There is a campaign calling itself "New California" that wants to separate the rural parts of California from the existing state. It's much easier to effect than secession, requiring only the consent of Congress and the state legislature. It is also a generally good idea for many states, not merely California.
Probably the biggest divide today is between the interests of big cities and the interests of everyone else. Almost everyone in America would be happier if they lived in a state which reflected the values of their community, and under a Federal government that was much less important. The 10th Amendment is the answer to the second half of that equation: if the Federal government does only what the Constitution says it should do, and the other powers devolve to the states or to the People as the 10th Amendment says that they should, then we don't have to impose one-size-fits-all solutions on a vast and diverse America.
That still leaves the problem that many states are dominated by a big city or a few big cities, whose interests are in grave tension with that of the rest of the state. A few states have big cities that are dominated by the rural majority, leaving them in a similar position.
The New California proposal solves the problem in a novel way. I think we should consider a similar solution in many other places. Perhaps we could do what William Gibson suggested, and combine the 'Boston-Atlanta Metropolitan Axis' into a single state bordered by many rural states.
11 comments:
It's a good move; however, New California's Declaration of Independence is lacking, at least to me. They never do get around to declaring the causes which cause them to separate beyond a single vague reference to the governor and the government of California.
Eric Hines
A couple of years ago Kurt Schlichter wrote a fun book titled "People's Republic," in which he kind of anticipated this type of scenario.
http://a.co/fs2xPMt
". A few states have big cities that are dominated by the rural majority, leaving them in a similar position. "
Which ones? I am ready to pull stakes- since the dem-coms have a three part stranglehold on WA, and they have more or less vowed to make it over in the image of California.
Alabama has some big cities with blue state leanings, but it's politically quite red. (The recent Senate election shouldn't call that into question, I don't think; it was a strange case.) Tennessee is reliably red, but has Nashville (which is blue) and Knoxville (which is not, but does have a major university which has the usual suspects).
Georgia is dominated more than it should be by Atlanta, and North Carolina is now beginning to show some signs of turning purple/blue because of the tech sector in its big cities. Florida is very red in spite of its cities, I think. South Carolina is intensely red in spite of several major industrial cities. I'm not as familiar with the political cultures outside the South.
I've always believed that the further north you go in Florida, the further south you get.
That’s a good line.
Probably all of the red states have blue urban areas. Oklahoma and Texas do.
Elise,
What I recall hearing (back in the 80s) was that from the border to Jacksonville, Florida is the South, from Jacksonville to Miami it was the North, and from Miami down it was Cuba.
Illinois would surely benefit from a similar scenario.
As a Californian, I heartily endorse this proposal, and would be happy to move out of the L.A. area if it happened.
MikeD - I can't speak to the "Miami down" part (except to say that my one trip to the Keys convinced me that part of Florida is a very foreign land) but the rest of it, yup.
Humans de evolving back to city states. This is considered progress in some ways.
Post a Comment