So I’m reading the news about the Massachusetts ruling about gay marriage and I’m thinking, ‘there are regions in the country where this will really cheese some folks off’. And then it strikes me that there are actions in other parts of the country that would cheese folks in Massachusetts off.
And I get to thinking that, with the current polarization in the United States there’s always the possibility that we could become balkanized over the course of the next century if the sort of ‘national consensus’ continues to break down.
New England
The Mid-Atlantic
California
The Pacific Northwest
Texas
The Deep South
Alaska
Hawaii
and so forth.
I’m not thinking this would actually happen. But there certainly remains the possibility.
For one thing, I don’t think there’s the political will left in the federal government or the citizenry to force breakaway states to remain in the Union. I think there would be a strong undercurrent of ‘If they want to go then let them’ among the public if, say, Texas decided to recreate the Long Star Republic.
Just the media coverage alone would make it near impossible for the remaining states to subjegate the breakaway regions.
So is it possible that, without the unifying presence of a monolithic enemy (like the Soviets), and with increasing political polarization between different regions, that we’ll see independence movements begin to be mainstream over the next century?
And if so what is the effect on geopolitic when the lone superpower becomes 8 or so everyday powers?
Just four years ago, people were stating that there was no “political will” left in the USA to support foreign military misadventures. Nevery underestimate the will of the US government to toss around military force.
Lest you forget, men have died to settle this question.
Besides, with communication as it is we are closer than we’ve ever been. When I was a kid California was like another world. My grandmother took me to visit my great grandmother in Pasadena, CA when I was 7. That only made me realize how far it was, since we traveled by train. Perhaps being so close has created new problems, but I just don’t see any section wanting to go on it’s own and become an everyday power.
No political will left in the federal government? If you thought Abraham Lincoln’s response to the southern states’ secessation was willful, imagine how the Bush administration would react if a couple states decided to break away.
Americans today may be somewhat polarized regionally, but there is still a strong undercurrent of national patriotism, no doubt reinforced by the events of 9/11. No matter how wacky we think the political beliefs of another region may be, there is still a sense of “we are all in this together,” especially since the U.S. is now the only world superpower. I really don’t see things changing much in the next century, unless the economic situation in one particular region becomes drastically worse than the rest of the country, and the federal government fails to help out in any way.
I can’t see a breakup happening – there are too many interstate reliances in commerce these days – but if it does, you can bet the Repubbies will blame it on Clinton.
I’m not seeing a break up of the Union any time in the forseeable future. Possibly in your time table the US will step down as the number one superpower…I can certainly see that. To be honest, I think the trend is MORE federalization in the world, as formerly soveriegn countrys band together more and more closely. Look at Europe. In the next 100 years THEY might resemble US, at least as a federation of countries/states goes.
Who knows…maybe in 100 years Canada will be part of the US. Maybe Mexico too. You never know. (I wouldn’t put any money on it, mind you, but it IS possible).
The worldwide trend, for the last century, has been for larger countries to break up into smaller pieces. However, in every case, the countries breaking up were either colonies, monarchies, or dictatoships. There has been zero tendency for democracies to break up. I see no reason why the United States would lead the way.
Modern social democracy makes secession difficult. In 1861, secession was a matter of a few Southern generals resigning their army commissions, the South setting up its own post office, and North and South bickering (for four months, before the shooting started) over a public works boondoggle of a fort in Charleston harbor. Today there would be more pressing questions, like “Who’s going to pay my Social Security benefits?”
No way. Firstly, the political divisions are not so neatly arranged geographically as you think, NY and CA are more similar than CA is with AZ or NV, or even OR or WA. The New England states also are not cohesice, politically. It would take a more serious issue than gay marriage to break up the Union.
I agree that the trend, if anything, would be towards consolidation. If not politically, then more consolidation economically.
I wouldn’t be too upset if California seceded, but I have enough trouble saying “Governor Schwarzenegger” I really don’t think I could deal “The President of the United State of California - Arnold Schwarzenegger”.
I think that if California seceded en masse we would be better off (partly because of that $57 billion more we sent to the federal government than we received in 2002). Getting anyone ouside of LA and SF to go along with it will be hard though.
Still, I wish that everyone who wants prayer in schools, bans on gay activities, an end to women’s rights and such could have their chunks–I’ll give them the South and West but not West Coast–and people who generally want a separation of church and state could have ours–the Northeast and Midwest. We’ll let the West Coast become the extreme liberal, and we can always reserve Montana for the extreme conservatives (it would be easier for them to have militias with all of that space).
In ten, twenty years, they’ll be a 3rd World country and I’ll never have to worry about people like Trent Lott making decisions for me again!
But Canada almost hasn’t. Didn’t Quebec try to become their own country a few years ago?
In a hundred years, we will have something like the United Nations, where most countries in the world will be united in a borderless network. Country borders will simply be regional boundaries used for taxation and census data.
Don’t you think there would be fierce opposition to this in the US? Political tides may change, but I still think the US will remain vastly anti-globalization for quite a while; there’s too much nationalist sentiment here, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, either.
Debt will keep us together. Like a messy divorce, the books will be too complicated to work out, and the military is not locally loyal enough to force the decision (military units on bases everywhere are made up of people from all over the country).
If the economics were not so complicated, Quebec would already be a separate country.
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that court decisions in Massachusetts aren’t binding anywhere but Massachusetts. I imagine at some point a Massachusetts gay married couple will move somewhere else, and sue when their marriage isn’t recognized by that state. It’ll likely go to that state’s Supreme Court, and eventually will end up in Federal court, eventually to end up at the SCOTUS.
Until then, it’s a Massachusetts thing only.
On the other questions, I think that as long as there are more similarities between TX, NY and CA than there are between them and their neighbors, we’re not likely to go our own way. Plus, many of the smaller states have a vested interest in a large, strong Union, being as they’re smaller both economically and populationally, but get disproportionate representation via the NJ compromise (I’m not arguing for its repeal or anything- just stating the facts). In other words, small states like N. Dakota stands to gain much more from an intact US than from any other smaller subdivision.
I’m not much of a historian, but my impression is that we’ve got a bigger sense of national identity today than we did 140 years ago. IIRC, General Lee turned down the chance to lead the Union Army for Lincoln because, in his mind, he was a Virginian before he was an American. I’d have to imagine that people’s sense of state citizenry was a lot more prominent in the 18th and 19th century, simply because we didn’t have that same sense of national involvement. I’d attribute the change to two things:
Increased involvement of the Federal Government. I’m not sure on how many levels this has occurred. From a legal perspective, federal law has had much more of an effect on states’ power since the passage of the 14th Amendment, or its interpretation by SCOTUS and the federal courts since, what, the Lochner case? Since then, if you don’t like your state’s laws, you appeal to the federal courts and have them overturn them under the federal Constitution. (Mind you, I don’t think this is a bad thing per se, although I am unhappy with many of SCOTUS’ decisions in the last century.) Cessession would mean giving up that right; although state constitutions might have the same power, it wouldn’t carry as much weight.
This says nothing of the fact that states would lose the power of federal laws, regulations, and benefits. You want federal highway money? School money? Forget it; the state will float on its own.
Like I said before, an individual’s sense of state loyalty is diminished today. I’d attribute this mostly to our increased travel capacity: kids go to school out of state these days, and many end up settling in that same area. (My college is in Philadelphia, but it tended to attract students from New York, New Jersey, Boston, and for some reason, California.) Since state citizenry is so transmutable, loyalties simply won’t be as strong.
In other words, a state’s drive for secession would probably be based on a need to protect the state before national interests. However, without any state loyalty, I wouldn’t be convinced that my state should bother to secede.
But, eh, throw me in with the crowd that California should become its own nation.
(I wouldn’t put any money on it, mind you, but it IS possible).