening day of the [state legislative] session on Jan. 11, 2011.”
Miller, like Naylor, expects many in the tea party to migrate to secessionist movements once they realize that they cannot alter the structure or power of the corporate state through electoral politics. Polls in Texas show the secessionists have support from about 35 percent of the state’s population, and Vermont is not far behind.
Naylor, who taught economics at Duke University for 30 years, is, along with Kirkpatrick Sale and Donald Livingston, one of the intellectual godfathers of the secessionist movement. His writing can be found on The Second Vermont Republic website, on the website Secession News and in postings on the Middlebury Institute website. Naylor first proposed secession in his 1997 book “Downsizing the USA.” He comes out of the “small is beautiful” movement, as does Sale. Naylor lives with his wife in the Vermont village of Charlotte.
The Second Vermont Republic arose from the statewide anti-war protests in 2003. It embraces a left-wing populism that makes it unique among the national movements, which usually veer more toward Ron Paul libertarianism. The Vermont movement, like the Texas and Alaska movements, is well organized. It has a bimonthly newspaper called The Vermont Commons, which champions sustainable agriculture and energy supplies based on wind and water, and calls for locally owned banks which will open lines of credit to their communities. Dennis Steele, who is campaigning for governor as a secessionist, runs Radio Free Vermont, which gives a venue to Vermont musicians and groups as well as being a voice of the movement. Vermont, like Texas, was an independent republic, but on March 4, 1791, voted to enter the union. Supporters of the Second Vermont Republic commemorate the anniversary by holding a mock funeral procession through the state capital, Montpelier, with a casket marked “Vermont.” Secessionist candidates in Vermont are currently running for governor, lieutenant governor, eight Senate seats and two House seats.
“The movement, at its core, is anti-authoritarian,” said Sale, who works closely with Naylor and spoke with me from his home in Charleston, S.C. “It includes those who are libertarians and those who are on the anarchic community side. In traditional terms these people are left and right, but they have come very close together in their anti-authoritarianism. Left and right no longer have meaning.”
The movement correctly views the corporate state as a force that has so corrupted the economy, as well as the electoral and judicial process, that it cannot be defeated through traditional routes. It also knows that the corporate state, which looks at the natural world and human beings as commodities to be exploited until exhaustion or collapse occurs, is rapidly cannibalizing the nation and pushing the planet toward irrevocable crisis. And it argues that the corporate state can be dismantled only through radical forms of nonviolent revolt and the dissolution of the United States. As an act of revolt it has many attributes.
“The only way we will ever stop these wars is when we stop paying for them,” Naylor told me. “Vermont contributes about $1.5 billion to the Pentagon’s budget. Do we want to keep supporting these wars? If not, let’s pull out. We have two objectives. The first is returning Vermont to its status as an independent republic. The second is the peaceful dissolution of the empire. I see these as being mutually complementary.”
“The U.S. government has lost its moral authority,” he went on. “It is corrupt to the core. It is owned, operated and controlled by Wall Street and corporate America. Its foreign policy is controlled by the Israeli lobby. It is unsustainable economically, socially, morally, militarily and environmentally. It is ungovernable and therefore unfixable. The question is, do you go down with the Titanic or do you seek other options?”
The leaders of the movement concede that sentiment still outstrips organization. There has not been a large proliferation of new groups, and a few old groups have folded because of a lack of leadership and support. But they insist that an increasing number of Americans are receptive to their ideas.
“The number of groups has not grown as I hoped it would when I started having congresses,” said Sale, who addresses groups around the country. “But the number of people, of individuals, of websites and the number of libertarians who have come around has grown leaps and bounds. Many of those who were disappointed by the treatment of Ron Paul have come to the conclusion that they cannot have a Libertarian Party or a libertarian Republican. They are beginning to talk about secession.”
“Secessionists have to be very careful not to be militaristic,” Sale warned. “This cannot be won by the gun. You can be emphatic in your secessionism, but it won’t happen by carrying guns. I don’t know what the tea party people think they are going to accomplish with guns. I guess it is a statement against the federal government and the fear that Obama is about to have gun control. It appears to be an assertion of individual rights. But the tea party people have not yet understood how they are going to get their view across. They still believe they can elect people, either Republicans or declared conservatives, to office in Washington and have an effect, as if you can escape the culture of Washington and the characteristics of government that has only gotten bigger and will only continue to get bigger. Electing people to the House and Senate is not going to change the characteristics of the system.”
The most pressing problem is that the movement harbors within its ranks Southern secessionists who wrap themselves in the Confederate flag, begin their meetings singing Dixie and celebrate the slave culture of the antebellum South. Secessionist groups such as the Southern National Congress and the more radical League of the South, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled a “racist hate group,” openly embrace a return to uncontested white, male power. And this aspect of the movement deeply disturbs leaders such as Naylor, Sale and Miller.
What all these movements grasp, however, is that the American empire is over. It cannot be sustained. They understand that we must disengage peacefully, learn to speak with a new humility and live with a new simplicity, or see an economic collapse that could trigger a perverted Christian fascism, a ruthless police state and internecine violence.
“There are three or four possible scenarios that will bring down the empire,” Naylor said. “One possibility is a war with Iran. Another will see the Chinese pull the plug on Treasury bills. Even if these do not happen, the infrastructure of the country is decaying. This is a slower process. And they do not have the economy fixed. It is smoke and mirrors. This is why the price of gold is so high. The economy and the inability to stop the wars will alone be enough to bring us down. There is no escape now from our imperial overstretch.”


167 Comments so far
Show AllThis frightening chart shows why the world is going to be ripped apart by wars, fascism and poverty in the next ten years.
Take a minute, please, to look at it.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25306.htm
Above WEB page:
"Production of all liquid fuels, including oil,
will drop within 20 years to half what it is today."
Yes, that is called the peak oil phenomenon.
some of the documents that link off that page are pretty startling too.
lucky: I agree!
Thanks, Cygnus-X1, for the link! I just finished reading through the article. A few years ago, I read Michael Klare's book, Blood and Oil, and when I finished the book, I was completely depressed. And, that was several years ago. Yesterday, on one of the threads, there was some discussion about Michael Klare's work. The chart is frightening, and no one in charge is doing anything to change the status quo. However, it's so easy for our elected misrepresentatives to turn around and blame us, we the people, telling us we are "addicted" to oil, we are the problem. They never accept responsibility for any of their actions, or inactions.
I agree that the our centralized government in D.C. is sucking the life-blood out of this country -- the MIC, bank bailouts, the recently passed health care (so-called) reform bill, etc. I still remember when California, as a state, tried to pass some emission standards, as I recall, and the Federal government declared their efforts null and void. I've read, and heard, that voters/citizens/people won't be allowed to enact single-payer health care reform at the state levels. Yesterday, I was excited to read that Vermont is currently working on that issue -- for the people who live in Vermont. The list goes on and on as to how they thwart our efforts at every turn, and it's more clear to me, every day, that they care not one whit for what happens to any of us.
As far as our elected officials are concerned, though, I can't figure out what our options are. We certainly can't count on any help from the liberal elite. Most of them are still waiting for Obama to do what they thought they heard him say when he was campaigning. We need bold, nonviolent action. Ideas?
When I first heard Texas Governor Rick Perry talk about secession, I laughed, because he was also talking about running for president of the U.S. To me, those two ideas seemed contrary and disparate on the basis of their underpinnings. Yesterday, David Michael Green wrote about secession -- some readers and writers thought his article was satire, while others thought it was serious -- and today, we have a more substantiated and serious article from Chris Hedges. Regardless, of satire, or seriousness, the movements are real, and the ideas surrounding secession are spreading.
On April 16, 2010, Bill Moyers introduced us to Mayor Matt Ryan, Binghamton, NY, and their community of about 47,000 is installing a clock to remind the citizens how much of their money goes to funding the wars/occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq, hoping to inspire a much needed, legitimate, discussion. People are angry -- on the right and on the left as well, and the anger is justified.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04162010/profile2.html
Good post, Kay!
While I recognize that Lincoln was rightfully concerned that California and Oregon might join the confederates if he let the South secede in 1861, the Yankee states probably would have been better off during the past 150 years.
Yea, fuck all those slaves who were freed ( even though true liberation wouldn't of come for another 100 years).
But i do agree we would be better off without those states, but send some trains to pick up anyone of color, liberal beliefs, or wants freedom
So why do I keep hearing there is enough to last us the next 100 years.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_03/b4163046952385.htm
The world will never run out of Fossile Fuel.
The point behind Peak Oil is that eventually we reach a point at which it takes the energy of one barrel of oil to produce one barrel of oil. Game over.
We built the fantastically wealthy industrialized world with around 1 to 100 or 100 barrels of pure, sweet, intense energy for the price of one barrel.
We are currently at around 1/12 or 1/18 depending on who you read. I has been calculated that civilization requires a minimum of 1/6 in order to exist.
Most alternative energy is around 1/2 to 1/20 again depending on who's calculating.
Cheers!
Well, yaknow, anything is possible. And yes, technology and lower demand would help. Well, technology may play a role, but lower demand? Has anyone told the Chinese?
If you want the other side of the story, take a look at this link:
http://onestraw.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/lets-get-real/
and pay special attention to the Joint Forces Report link (which is a .pdf download). For those not inclined to read the JOE, this is what it says about Peak Oil:
"As the figure at right shows, petroleum must continue to satisfy most of the demand for energy out to 2030. Assuming the most optimistic scenario for improved petroleum production through enhanced recovery means, the development of non-conventional oils (such as oil shales or tar sands) and new discoveries, petroleum production will be hard pressed to meet the expected future demand of 118 million barrels per day.
"The central problem for the coming decade will not be a lack of petroleum reserves,
but rather a shortage of drilling platforms, engineers and refining capacity. Even were a concerted effort begun today to repair that shortage, it would be ten years before production could catch up with expected demand. The key determinant here would be the degree of commitment the United States and others display in addressing the dangerous vulnerabilities the growing energy crisis presents.
"That production bottleneck apart, the potential sources of future energy supplies nearly all present their own difficulties and vulnerabilities. None of these provide much reason for optimism."
And lest anyone think the Military is going to take this lying down:
"Another potential effect of an energy crunch could be a prolonged U.S. recession which could lead to deep cuts in defense spending (as happened during the Great Depression). Joint Force commanders could then find their capabilities diminished at the moment they may have to undertake increasingly dangerous missions. Should that happen, adaptability would require more than preparations to fight the enemies of the United States, but also the willingness to recognize and acknowledge the limitations of America’s military forces. The pooling of U.S. resources and capabilities with allies would then become even more critical. Coalition operations would become essential to protecting national interests."
This is a hopeful article! It's about time we realized that the U.S. is not too big to fail. Each state has the capacity to sustain itself, regulate trade with its neighbors, and provide quality living standards for its citizens. It's the federal government that is sucking the lifeblood out of the states--taking our taxes and throwing them away on useless, trumped-up wars. The federal government and its corporate buddies are killing our sons and daughters, poisoning our food, air and water, destroying our natural resources for their own private profit, and exposing us to worldwide dangers through a ludicrous foreign policy that is driven by oil, violence and paranoia. Either we break this country down to a manageable size and save it for future generations now, or we wait until it succumbs to outside economic and political forces, becomes too weak to be the bully on the block, and we are taken over by another hierarchical menace.
Very true, for the bigger a bad organization gets
the harder it is for good people to have any control.
This is just common sense. The USA is too big, power is too far away.
I agree, it IS a hopeful article. It makes me think how much better off we'd be if we lived life without the federal government forcibly sucking us dry--both morally and economically--to the benefit of the few. Those who were elected to serve us have failed, and it's time to look toward leaders like Sale and Naylor.
Yes, it does look like some loosening of the corporate stranglehold on the institutions of the Republic is called for. The political process is completely ossified. In one way or another, a break up seems unavoidable. James Kunstler already saw that would happen in his book "The Long Emergency" (2005). Chalmers Johnson, too, in the last two books of his Blowback trilogy, "The Sorrows of Empire" and "Nemesis," envisions the end of the Republic.
Government is a tool that like any other tool, can be used for good or bad. A small government can be just as corrupt as a big one - just look at New Jersey, both state and municpal.
Not only that, how do you prevent a race to the bottom in labor and environmental standards among many separate sovereignties?
If you think we've got problems now, then wait till you have lots of little governments competing against each other, all venal and corrupt and bellicose.
Hedges really lost me here; I'm disappointed in him. This just sounds like a bunch of bong talk, the kind of utopian rubbish that was disseminated during the 60's to confuse and so neutralize the left. I recall clearly that this was the same kind of talk that was turned against organized labor (Stuart Brand anyone?), and that created enough of a popular groundswell to enable the offshoring of our manufacturing base on "environmental" grounds without much public opposition. This was also the same atomism that largely eliminated the tendency of the public to respond effectively enmass to unpopular policies of the elite.
I stand with you, on this issue.
Hedges writes really really angry articles. The problem is that he really doesn't seem to have any idea where to direct his anger at. Many of his recent articles have been drunk driver car crash type articles.
"Not only that, how do you prevent a race to the bottom in labor and environmental standards among many separate sovereignties?"
You do this by realising that labour will ALWAYS want to move to places with better pay and better work conditions. Capital conversely, will ALWAYS want to move to places with worse pay and worse work conditions. To prevent a race to the bottom, people need to realise this. Having large states doesn't necessarily prevent a race to the bottom, as you will see local areas within the State give preferential treatment to various owners of financial capital to move (ie tax breaks).
Capital can move more easily than workers, can buy more politicians and lawyers than workers, can buy good PR to fool workers and can keep workers a their mercy by controlling job security. As far as "people need to realise", what's the probability of that happening, especially when you'd have to coordinate among citizens of the many sovereignties?
It's not as hard as you think. Much of Latin America "realize" the inherent injustice for labor (and nature) created by capitalism. Why is the social safety net better in Europe than in the USA? Because they realize too. The reason it's seems so impossible here is that Americans are the most indoctrinated and propagandized people on earth.
A few years ago I would have tossed off these secessionist groups as a bunch of marginal wackos. The groups that want to bring back the ridiculous and reactionary white-dominated system that lingers in the South are wackos. If they secede, I say good riddance. There might be a chance for the rest of the nation to pass some much-needed progressive reforms to health care, education etc. that these people resist so fervently.
But the Vermonters have some appeal. People like Naylor and Sale are educated and enlightened people who recognize that the end of the Amerikkkan Empire is in view. Their systems are not yet well-formed, but they have a philosphy and goals that are optimistic and possibly even attainable.
“Secessionists have to be very careful not to be militaristic,”
Sale warned. “This cannot be won by the gun.”
True logic, for ability to kill is in direct proportion to intelligence, those most intelligent are the most prideful greedy, and when you try to do anything by deadly force, those most intelligent and corrupt will always win. What this brainpower dictatorship called earth is all about.
Empires come and go, and yours is no different. Those of us who are seniors have seen the end of the British and the Russian Empires in the span of less than fifty years. What's happening is likely just the usual dying gasps of an unsustainable, increasingly corrupt, war impoverished regime, and the inevitable evolutionary change that has eventually finished off all empiracle states of recorded history. It may be cold comfort perhaps to realize that you're just destined to be another failed experiment in the human story.
The question will be how it all devolves, and what's left behind. There is no guarantee that like the Soviet or the British dissolution, it will be peaceful. Those of us that count ourselves as your friends, despite it all, watch anxiously- as we all know -indeed as does the world- that monumental changes affect us all in ways that are unpredictable.
True, for the purpose of this world is to establish a full understanding of darkness, and with darkness being a pretense of good hiding an intent to be enriched upon our misery, surely what happens next will be an entirely new and unknown kind of misery.
The last paragraph with the, "there is no escape now..." is hyperbolic BS. The Chinese-dollar thing is just stupid. It would HELP us if the Chinese would dump more dollars. Yes, we have incredible problems that will not be solved anywhere soon enough, but doom n gloom is not everyone's vision, and powerful forces for good will arise. Anyone who's crystal ball is clear, owns junk. The anger and angst are so scatter-brained that real problem solving is difficult. Let's be clear. Few of the world's most powerful players want a collapse. Adjustments will be made that will likely keep things afloat.
REVERSE TRUTH
"powerful forces for good will arise...
Few of the world's most powerful players
want a collapse."
TRUTH
Powerful forces always migrate toward the bad,
best forms of government to not allow for there
to be "powerful forces."
Most of the world's powerful players want things
to collapse, more wars the better as wars
concentrate power the most glorious.
The movement does not somehow accidentally harbor a few rogue elements who embrace the confederate flag. At least from my vantage point in SC that is the heart and soul of what it means to be secessionist, a handful of deluded souls in VT to the contrary. They also embrace everything that flag stands for. Loudly and proudly. You really do have to be quite a fool to not notice that. And I normally stay away from the ad hominem attack.......
As a fellow pacifist I would encourage you to give this new
secessionist movement your full support. Can you see
any other option that has the slightest hope of success?
I don't see secessionism as having the "slightest" hope of success. On the contrary, as I suggested, its history is one of leading to the worst war on American soil, a war which has arguably never been resolved either on the abstract question of states rights, or its more genuine root cause (which is the root issue for most modern secessionists) fear of racial minorities. Government has very real purposes; I don't see how pacifism contradicts the need for government. What mechanism would you suggest for a more equitable distribution of labor and resources? Government is a mechanism. A tool. Humans use tools. Rather than fragmenting into smaller and smaller units of groups fighting over resources, the trend to international governance is much more hopeful. And the only hope for a pacifist.
Thanks for your useful and logical comment.
Agreed. Government can be used for good or bad. A small government can be just as corrupt as a big one - just look at New Jersey, both state and municpal.
Not only that, how do you prevent a race to the bottom in labor and environmental standards among many separate sovereignties?
If you think we've got problems now, then wait till you have lots of little governments competing against each other, all venal and corrupt.
Hedges really lost me here; I'm disappointed in him. This just sounds like a bunch of bong talk, the kind of utopian rubbish that was disseminated during the 60's to confuse and so neutralize the left. I recall clearly that this was the same kind of talk that was turned against organized labor, and that created enough of a popular groundswell to enable the offshoring of our manufacturing base on "environmental" grounds without much public opposition. This was also the same atomism that largely eliminated the tendency of the public to respond effectively enmass to unpopular policies of the elite.
I agree with one caveat: it has to be willing. Forcing people into a country they don't want to be in, and then enacting discriminatory laws to crush "separatism" is no solution.
Is the U.S. the ultimate Too Big To Fail?
Perhaps it needs to be broken up just like the banks.
The Independent States of America?
too big to not fail
Those most intelligent want everything big, as it is the
only way that they can have absolute control.
Whereas, we slow thinking laboring men want everything
small, as it is the only way that we can have any control.
And so, you of the intelligent middleclass must resolve the
issue, as we happen to notice that the big brains are drooling
over the delight of having such smart slaves as you.
Every state wants to secede but deep down every state knows that it couldn't really afford to. My state of New York could theoretically be its own country and stop being a donor state but like Texas, we would lose our business relationships with other states for being a whole different country. Great article on the truth about the empire crumbling from within at the same time it tries to expand but this begs one question. How do we fix it?
Well California certainly could afford to. No question about that. We send well over $200 billion a year back east more than we get back. If we were independent we'd have the strongest economy in the world. Heck, if we were independent we could afford free health care and free college tuition for everyone, and still be able to lower taxes.
And why would liberating the states from the oppressive federal yoke cause states to end their business relationships? The world is full of nations that do business with other nations.
I for one can't wait until the California Republic is restored. I don't know why Hedges doesn't mention California in his article. Support for independence (a much better phrase than secession) is very strong here, and we're the biggest and wealthiest state.
"Well California certainly could afford to."
The state is in big debts and the state government of CA is just as bad as our state government of NY, corrupt to the core.
"And why would liberating the states from the oppressive federal yoke cause states to end their business relationships? The world is full of nations that do business with other nations. "
Those nations were developed a long time ago and planned accordingly. None of these states are prepared to be on their own when you look close. Let's say they secede. Then they depend on other countries, formerly states, and they're screwed. I'm sorry but there is a lot of big talk on secession but very little planning on making the transition less painful.
"Support for independence (a much better phrase than secession) is very strong here, and we're the biggest and wealthiest state."
Wealthiest state? Take out the wealthy few and you'll see the real picture.
California sends more money, in taxes, into the rest of the US than it gets back, so, yes, it can certainly afford to leave. Debt wise, it would be better off if it leaves, and keeps those taxes for itself.
In effect, all the big states, California, Texas, NY, can afford to leave. They might be all corrupt to the core, but because of population size and population density, they are propping up smaller states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Wyoming by sending out more money in taxes than they get back.
If California or NY or Texas leaves, it would be states such as Wyoming that would be screwed much more, than California.
Indeed. Areas which will secede are those that have poor return on their federal tax dollar coupled with excellent natural resources. A quick survey of the country reveals states like California, Oregon, Washington, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York as tops on the list. Obvious regional coalescing can be envisioned.
>>Every state wants to secede but deep down every state knows that it couldn't really afford to.
Complete nonsense. The reality is just the opposite. More and more states are coming to the point that they can't afford to stay in the union. Whether it be the massive drain of tax dollars being funneled to the MIC or mandatory insurance schemes like our auto and health, it is increasingly obvious that these capitalist middle men are expensive poodles to have around in the house.
"More and more states are coming to the point that they can't afford to stay in the union."
Only a minority handful in each of those states maybe but there is no significant indicator to confirm their point of view.
"Whether it be the massive drain of tax dollars being funneled to the MIC or mandatory insurance schemes like our auto and health, it is increasingly obvious that these capitalist middle men are expensive poodles to have around in the house."
Seceding from the union won't kill capitalism. The wealthy will still get away with unfettered capitalism. Why not push to tame capitalism?
>>Seceding from the union won't kill capitalism. The wealthy will still get away with unfettered capitalism. Why not push to tame capitalism?
Divide and conquer. If any region goes through the business of secession, they will have to reevaluate their system of government. If the primary driving force for secession is capitalists run amok, you can rest assured that any new government will put real restraints on the forces that drove that region into the economic dust. We could speculate on the nature of those new governments until the cows come home. The reality is, there will be no new government until the old one is scrapped. From a logistical point of view, it will be far easier to accomplish this task without competing regional interests. Secession is probably the most realistic and non-violent way to accomplish this task.
Dear Uncle Sam,
I want to secede.
Love,
Vermont
Dear Vermont,
Sure! No Problem, but you have to take your share of the federal debt.
Love,
Uncle Sam
Sounds like a divorce. Maybe they could ask to be kept in the manner to which they have become accustomed. That and the good china.
Dear Old Man Sam-
No we don't. That debt is yours and yours alone.
Good bye,
Vermont
Dear Uncle Sam,
Fine, but in-lieu of the national debt thing, hows about you just keep my share of the US military. I sure won't need it.
XOXOXO,
Vermont
Chris Hedges is not being accurate here.
His first sentence is correct, but as early as the second sentence, he is misleading.
Clearly, he (and I) would prefer that the Vermont version would be representative, but I suspect that the southern, racist, not-so-much-anticapitalist version (which he barely mentions) is more representative of the majority of people in this movement nation-wide.
This application of patina is, I believe, misleading and dangerous. It is as if Mr. Hedges would have written that the pre-civil war movements in the North and in the South were aimed at largely the same goals.
Texas, especially, has a long history of "lone star" mentality which is ardently racist and capitalist. It is all about greed and domination.
Yes, the Vermont example is hopeful in its concerns, but do not try to tell me that it is anything more than the exception.
Also,
having more independent "STATES" is not going to help us see that the idea of states is itself one of the greatest problems facing humanity.