More rationale for an economic blue-state secession

Rob sent me a link to these letters from red-state Democrats chastizing any talk of "blue-state secession." I started to write an e-mail back, but it got longer and longer, so I decide to just go ahead and throw it up here instead:

The letters are definitely interesting, but still a little dissatisfying. I'd like to see more tactical arguments about where to go next with the country. Part of the appeal of "secession" for me—esp. the idea of pursuing any sort of economic civil war, e.g., boycotting Wyoming beef to buy from Oregon, or even Argentina—is that it addresses the bigger problem: America has become too big, too diverse, and too powerful. Sure, we're a greater potential source for good to the rest of the world, but we're also a greater potential source for evil, thanks to our winner-takes-all system. I'd like to see a tiny federal government, strong enough to protect us but incapable of military adventurism, and a weak Supreme Court (it hasn't always had the god-like authority it seems to wield now). I'd love to see cities and counties and states become the most powerful and relevant government institutions in people's lives. In that respect, I'm definitely a conservative. Or a libertarian. Or a Democrat? I don't know what they're calling that nowadays.

I guess I'm fundamentally questioning the idea from the letters that we're "all in this together." I'm not being a latte-drinking snob. I'm saying I don't want to slowly lose what I have, too, over my lifetime. I should move to Iowa or Florida to preserve my vision of America? How arrogant (not to mention unrealistic) is that? A lot of people in Iowa and Florida don't share my vision of America. What am I, a missionary? I love my state and city and neighborhood. I think you can just as easily make the argument that progressives from red states should move to blue states, to cement our hold on what we have. It's far from complete—just look at Arnold in CA and the lingering threat of a Dino Rossi governorship here. Dino Rossi! So we can teach creationism in Seattle schools!

Bush is elected, and that's done. But I think (I hope) Republicans in the future will return to the ideals of smaller government, no deficits, and little or no involvement in people's personal rights and lives. When they do, I'll have no problem voting Republican nationally and voting for Democrats closer to home, to preserve the things I care about--progressive taxation, protecting God's earth, the right to choice, and the right to a good education and medical care. If Tennessee wants to outlaw abortion, science, and women kissing each other, then have at it.

The most persuasive argument in the red-state letters to me is the plea for a "life preserver." I don't want to punish states, I just want a better system, and I'm sad that people could be hurt in a more drastic process of realignment like I'm talking about. But I'm made to feel a little bit better when I hear the language of the victorious party, both officials and chattering supporters, essentially (and sometimes literally) telling me that "we won, so fuck off." Okay: That's what I'd like to do. Fuck off. So let's all fuck off, already.

And I think the short list of fucking-off is this:

1. Publicize the hell out of the fact that red states are predominantly deadbeat states (they take back far more from the federal government than they pay in).

2. Stop giving our money to those states in commerce, at least as individuals but maybe even as businesses and (some day) cities and states. (Remember when progressive cities stopped making purchases from Burma?)

3. Vote for and work for and donate to federal candidates—including Republicans—that will shrink the federal government and bring federal taxes down to something like a flat 5%.

4. Vote for and work for and donate to state and local candidates who will preserve the liberal, progressive legacy of our own communities and replace any lost federal dollars with local taxes. Which would be even cheaper, once we stopped sending our "extra" tax dollars to Arkansas and South Dakota!

Comments

[Irving Thule]

I will not visit any Red State. Period. That means no Formula 1 race this year. sigh. But Las Vegas went blue, if not the state overall, so...well, that's a tough one and I'll cross that bridge the next time I've a hankering to see Lance Burton. When possible, I look at the origin of stuff and decide if I can live not buying it if it's from a Red state (what?! No more Idaho potatos? sigh.). Dino?!? Um, sorry paisano, but no state should have a governor named after the Flinstone family pet. And I suspect that only Conan the Replubican doesn't know that he's really a Dem in wolf's clothing. His only family (ma & pa dead) is ALL Dem and any guy who's married will know that a wife washes your brain liberally.
But what will really have an effect is if we can find a way to stop sending our taxes to the Reds. I'm just a simpleton, but I'm going to spend some time seeing how this might be done/whom to contact, etc. Money talks after all. And to go slightly off-topic, it kills me when I see a Bush/Cheney '04 sticker on some piece of shit old beater car like a Geo Metro. Weren't you listening when W described the "haves and the have-mores" as his kind of people? Oh yeah, that's right, you didn't see that movie. And the candy-ass networks NEVER mentioned it, which is why I've pretty much ended my nightly routine of watching the various cable news shows. The real shit is on the blogs! You go, girl!

[ralph nader]

i agree with irving thule: you are a missionary paul.

and i am having a salad. a cessation casear salad.

[HJS]

Is there any serious organizing going on to put together a Blue States Coalition to start this economic secessionist movement, with federal tax avoidance, red states boycott, et al? If not, is anyone interested in starting such an organization?

[Paul]

Lord knows I am, and I think even the right-winger, motto-of-the-Confederacy-spouting comments I have gotten are in agreement. Separate! Now! (Economically and regulatorily, at least.) My site is hardly the place for such a thing‐I'm too busy talking about taco buses, for one thing. But it's a big, fat, good, decidedly non-Terry McAuliffe idea. I kept waiting for something to percoloate up out of the Daily Kos threads on this, but nothing yet. Because I talked about blue state secession so long ago, sadly my site still ranks high for that Google search, and I worry I'm not doing more to direct people purposefully. Help me look, and I will set a guiding searchlight on any good Web center we can find for this idea. Seriously, e-mail me and let's talk. I'll collect other like-minded e-mails and let's canvas the Web. If there's nothing there, we'll plant a stake in the sand. The urls bluestatesecession.com and .org weren't taken as of a few days ago (why didn't I just buy them?), so maybe some like-minded person has taken this up, although I can't seem to find anything on Internic.

[Jason]

There is a group which is beginning some organizational efforts towards Blue State independance; or at the very least autonomy. http://freeatlantica.tripod.com. It is, however, presantly limited to the Northeast (Maine to Maryland). The goal is to establish a mainstream 527 group which both brings to light the extent to which red states feed off of Blue State tax dollars, and advocates regonal autonomy (at the least) in both policy making and bureaucratic administration.

Again, this is a MAINSTREAM organization, seeking intelligent input from like-minded people. Organization is still underway, and for now the website admittedly includes some inflamatory pieces. By the end of January, however, things will start happening for real. The 'Mission Statement' section of the site provides a guide as to what someone can expect the group to look like. Feel free to comment.

[Paul]

Thanks, Jason!

From their statement: "We believe the United States is at a historic crossroad, literally being torn apart by uncompromising political rhetoric, reassertion of regional identity, and intransient differences in values and basic way of life. Our goal is to foster greater regional identity and cooperation, and encourage a movement towards greater political autonomy."

I still don't think actual, literal secession is practical or desirable. But I'd love to see a movement towards decentralization of power, so red states and blue states--and red counties and blue counties--can have greater control over where their tax money goes and what rules they live by. Please keep your eye open for any sites pursuing this, and I'll post them here.

[GettinOuttaAustin]

I think that in the case of secession, the first step is to inform and discuss, then it must be the will of the people. When it is the will of the state(s) to leave the union, then and only then can we discuss methods. I am a social conservative who is looking at the ideas and the cultural / socio-economic issues. Let us pursue with patience and wisdom- that which our adversaries lack.

[Susan Bourland]

I started my very own secessionist blog after the election. The idea is that there are thousand of little cultural and political secessions that happen every day in Washington, Oregon and California. I like to document them.

[Ryan]

I am a Dem. who is all for secession. I think it would be good for all. The red country can ban gay marriage, ban abortion, destroy their land, make christianity the country religion, ban all other religions, teach creationism in schools, cut rich peoples taxes, require by law once a week church services, ban foreigners, be racially prejudice and racially profile, start wars with as many countries as they want(we will even let you attack Iraq if Al-Qaeda-or anyone else- attacks us in NY again), make a combination of church and state, ban porn, ban gambling....etc. And us in Blue Country will leave as we please. I would think both sides would want this. Look, why stay in a marriage if you always fight, cannot see eye-to-eye, do not trust each other, have different morals and priorities..etc. I mean seriously, think about it. I laugh at the thought of how "Red Country" would look after 50-100 years. So let's do it, we do not have to hate each other. Just like a divorce, we can still be friends. Just stay out of our business (Democracy) and we will not get in your business (Theocracy). I guess those Rep. who do not want this to happen also have enough wisdom to envision the same "Red Country" that I do in 50-100, if this happens.

[Starla]

I really think that the blue states should secede. Leave the poor dumb red states to fend for themselves. Think about it. No money, no bombs. No money, no giant super-secret, all powerful military either. Let them pay for their homophobic, Christian dark ages themselves.
I'm in Arizona and I plan to move either to Canada or to a blue state. Frankly I'd be willing to help in secession. It's about time.

[s1105615]

The fact that most you seem to gloss over is that not every blue state is completely liberal and not every red state is completely conservative. Look at the county map of how the vote totals came out and it becomes very clear that this is an urban vs. suburban/exurban divide in the country. Seccession will never work because too many conservatives still live in the blue state. So that means to make it work, there would have to be a "Conservative Cleansing" of the blue states that would leave the rural and exurban areas of states like New York and California barren. Liberal support comes from two places. The inner cities filled with people who refuse to accept responsibilty for their choices, always blaming someone else for their problems and always looking for a hand-out, and ultra-wealthy elites who have enough lawyers to avoid paying the "progressive" taxes they want levied on everyone else so that they can assuage their guilt from making to much money. So, go ahead and try to secede, you'll figure out how much you really are out of touch with not only the rest of the country, but most of your neighbors as well.

[Skool]

http://www.angelfire.com/blog2/bluestateredstate/index.html

Great info here on the actual representatives from these states (including Vegas, Cleveland/Akron/Toledo, and Miami), how not only do they have mroe Dems, but the Republicans they elect are mostly the moderate kind.

Check it out!

[teadog]

ahem, as an proudly independent centrist in the red state of missouri I think you guys are hysterical. let me see if I get this right. you suceed and let the red states do what they want? what? like reimpose slavery and witch trials? bring back Jim Crow? gee what a great idea!so you're saying MLK was wrong? no really thats what you are saying.
the red states suck up all the federal money? well yes a lot of senior citizens draw their social security checks in florida, but in my experience the welfare lines are longest in the blue states. a lot of federal money is spent on the highway and rail infrastructure that allows goods to be shipped cross country, and for califorians to take scenic drives to non smoggy areas.
go it alone? buy only blue state products? have you guys forgotten who grows the food? are you really going to feed 30 million californians on iceberg lettuce and avacodos?
do you understand what happened in the last civil war? the south was ruined, desolated, and took years to recover into what is the new south and the sunbelt. lets be clear, in a new civil war, it would be the blue states that were ruined, desolated and laid waste. cuz we all know white liberals don't own guns, and street gangs have no fire discipline, the rednecks and lets not forget that the military is predominantly southern, will turn LA into fallujah world. don't think for a minute that secession would not be bloody.
The majority of red staters and not blithering homophobes, nor are most christians out to lock up sinners, seriously someone spiked your lattes. has it ever occurred to you that the left is just as brainwashed as the right? and that most americans are in the middle thinking both sides need to chill the fuck out?

[S. Behel]

***
An Economic and Cultural Rationale for Blue State Secession
***

The recent election results while applauded by many, have been received with concern or even fear by others. The idea of "culture war" between different geographic regions was crystallized in our minds- we understand now much more clearly what that means. What the election unfortunately gave us was a government controlled by one region and ideology at the conspicuous expense of another. This, combined with an unwillingness by the arch-conservatives to serve all of the people, leaves the Blue States with an uncomfortable choice of virtual economic and cultural subjugation, or to approach the concept of secession from the union.
I have had the opportunity to live in many places in America; included are Iowa (urban locations and rural), Pennsylvania (suburban), Colorado (urban), Montana (rural), Missouri (urban and rural), Illinois (suburban), Arkansas (rural), and Texas (urban). There do exist considerable social and cultural differences between these locations and many of the differences fall along what we now refer to as Red State / Blue State divisions. What is surprising (and disappointing) is the arch-conservative movement that has arisen to exploit these geographic / ideological differences. Not only is this movement dividing our country culturally, it is using well-coordinated disinformation, and divide and rule tactics, to strip our nation's finances to serve primarily a privileged few. The result will be future generations that have difficulty providing for themselves and their families, and a declining nation that has difficulty providing for its own defense.
As mentioned, the destructive fallout of these arch-conservative policies combined with their apparent lock on voters in Red State America (thus control of the federal government) have forced some to consider the idea of Blue State secession. Many of the articles and opinions I have read on the subject recently are quite frankly, a bit far-out. The concept itself, however, may be entirely sound, and perhaps unavoidable as one considers the economic and social/cultural issues that affect mainstream people.

1) Economic Issues

1a) The Blue States Are Financially Carrying the Red States
Apparently this is the case. Blue States pay more in to the federal government than what they take out. The Red States get the benefit. Considering the control that the Red States led by the arch-conservatives have on our federal government, this is highly significant. It may be the most powerful argument for Blue State secession. One ideology / region pays-in and is subjugated for their trouble, the other receives funds and rules. This is not a sustainable condition.

1b) Recent Arch-Conservative Draining of $2 Trillion From The U.S. Treasury
This is unfortunately true, $2 trillion has been taken and slapped on to the national debt within the past four years. The same political party that professed fiscal discipline and balanced budgets for decades has changed its course to adopting a policy of stripping the treasury and diverting the money to two main beneficiaries- the rich and powerful, and expensive unproductive war. We have had a fiscal deficit for many years, but the accumulated national debt (and associated interest) is approaching critical levels. This affects all domestic programs and our future ability to defend the nation.
The tax cuts mostly rewarded the rich and powerful, plain and simple. Or did your taxes go way, way down Mr. or Ms. Middle-class America? If your taxes did drop drastically, who did your return? Most of us got a "happy meal" out of the tax cuts, the super-wealthy got the real benefit.
It is understood that the war in Afghanistan was necessary and unavoidable. We were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda who were guests (more like controllers) of the Taliban government. This government would not turn the terrorists over as a matter of peaceful cooperation despite repeated requests to do so. As a result, and with the support of the international community, we went to war to displace the Taliban and deny al Qaeda their sanctuary. The war in Afghanistan was relatively inexpensive and quick. Iraq is a different story.
It would appear that war in Iraq has been an unstated goal of the arch-conservatives for some time. Disinformation has been rampant and has surrounded this conflict. 40% of Americans believe that Iraq was behind the attacks on 9/11. The sales pitch for war of "weapons of mass destruction" is now legendary, including fabricated claims of Iraqi nuclear weapons capabilities.
Some of the misinformation has been simple intelligence errors. But much of this misinformation has been no mistake and has been reinforced by a well-directed propaganda machine that is centrally operated. The net result was that a nation fearful after the 9/11 attacks was whipped into a secondary war mode.
At this point the war in Iraq has cost the United States somewhere between $120 billion and $200 billion (we never do get the full story). That money buys a lot of heath care. It buys a lot of social security. It buys a new space shuttle fleet (about 100 space shuttles). It just plain buys a lot of productive things for the people of America. That money is gone now forever, it cannot be re-spent. And we are spending more on that war every day.
At this point Saddam has been captured and Uday and Kusay are dead. What beef do we really have with Muqtada al Sadr? Did the residents of Fallujah attack us on 9/11? Well, 40% of Americans think they did.
I understand that allowing Iraq to dissolve into chaos might be dangerous for America, however, what Iraq will become will ultimately be up to the Iraqis, anyway. We should have already finished our mission there for the most part. If we left Iraq in the near future and kept a small contingent of troops in the region to engage and destroy any terrorist threat that might crop-up, that would probably do the job. But the current arch-conservative plan is to stay in Iraq forever in some form. The oil seems to draw the arch-cons like moths to a flame. The net gain is received by oil-based corporations and the costs are borne by the American treasury. And since the arch-cons have shown a tendency toward war for political gain, what war is next? They will need additional war to stay in power.
I believe that the people of the Blue States largely understand these issues and would rather we finished-up this war in Iraq and not get into another one quite so recklessly. The military is very much a part of Red State culture, and the Red State culture (not attacked on 9/11) would prefer to kick-ass from now until the end of days regardless of consequences. And don't bother them about the costs of doing so, they really don't seem to understand the finances.
The U.S. trade deficit is currently around $½ trillion per year or approximately $10 billion per week. The U.S. fiscal/budgetary deficit is about the same. The combined effects are probably not entirely additive, but the effective drain can be figured as somewhere between $10 billion and $20 billion per week. This is a non-sustainable condition. We are rapidly approaching the point-of-no-return on this financial drain. Our military may soon end up rusting in dock and on base because we simply can no longer afford to field it.

1c) Outsourcing of Jobs and Industries
Outsourcing is one of the major contributors to the trade deficit, and to the loss of good jobs. The generation of workers that has retired and is in the process of retiring got to have their careers so screw everybody else, right? They want their cheap stuff at Walmart.
If outsourcing is such a good idea then why didn't we export our industries in the 1950s or 1960s? Cheap labor markets have always been available. Could you imagine Eisenhower or JFK allowing off-shoring of large segments of our industrial base in the midst of the Cold War? Is it any less dangerous today? No. Is it any less destructive to our future today? No.
For myself, outsourcing is the most prominent rationale for Blue State secession. How can I support my family if I cannot find work that is economically gainful? Make no mistake, outsourcing is not just an unavoidable global economic happening, it is a matter of arch-conservative policy. Red States are more rural and agriculturally based. Outsourcing does not impact them the same way it does the industrial Blue States; be the industry high-tech, heavy manufacturing, textiles or other. If outsourcing did hurt the Red States in the same manner as it does the Blue States, the arch-conservatives would likely not be pursuing it.
The policy of work visas for illegal immigrants, and our lack of border enforcement, are simply part of the outsourcing policy. It keeps labor costs low and it helps the profit margins of those privileged enough to benefit from those profit margins. Our high school kids used to do many of the jobs now done by illegal immigrants. The money was spent to buy cars and save for college in many cases. Now our young people don't have those jobs or are forced to compete with illegals. And it is mentions, illegal immigration is illegal.
Nations that allow their industries to be outsourced will tend to lose those industries, most likely forever. Nations that treat their industries as national resources in similar fashion to oil, forests, mineral rights and crop land, will tend to keep them. This does not imply outright protectionism, but it does imply sensible policy, such as leveling the playing field with nations that have labor rates on the order of 20-30% of our own when it comes to trade and tariffs.
Today the outsourcing issue is controlled by a Red State dominated arch-conservative government; they will continue to outsource. It punishes unions and middle-class workers; blue-collar and white-collar. If Blue States had their own government, the story might be very different. There would at least be the opportunity to treat industries as national resources.

1d) Health Care
The retired people of the Red States have their social security, medicare and medicaid. They got theirs so screw everybody else, right? Now if you have a family and are trying to make ends meet, things might be a little more complicated for you; the arch-conservatives want to make it a whole lot more complicated for you. Their plan is high-deductible accounts instead of medical insurance. Sounds great if you're rich. It is easy to be part of the "ownership class" when you have plenty of money to own things and pay in to accounts. If you are not rich and you get sick, or someone in your family gets sick or hurt, you get to pay it out-of-pocket under the arch-con plan. Insurance company regulation and countering drug company profit-gouging is not part of their vocabulary.
A responsible Blue State nation could look after the public welfare the same way this country did for generations. We profited greatly, all of us together, during those generations. Under socially responsible government, we went from the depths of the Great Depression to a period of the greatest standard of living in American history (the early-mid 1970s). We even went to the moon. Look at what has happened since the arch-conservatives began to take over. We went from the greatest standard of living in our nation's history to where we are now; which is struggling. We don't necessarily need socialized health care, but a bolstering of our current employer-based system would be in order. Under a Red State dominated nation, we're not going to get it. We get the high-deductible system; and who needs yet another tweeky account to manage? Talk about needing accountants to run our lives! We will not get responsible government in the area of health care prior to Blue State secession. Pray you don't get seriously ill or hurt in the meantime, or that your baby doesn't require a complicated delivery. It very well may wipe you out.

1e) Retirement (Ability to Retire)
The already retired, and currently retiring generation got theirs so screw everybody else, right?
If you are under the age of 40, you may have extreme difficulty retiring when you get older. The arch-conservatives could have invested some of the $2 trillion that they recently drained from our treasury in social security to keep it solvent for a generation to come, but they decided that their interests were more important. That is the level of public service that the Red States have forced upon us; perhaps indefinitely.
The arch-conservatives will tell you that the need to spend the $2 trillion was "baked in" to the economy. It most certainly was not. The only thing "baked in" is that excuse; and it is half-baked. Perhaps our only chance to retire, just for a few years before we die, is Blue State secession. Expanded 401k's under arch-conservative planning? Once again it is harder to pay-in with the poorly paying jobs left after outsourcing.
Using the stock market for our social security? What happens when the stock market crashes? We had a round of corporate scandal recently, we will have another at some point in the future; perhaps many more. What happens when that portion of social security that has been put into the stock market disappears? Perhaps people have forgotten about Enron.

1f) Equal Public Education vs. Privatized Unequal Voucher-Based Education
The arch-conservatives hate all unions. The teachers union is at the top of their hate-list. If the evangelicals want to home school their children, that's fine. They should be allowed to do that in their Red Nation. Equal opportunity in education is extremely important. The next most-brilliant leaders in business and industry, or science, or government, just might be located in poorer families right now, today. If we do not open our system to these minds, the only alternative is the less-able and better-positioned. That results in a lesser nation. If the Blue States would secede and base a nation on science and secularism vs. Religion, they would very quickly outpace the Red States that they left behind. The arch-cons value economic and social position over talent. The arch-cons championed by the Red States want vouchers, I'll vouch for open public education offered equally for all- that can happen in a Blue Nation.

1g) Progressive vs. Flat Taxation and Economic Effects
I used to be a proponent of a flat tax. It sounds good, and it sounds ultimately fair, right? Our tax code has been changing from more progressive to more flat for many years. Back in the 1950s the top tax bracket had a marginal rate in the neighborhood of 85%. That means the second million dollars that you made would be taxed at that rate. The first $10,000 dollars would be taxed at a somewhat lower rate.
One of the measures that our intelligence services use to predict the armed revolution of foreign nations is the difference between the top 10% of wealth holders and the bottom 10%. Makes sense, in some banana republic the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, until a breaking point is reached then the many overthrow the few who subjugate them.
In America the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, do you know one of the biggest causes? Arch-conservative tax reform via tax cut schemes and tax rate flattening. Now that 85% tax rate on the second million is something like 36%. That's an extra half million on that second million that goes right to the Bermuda condo instead of to the government. Thus that money does not go into social security, health care, etc.
Which side are you moving toward? Can the nation (or any nation) continue to survive with the continued separation of the rich and poor, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? No.
A fact of life is that the rich have more ability to pay for the operation of the government. We used to call that "paying their fair share." From a practical viewpoint, a government which needs revenue to operate must collect taxes under a progressive system. A flat system, which the arch-conservatives are force-feeding ultimately squashes the middle class, forces the gap between richest and poorest to widen, and tends toward instability and ultimately leads in the direction of government financial failure.
The Red Staters want that dangerous flat-tax system. A wiser Blue State nation with a stable progressive tax system is much more preferable. The rich will still gain wealth as history has demonstrated in the 1950s, and they would also benefit from a more stable society.

1h) Ability to Sue Those Who Harm You or Your Family
Under the arch-conservative platform, if you or a loved one is hurt by a doctor, or hurt by a poorly designed product, you will be heavily limited on your ability to recover financial damages. I currently live in a state (a Red State) where if my penis is accidentally removed through medical error, or my wife's breasts are removed through medical error, all we can recover is $250,000, because it does not limit our ability to work. I am not joking with penises or breasts. How much is your penis worth? Or your breasts? If you are accidentally mutilated or harmed don't you need the right to sue and have the damages decided by a jury of your peers? This isn't an issue of greed by lawyers or people, it is an issue of protecting yourself and your loved ones.
The arch-conservatives hate lawyers. Lawyers tend not to vote conservative, and they tend to support the rights of the people. Some reform of law suits is in order to avoid the excesses that have crept into our system. These excesses and their subsequent costs are greatly exaggerated by the arch-cons. Under a Red State government, your ability to protect your family by suing those who do them harm will be greatly curtailed. I believe these rights would be better protected under a separate nation of Blue States.

1i) No Inheritance Tax vs. Healthy Turnover of Wealth
Those who take their ideas and hard work and turn them into fortunes are to be admired. Those who have their fortunes handed to them in whole or in part, are more of a blight on society than an asset.
The previous inheritance tax policy of our country did not burden small business owners or farmers as falsely advertised by the arch-conservatives. It impacted the very rich. Now that the arch-conservatives have effectively eliminated it, we can enjoy generation after generation of the privileged few running virtually everything- a true aristocracy. Enormous fortunes and families of fortune will endure without end-in-sight. That much capital remaining in the same hands indefinitely demoralizes the capable, yet financially modest by birth, and it rewards the wealthy by birth, yet less capable people. It creates an ingrown society.
A Blue State nation with sensible inheritance tax policy would quickly outpace a Red State nation where position-by-birth [i.e.) no inheritance tax on the superrich] determined everyone's financial status and added barriers to financial self-improvement. A turnover of wealth is extremely healthy for a society, as is wealth accumulation and status by merit.

2) Cultural Issues

2a) A Woman's Right to Choose
Roe v. Wade is likely to be overturned in the near future with the appointment of additional right-wing U.S. Supreme Court justices. The issue will likely be sent to the states in the near term and a constitutional amendment to ban all abortion may be attempted. At that point the cultural divide between Red States and Blue States will become more drastic. Abortion will be outlawed in Red States. That is all but written in stone. Doctors and hospitals will once again see the resulting mutilation of women as some seek abortion by their own hand, or through "butcher doctors".
I am not for abortion, except perhaps in the case where the mother's life is in danger. The decision, however, must always be in the hands of the mother. We have seen by history what happens when a woman does not have the right to legal, safe abortion. She has ultimate control over her own body whether the law recognizes that or not.
The arch-conservative view of the rights of the unborn simply does not work. It sounds noble, but history has shown us that it does not work.
The rights of women will tend to be protected in the Blue States. I don't see where a separate nation of Blue States would ever threaten these rights.

2b) Gay Rights
This segment of the population is at the bulls eye of the arch-conservative culture war. If you are gay, you are despised by Red Staters, especially the evangelicals. In some Red States if you are gay, many believe it is okay to physically harm you because you are part of the devil.
As a social conservative, I don't believe that gay marriage is necessarily the answer, but protecting the rights of gay people so that they can participate in society is important. They need access to health care rights, hospital visitation, discrimination protection, military service, social security, inheritance, etc.- even perhaps adoption rights.
I do believe that gay people need to be sensitive and considerate to traditional families and traditional marriage. The proper compromises could be reached in a nation of Blue States. If the Red States are in control, gay people will have virtually no place in society. If the Blue States should ever succeed in separating from the Red States, and you are gay and live in a Red State- run.

2c) Racial Diversity vs. White America
Discrimination exists everywhere, but many of the Red States that I've lived in still regard racism as a cherished institution- make no mistake. If you are not white in Red State America, or cannot pass for white, you are marginalized in the neighborhood, at school, socially, etc.
By and large, the Blue States have populations comprised of a greater variety of races and cultures. Blue State people are thus more open and respectful of other races and cultures than are their Red State counterparts.

2d) Religion (Mostly Christian Red States vs. Religious Variety in Blue States)
The evangelical Christian culture certainly dominates Red State America. Catholics, Jews and general other Christian religions are considered acceptable. Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.- forget it. You're out. You are not respected and you might actually get your home or place of worship vandalized on occasion, or worse.
Blue State America respects all religions to a greater degree and promotes a secular society and government such that one religion does not dominate another. All the talk of a Judeo-Christian heritage in America (little on the Judeo, big on the Christian), tends to be coded language for a continuation of religious domination and further government influence by evangelical Christians.
It will be said also that for so long we were a nation of science as well as faith. America accomplished great things as a nation that respected science. The dominance of religion in government that is beginning to take hold will diminish this progress. A Blue State nation that holds on to religious secularism in government and upholds the practice of science will quickly outpace a religious-based Red State nation.
Faith is personal and not for governments to endorse explicitly or implicitly.

2e) The Dry County
As Red State controlled America rolls back abortion rights, gay rights, etc., we will inevitably come to the issue of alcohol. If you have ever been to an evangelical service (which I have), you would know that consumption of alcohol is unacceptable to them. The dry county has been a curious anachronism in modern day America, a holdover from a time when evangelical religion did hold a greater sway. As we turn back the clock we will likely see more dry counties, perhaps even dry states.
How many of you go down to the sports bar on occasion and watch a ball game? Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol provide a social function. What must be understood about the evangelical culture is that they (evangelical preachers), don't like the social competition. They believe that the church should be the center of cultural and social life. Evangelicals don't go to the sports bar, they go to the revival or other church function for social occasion.
Most Blue State Americans do not comprehend the dry county. They would be glad to keep things that way. The dry county creates a kind of social tension that is difficult to describe unless you've spent time in one. Except for the Columbine incident, I believe that most of the more famous school shooting incidents took place in dry counties. An abundance of guns added to weird social tensions seems to result in dead kids.
It is only a matter of time until the Red State led arch-conservative movement will attempt to expand prohibition in some form and impose it on the Blue States. Something akin to the temperance societies of the late 1800s and early 1900s is likely to be in our future.

2f) From Sex Education In Schools to Local Decency Laws
There is an additional variety of social and cultural issues that tend to divide Red State culture from Blue State culture. Neither side has a moratorium on correctness in this regard. The biggest problem is when a religious-based government begins to define morality on a broader and broader geographic level. The secular-based government of a Blue State nation would tend to protect different communities that have different viewpoints on moral issues.

2g) Misinformation vs. Consent of an Informed Electorate
FDR did not fan the flames of fear during the height of the Great Depression. He gave strength to the people by saying that there was nothing to fear but fear itself. Our current arch-conservative led government uses fear and misinformation to perpetuate its own continuation. A democracy cannot survive where factual information has given way to organized, state-sponsored propaganda. Either our public officials must provide factual information or our press must hold them accountable.
The lack of terrorist scares from the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security since the election is over is a striking development. The fear-mongering, using the power of the government before the election and used to affect election results, was unsurpassed.
40% of Americans believe that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks, justifying the war there in those people's minds.
Individuals disagreeing with arch-conservative positions and actions are now publicly smeared using the power of the U.S. government: former Counter-terrorism Chief Richard Clarke, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, etc. There are more examples.
The political wing of the White House issues its talking points, positions, and instructions daily. These are then picked-up (via. web site or other), and parroted by other right-wing government officials, arch-conservative news organizations, arch-conservative radioheads, right-wing newspaper columnists, religious groups, and other affiliated organizations. The free press is kept as much in the dark as possible. Corporately-owned press that is complimentary of the arch-conservative positions are rewarded financially through regulatory pardons.
This level of centralized information control and issuance of disinformation can only be compared to the propaganda machines of Hitler's Nazi Party, Soviet Russia and perhaps some third world juntas. Our arch-conservatives are not quite as brash as these examples, but the comparison of methods and effectiveness is valid. Democracy cannot survive in this environment of centrally controlled misinformation, and an informed electorate has been eroded in Red State dominated America.
A separate Blue State nation might be the only way to retrieve the openness of free investigative reporting that we once had.

In Summary

There are significant mainstream arguments favoring Blue State secession. Although there are those who promote the idea of secession for singular fringe reasons, I support the approach based on economic, social and cultural issues that are important to people and families, and many of which are important to personal well-being. A Blue State nation might simply be a better place to live for many.
Some are of the viewpoint that disaffected individuals secede personally from America on a daily basis. This is not very practical. Attempting to boycott Wyoming beef or Nebraska corn as a revolt against Red State arch-conservative domination is not very realistic, or effective.
Secession is a serious concept. The open and equally serious discussion of the issue is encouraged. Placement of a desire-to-secede referendum on Blue State ballots may be the next step. Let an informed Blue State electorate speak on the subject.
Once secession has been decided upon by the people, likely through the vehicle of public referendum, then and only then should methods of separation be discussed and approached. It is understood that the United States Constitution does not currently provide for states to withdraw from the union, but the power of the public will cannot be underestimated.

S. Scott Behel - December 1, 2004