On the Regions
Today I would like to make a speech which will hopefully be the start of a series of speeches elaborating on my personal philosophies and beliefs on how the senate should operate by covering what is probably the most hot button issue of our day, the regions. What rights they should hold, what restrictions should be places on them, whether they should be independent nations, or whether they should exist at all. And I wish to start by saying that despite the impressions some of you may have due to my response to recent events, I am not, nor have I ever been, a centralist. I do recognize the importance of the federal government and do not shy away from using its authority where it is appropriate, but I believe that the regions are better suited to handle issues that are more local in nature and having multiple levels of civic engagement is a good thing for society, especially in a nation as large as Atlasia.
Why then, do I call myself a unionist, support the banning of secession and legal action against secessionists, and oppose the regional rights amendment that was recently considered? Because I am also not an extreme regionalist or a separatist. I do not support separatism without a decent reason for it. There can be cases in which it is justified, when a nation is oppressed by an authoritarian regime. But that is rarely a problem is democratic states, and the south is no exception here. There is no reasonable argument to say that the south was being oppressed, only ad hoc justifications by secessionists. I will concede that the south has its own regional identity, and I don't have a problem with that, but that identity should not be construed as a national identity. The south is not a nation, southerners are not southerners alone but are also Atlasians and they share far more in common with the rest of us than differences. Needless separatism will only have downsides, by dividing us further as a people, by threatening the longstanding peace on our continent and by massively upsetting the economy, not to mention the fundamental problems such a thing would present from a gameplay standpoint. The great irony of it all is that the south had far more autonomy before the idea of secession was brought up. It implemented all sorts of policies that Fremont and Lincoln would never have passed, but it was allowed to the entire time. It was even permitted to restructure its legislature in a way that many considered to be unfair, but as long as it wasn't affecting the rest of us not many people were interested in stopping it and I had no plans to do so myself.
From a policy standpoint, I do intend to support the Fair Democracy Amendment, to ensure fair democratic practices in the regions, but I would oppose any attempt to impose a specific form of government on the regions. Democracy is sacred and protecting it supersedes any notion of "regional rights." However, democracy does not exist in only one form, and the regions should be allowed to decide for themselves how it should function for them. Things such as Fremont's parliamentary system and Lincoln's former parliamentary system have given their regions a unique flavor, and I encourage that. This is especially something for the south to consider as it moves on from its crisis. I also, as I stated earlier, opposed the regional rights amendment. This was not because I want all power to the federal government, but because granting regional supremacy over the federal government in broad categories of policy is a step too far. Proponents of such an amendment will state the need for the regions to act as a check on federal authority, but in order for checks and balances to work they must go both ways. To delineate broad areas of domestic policy as the sole domain of the regional or federal governments will actually result in the existence of unchecked power. This could go the other way too if the federal government is granted too much power. But it must be able to check the regions if they go too far. That said, a constitutional amendment to address this issue could be warranted if it is able to prevent federal government overreach without overly hampering it. I have given this some thought myself but haven't come up with what I would consider to be a good solution so far. If someone is able to come up with an idea that is more moderate than the last one, I am willing to consider it.
For the time being, unless or until such an ideal solution is presented, I believe that the most practical course of action is for the senate to place some limits on itself. It is not the easiest thing to do, and is susceptible to failure, but it is the best we currently have. That means that it is very important to elect regional and subregional senators who respect the regions that they represent. While I did say that I will not shy away from using federal authority as I consider to be appropriate, such as it pertains to a welfare state for all citizens, necessary environmental protections, and national infrastructure, as some examples, I have no intention to overly step on the regions' toes. I want the regions to flourish, and to fully realize their potential abilities to address the needs of their citizens and represent their particular values. So if you also value the balance between the federal and regional governments as I do, I would encourage you to lend me your vote for senate this June.
