Progressives: Should we let some states secede?

[Beet]

Do progressive really believe there is no situation in which secession is morally supportable?  If not, how do you square this with support for separatist movements or self-determination claims in other nations?

Well, I'd argue that supporting those is deeply overrated most of the time and that self-determination is not inherently progressive.

Check your sig and username brah

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Do progressive really believe there is no situation in which secession is morally supportable?  If not, how do you square this with support for separatist movements or self-determination claims in other nations?

Well, I'd argue that supporting those is deeply overrated most of the time and that self-determination is not inherently progressive.

Check your sig and username brah

*Inherently.* The issue at hand is human rights, democracy, and good government. If those are satisfied, it is hard to justify secession particularly when it might put those values at risk. The ROC, after all, would prefer to be ruling Mainland China using those values. If you think progressive/liberal values ought to be universalisable, you'll inevitable run into conflicts with self-determinists.

[Badger]

No. We should be adding to our territory, not subtracting from it.

What’s this supposed to mean?

Presumably expanding the borders of the US. Not sure what direction Dule is suggesting, if any.

North.

We will fight in the fields and we will fight in the glaciers. We will not surrender one inch of Canadian soil.

(I am a Canadian citizen for those who don't know)

We should've dealt with you in 1812 when we had the justification for it.

Um, we tried, and it didn't turn out very well. Yeah, we briefly occupied Toronto - - then call York - - long enough to sack it, which the raid on Washington was direct Revenge, but our attempts at Canadian Bayesian were pretty Shawty failures.

Truth be told, Benedict Arnold and the Continentals got much closer to success during the war for independence.

[Yoda]

Throwaway thought but man can you imagine not having to subsidize Kentucky and the other deadbeat states any more?

Letting parts of the country that already resemble third-world countries fall even further into squalor would be pretty detestable on our part, yes.

I love how everyone universally assumes that under completely unrestrained republican control of states that would secede in this scenario, said states would devolve into a sub-third world conditions.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not disagreeing with the assumption. I'm just pointing out how republicans have proven themselves so utterly full of malice, so incompetent and so incapable of governing that the seemingly universal argument of those against(in this thread anyways) is that it would be something akin to an unspeakable human rights violation to allow a state (or states) the horrific fate of suffering under republican control with no democratic-controlled federal government to serve as a check on the very worst impulses of the GQP.

It's one hell of a revealing argument is all I'm saying...

[Beet]

Do progressive really believe there is no situation in which secession is morally supportable?  If not, how do you square this with support for separatist movements or self-determination claims in other nations?

Well, I'd argue that supporting those is deeply overrated most of the time and that self-determination is not inherently progressive.

Check your sig and username brah

*Inherently.* The issue at hand is human rights, democracy, and good government. If those are satisfied, it is hard to justify secession particularly when it might put those values at risk. The ROC, after all, would prefer to be ruling Mainland China using those values. If you think progressive/liberal values ought to be universalisable, you'll inevitable run into conflicts with self-determinists.

But does the US at present have human rights, democracy, and good government? With all respect to the Biden partisans, I think we talk a good game, but we don't really have it.

[John Dule]

Do progressive really believe there is no situation in which secession is morally supportable?  If not, how do you square this with support for separatist movements or self-determination claims in other nations?

Well, I'd argue that supporting those is deeply overrated most of the time and that self-determination is not inherently progressive.

Check your sig and username brah

*Inherently.* The issue at hand is human rights, democracy, and good government. If those are satisfied, it is hard to justify secession particularly when it might put those values at risk. The ROC, after all, would prefer to be ruling Mainland China using those values. If you think progressive/liberal values ought to be universalisable, you'll inevitable run into conflicts with self-determinists.

But does the US at present have human rights, democracy, and good government?

Yes.

[R.P. McM]

Honestly I’m trying to think of what the downside to this could be.  Perhaps it should require affirmative votes in two consecutive referenda spaced a couple years apart.

The inevitable denial of basic rights to marginalized groups in those states by bigoted governments that would no longer face any federal oversight?

The states that might secede all have tiny populations compared to the tens of millions of people whose rights would be enhanced in a slightly smaller and reformed union.

Anyone who thinks the GOP wouldn't just adjust and be able to win in an America that has 2-3 safe GOP states spun off into their own nations is either kidding themselves or in delusion.

Yeah, that's precisely the point — the GOP would have to adjust. As in, make itself palatable to a majority of the electorate. The reason Republicans are so bats**+ crazy at the moment is that they can still wield power with the support of a demented minority. Remove a good chunk of their safe Senate seats, and they'd be forced to reacquaint themselves with reality.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Honestly I’m trying to think of what the downside to this could be.  Perhaps it should require affirmative votes in two consecutive referenda spaced a couple years apart.

The inevitable denial of basic rights to marginalized groups in those states by bigoted governments that would no longer face any federal oversight?

The states that might secede all have tiny populations compared to the tens of millions of people whose rights would be enhanced in a slightly smaller and reformed union.

Anyone who thinks the GOP wouldn't just adjust and be able to win in an America that has 2-3 safe GOP states spun off into their own nations is either kidding themselves or in delusion.

Yeah, that's precisely the point — the GOP would have to adjust. As in, make itself palatable to a majority of the electorate. The reason Republicans are so bats**+ crazy at the moment is that they can still wield power with the support of a demented minority. Remove a good chunk of their safe Senate seats, and they'd be forced to reacquaint themselves with reality.

Tbh, if you endorse the shrinking of the United States on such grounds*, there is a good case to be made that you are worse or just as bad as the GOP or at least that your modus operandi is worse than the GOP. At least the GOP hasn't harmed the territorial integrity of my country.
Imagine looking Marjorie Taylor Greene look positively sane!
*=except if it's a joke. I do hope this thread is one big joke

[R.P. McM]

This is a terrible idea and one that used to be confined exclusively to right wingnut circles. The left is catching up, I see.

Honestly I’m trying to think of what the downside to this could be.  Perhaps it should require affirmative votes in two consecutive referenda spaced a couple years apart.

The inevitable denial of basic rights to marginalized groups in those states by bigoted governments that would no longer face any federal oversight?

Some states in the deep south would probably straight up bring back Jim Crow if they could get away with it. Guess the blacks down there aren't the black lives that matter.

That's certainly a compelling consideration. But let's not pretend the status quo is without risk. If Republicans continue moving in an authoritarian direction, it's not implausible that the entire country is eventually ruled by a quasi-fascist regime. With dire consequences for both domestic residents, and the broader human population. Alternatively, were a handful of a blood-red states to leave the union, this nightmarish scenario would become virtually impossible. Which seems like a pretty attractive option, given that the GOP is currently in the process of purging the anti-insurrectionists.  

[Former President tack50]

Do progressive really believe there is no situation in which secession is morally supportable?  If not, how do you square this with support for separatist movements or self-determination claims in other nations?

As a left of centre person who does not believe in an automatic right of self determination (see: My multiple posts on the Spanish politics thread ) I think secession is only morally supportable/legitimate when there is a group of people who are seeing severe human rights abuses and what not; from the central government.

You can make arguable cases of this for some places, but definitely nowhere in the US would reach this high threshold. It's not like you are seeing the federal government of the US heavily restrict and monitor citizens of Texas like the Chinese government is doing in say, Tibet.

Well that or the few vestiges of colonialism, but those also don't apply to any US state. (furthermore, any place that takes accession as a US state automatically loses this privilege imo. If PR ever opts for statehood it is foreiting its right to eventual independence for example)

[R.P. McM]

Honestly I’m trying to think of what the downside to this could be.  Perhaps it should require affirmative votes in two consecutive referenda spaced a couple years apart.

The inevitable denial of basic rights to marginalized groups in those states by bigoted governments that would no longer face any federal oversight?

The states that might secede all have tiny populations compared to the tens of millions of people whose rights would be enhanced in a slightly smaller and reformed union.

Anyone who thinks the GOP wouldn't just adjust and be able to win in an America that has 2-3 safe GOP states spun off into their own nations is either kidding themselves or in delusion.

Yeah, that's precisely the point — the GOP would have to adjust. As in, make itself palatable to a majority of the electorate. The reason Republicans are so bats**+ crazy at the moment is that they can still wield power with the support of a demented minority. Remove a good chunk of their safe Senate seats, and they'd be forced to reacquaint themselves with reality.

Tbh, if you endorse the shrinking of the United States on such grounds*, there is a good case to be made that you are worse or just as bad as the GOP or at least that your modus operandi is worse than the GOP. At least the GOP hasn't harmed the territorial integrity of my country.
Imagine looking Marjorie Taylor Greene look positively sane!
*=except if it's a joke. I do hope this thread is one big joke

You're deflecting. Republican Senators haven't represented a majority of population since 1999. Increasingly rarely do they earn a plurality of the national vote. If failing to garner majority support consistently relegated them to minority status, the party would have to adjust. Absent WY, WV, ND, SD, KY, MS, AL, etc., it's almost inconceivable that the GOP would currently constitute the cult of someone who committed treason and incited an insurrection. You may not like it, but it's the truth.  

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Honestly I’m trying to think of what the downside to this could be.  Perhaps it should require affirmative votes in two consecutive referenda spaced a couple years apart.

The inevitable denial of basic rights to marginalized groups in those states by bigoted governments that would no longer face any federal oversight?

The states that might secede all have tiny populations compared to the tens of millions of people whose rights would be enhanced in a slightly smaller and reformed union.

Anyone who thinks the GOP wouldn't just adjust and be able to win in an America that has 2-3 safe GOP states spun off into their own nations is either kidding themselves or in delusion.

Yeah, that's precisely the point — the GOP would have to adjust. As in, make itself palatable to a majority of the electorate. The reason Republicans are so bats**+ crazy at the moment is that they can still wield power with the support of a demented minority. Remove a good chunk of their safe Senate seats, and they'd be forced to reacquaint themselves with reality.

Tbh, if you endorse the shrinking of the United States on such grounds*, there is a good case to be made that you are worse or just as bad as the GOP or at least that your modus operandi is worse than the GOP. At least the GOP hasn't harmed the territorial integrity of my country.
Imagine looking Marjorie Taylor Greene look positively sane!
*=except if it's a joke. I do hope this thread is one big joke

You're deflecting. Republican Senators haven't represented a majority of population since 1999. Increasingly rarely do they earn a plurality of the national vote. If failing to garner majority support consistently relegated them to minority status, the party would have to adjust. Absent WY, WV, ND, SD, KY, MS, AL, etc., it's almost inconceivable that the GOP would currently constitute the cult of someone who committed treason and incited an insurrection. You may not like it, but it's the truth.  

Whatever may or may not be true about the GOP, does not justify the absolutely hideous proposal you are putting forth.
I would rather the GOP, the current GOP as it is right now, win three consecutive presidential elections than see a single state leave the Union. And I'm sure Abraham Lincoln would agree.
To quote our esteemed moderator, "Are you people insane?"

[compucomp]

It's a good thing that during the Civil War, Copperheads, like the ones on this thread supporting secession, were placed under federal surveillance and in many cases arrested.

[YE]

Friendly reminder not to re-post moderated content and to maintain a level tone when posting. Inserting excessive adjectives when your point is already clear is a very questionable practice to say the least and is arguably in contradiction to the second bit of my first sentence.

[SWE]

I don't support any sort of right to self-determination. Sometimes a separatist movement would have a good impact, sometimes it wouldn't, each should be judged on its own merits. I have no investment in the continued existence of the United States as it currently stands, although, by coincidence, most possible separatist movements in the United States would be undesirable at the present juncture due to our main opposition party being explicitly fascist. If any red state wanted to secede, that would be a bad thing worth opposing because the regime that would exist there would no doubt be a horrifying apartheid state, but if a majority of say, Hawaii, wanted to secede I see no reason to obstruct their wishes

[KaiserDave]

No. We should be adding to our territory, not subtracting from it.

What’s this supposed to mean?

Presumably expanding the borders of the US. Not sure what direction Dule is suggesting, if any.

North.

We will fight in the fields and we will fight in the glaciers. We will not surrender one inch of Canadian soil.

(I am a Canadian citizen for those who don't know)

We should've dealt with you in 1812 when we had the justification for it.

Honestly a cool alternate history scenario, and possibly good for America in the long run!

[Damocles]

I don't support any sort of right to self-determination. Sometimes a separatist movement would have a good impact, sometimes it wouldn't, each should be judged on its own merits. I have no investment in the continued existence of the United States as it currently stands, although, by coincidence, most possible separatist movements in the United States would be undesirable at the present juncture due to our main opposition party being explicitly fascist. If any red state wanted to secede, that would be a bad thing worth opposing because the regime that would exist there would no doubt be a horrifying apartheid state, but if a majority of say, Hawaii, wanted to secede I see no reason to obstruct their wishes

Compromising the territorial integrity of the United States will only leave the North American continent vulnerable to foreign fascist regimes, ie the present government of the People’s Republic of China, whose existence and legitimating myths are predicated upon the supremacy of a particular racial group. The United States is unlike this, due to its professed adherence to enlightenment ideals, which originally emerged in the context of the European Renaissance.

I would be remiss not to mention that the United States has not always honored its commitments. That said, some people indeed faced apartheid conditions, but this is not a moral indictment against the United States itself, or its founding ideals. Indeed, only through forging a more perfect union, and combating domestic fascist tendencies, can our collective rights and freedoms long endure.

[compucomp]

I don't support any sort of right to self-determination. Sometimes a separatist movement would have a good impact, sometimes it wouldn't, each should be judged on its own merits. I have no investment in the continued existence of the United States as it currently stands, although, by coincidence, most possible separatist movements in the United States would be undesirable at the present juncture due to our main opposition party being explicitly fascist. If any red state wanted to secede, that would be a bad thing worth opposing because the regime that would exist there would no doubt be a horrifying apartheid state, but if a majority of say, Hawaii, wanted to secede I see no reason to obstruct their wishes

Compromising the territorial integrity of the United States will only leave the North American continent vulnerable to foreign fascist regimes, ie the present government of the People’s Republic of China, whose existence and legitimating myths are predicated upon the supremacy of a particular racial group. The United States is unlike this, due to its professed adherence to enlightenment ideals, which originally emerged in the context of the European Renaissance.

This is an uncalled-for smear against China and totally wrong. There is absolutely no universe where China would support the American right wing, whose attitudes on China range from a desire to cut off trade, like Trump, to a desire for war, like John Bolton. The most likely Chinese intervention in the US would be to protect a California Bear Flag Republic or West Coast Republic which had declared independence from a fascist-controlled US government.

If you want to look for a foreign enemy, look no further than Russia, which has a track record of promoting far-right reactionary movements in many Western countries. Arguably the US has a case to go to war against Russia for its actions in 2016.

[R.P. McM]

Friendly reminder not to re-post moderated content and to maintain a level tone when posting. Inserting excessive adjectives when your point is already clear is a very questionable practice to say the least and is arguably in contradiction to the second bit of my first sentence.

Is there some way for me to tell whether one of you folks altered my comment on the baseless grounds of ... using too many (accurate) adjectives? You'll have to point me to that subsection in the forum policy. Unless, of course, "the rules" are an arbitrary joke.