When Secession Calls

 OR

To some, the European Union seems fully capable of unraveling as powerful factions within some member-states, most recently the United Kingdom with its Brexit referendum, threaten to pull out. It’s allowed in the Treaty on the European Union. Article 50 of that treaty provides: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements." On June 24^th, the votes were tallied, and the U.K. voted to leave the E.U…. by the slimmest of margins. Global markets plummeted as did the euro and the pound. Can the EU fix itself? But that’s Europe. Could a unilateral secession happen here?

Many believe that two former sovereign nations, Hawaii (then a kingdom) and Texas (then a republic), preserved a unilateral right to secede from the United States. There have always been sizeable factions in Texas trying to separate from the Union. Hawaii… not so much. Texans have a reputation of iconoclasm, a “we’re bigger than the rest” and “proudly independent and different.”

“The largest group agitating for secession is the Texas Nationalist Movement, which has been promoting its own version of Brexit, called Texit, over the past several weeks. The group has taken inspiration from the pro-exit campaign in Britain, noting that the two movements share many of the same principles. Daniel Miller, president of the TNM, told Australian website news.com.au, ‘The vast majority of the laws, rules and regulations that affect the people of Texas are created by the political class or unelected bureaucrats in Washington’ — a sentiment which echoes the arguments made by the British Leave campaign…

“Following the announcement, the group's official Facebook page, which has over 200,000 followers, updated its cover photo to the Texas flag overlaid by the hashtag #TEXIT in big, bold letters.” AOL.com, June 24^th. Secessionist Miller has, on more than one past occasion, gathered signatures from fellow Texans to pull Texas out of the U.S. “After the Supreme Court's 5-3 decision to strike down parts of Texas's restrictive abortion laws on [June 27^th], familiar calls for the state to secede from the union spiked…

“For Texans who resented the Supreme Court's decisions taking precedence over their own courts' and lawmakers', or for anti-choice Texans who disagreed with the Supreme Court making it easier for their neighbors to have access to abortions as promised in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, this was just another reason to leave America for good.” AOL.com, June 27^th.

States’ rights, guns and a strong revulsion for federal social programs have been hallmarks of a state that registers bright red in recent elections, despite a growing more liberal Hispanic community that so far has been contained (along with very liberal Austin) with successful gerrymandering. Although demographics are changing, Texas still represents a pioneering, go-it-alone-and-leave-me-alone state with deep rural, Evangelical values. But can Texas express its frustration against a new national urban value system that is pulling the federal government into a pro-urban, seeming anti-rural more central government that drives old world Texans nuts… with a unilateral vote to secede?

“No state, however frustrated some of its citizens may be with the present state of government in America, is going to be able to leave the Union and go its own way. That is one of the most firmly settled issues on the meaning of the Constitution. If the Civil War did not settle it on the battlefield, and it almost certainly did, the U.S. Supreme Court put it completely to rest constitutionally, 143 years ago. And it did so in a case involving the state where the idea of secession now seems to be attracting the biggest public following: Texas…

“Texas did attempt to leave the Union, on February 1, 1861, when a special convention called for that purpose approved an ‘Ordinance of Secession.’ It thus aligned itself with the Confederate States of America, and supplied troops to fight with rebel forces.

“After the Civil War ended, a dispute over bonds issued in Texas during that war went to the Supreme Court in the case of Texas v. White. The decision that resulted established a constitutional principle of Union that has never been seriously questioned since: Texas, and the other states that had attempted secession, had never left the Union, because they could not, the Court concluded.

“Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote: ‘When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the state. The Act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final.’” ConstitutionalCenter.org, November 15, 2012.

Meanwhile, the shudders roiling through the European Union share a commonality with the parallel emotional reaction of conservative America. The June 22^nd BBC.com explains: “While Washington and [EU capital] Brussels may not have much in common geographically or culturally, they are united in the derision often directed their way.

“The governments in Washington and Brussels have sweeping powers to issue regulations on things like the environment, immigration, trade and commerce - which has led to resentment and distrust from those who view their power as illegitimate or overreaching.

“US conservatives regularly campaign against Washington bureaucrats and big-government politicians who impose their legislative priorities on the states. While he was running for president last year, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker called the capital city area 68 square miles surrounded by reality.’… Meanwhile Brussels is a ‘job-destroying machine’ full of arrogant elites, according to pro-Brexit MP Michael Gove.

“It's not easy being a political punching bag, but it's the burden both cities have to bear… Both the US and the EU have their share of peoples with distinct regional identities that make playing nice with a strong central government a bit of a stretch… [But in many ways, the U.S. and the E.U. are very different.]

“OK, so Germany doesn't exactly shoulder the burden for Greece the way California does for Mississippi - and that's because the social safety net in the US is cohesive in a way that it isn't in Europe, where each country has its own system.

“In the US Social Security retirement benefits for its citizens are the same whether they live in Kansas or Florida. Qualifications for Medicaid health benefits and other aid for the poor are roughly similar and shouldered in large part by the federal government.

“‘German citizens don't really see why they should fund the early retirement of Greeks, and Greeks don't really see why Germans should set tax and labour market rules in their country,’ writes the Weekly Standard's Irwin Stelzer… ‘Texas oil workers might not want to support California surfers, but they are barely aware they are doing it.’

“In a way, the EU is more like the US under the pre-Constitution Articles of Confederation - a weak central government in which the former colonies of differing strength jockeyed for power under the constant threat of financial ruin… Out of that bungled political mess the US emerged as a cohesive state. It might have turned out differently if, say, Virginia had decided to go its own way, however.” Immigration is the current bell-cow issue, but the disconnect runs deep in both political unions.

Why is this question remotely relevant? Because, in my opinion, the growing polarization, people entrenched in the “my way or the highway” view of politics, are leading to a rather completely dysfunctional gridlock… amplified by a constitution that is the most difficult to change among any major democracy on earth. As demographics, which will be more accurately measured in the coming 2020 Census, pull the nation into greater diversity (ethnic, racial, religious and gender) and urban values, the old world of white Christian conservative values (particularly in states with a strong pioneering gun culture) are clearly unwilling to live with these changes.

Think, for example, what would happen if a growing urban consensus determined that assault weapons should be totally banned, are not protected by the Second Amendment… and had to power to implement that decision. “What would Texas do?”

When minorities and new urbanites overwhelm conservatives in coming years… when gerrymandering and restrictive voting laws can no longer contain the big demographic changes… exactly how will those old world conservatives react to preserve their cherished way of life? Begrudging acceptance as younger more tolerant voters replace older diehards? Or rebellion and resistance? There are an awful lot of guns out there. What do you think will happen? And when? Can the really U.S. fix itself?

I’m Peter Dekom, and one way or another, the United States is simply going to have to figure out how such diverse factions can truly live and function together… or prepare to let the country break apart.

Russian Back

Why does Vladimir Putin call the United States the only remaining superpower? Clearly, he has modern weapons, more nukes than he knows what to do with, and lots of manpower. Russia spent an estimated $66 billion in 2015 on arms alone. She can field 766 thousand active front-line troops with almost 2.5 million in reserve. Her military expenditures have been leaping forward in recent years, and some of her weapon systems are often more modern than our own. By calling the US the only superpower, every humiliation, every moment when Russia gets her way (think Crimea, Ukraine, Syria, etc.) make her look that much more powerful, that much more willing to take on the “big boy”… an in the eyes of the Russian people, more aggressive than a constantly frustrated and humiliated America.

Putin wants the U.S. to plummet in global power, leave the CIS nations in Russia’s orbit (several Soviet bloc nations are now in NATO) without interference, allow him to support his allies (such as Syria’s Assad regime) freely and get the U.S. to butt out of trying to put a wedge between Russia and an increasingly fractious and wary Europe. While Donald Trump mirrors his devil-may-care attitude, Putin is also reveling in the growing distrust of a gun-crazy, Muslim-bashing and trade-treaty-killing new political culture that allows a huge segment of the American body politic to nominate a mainstream candidate that most of Europe, notwithstanding equally locally-growing xenophobic right wing parties, simply cannot understand and fears greatly.

The pressures to undo the European Union, reflected in the Brexit movement, have brought a knowing smile to Putin’s lips. A divided Europe creates many more opportunities for détente and perhaps even entente for a battered Russian economy. And Europe seems to understand that even with oil prices still low, there is a real need for Russian oil and gas in most of Europe. The signs of European frustration with this U.S.-Russian battle are clearly in the cards.

On June 19th, Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz suggested that the long-standing sanctions against Russia, prompted after the Crimean invasion and the destabilizing support for breakaway rebels in eastern Ukraine, be lifted gradually. Despite outward appearances of solidarity with anti-Russian sentiments driven by U.S. policies, even Germany quietly admits that economic realities dictate that relations with Russia must improve.

But there may also be a dose of military reality driving some of this movement. NATO just might not be ready for new Russian threats. In a recent BBC interview, top American European commander, Lt-Gen Ben Hodges, noted that Putin’s forces can move much faster than NATO counterparts: "The Russians are able to move huge formations and lots of equipment a long distance very fast.” To be truly responsive to Russian mobility, NATO clearly has to up its game.

German resolve, probably the most important factor European power in resisting Russian aggression, is eroding fast. “More than 31,000 troops from 24 nations took part in Nato's Anaconda-16 exercises in Poland, from 7 to 17 June… The day after they ended, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned Nato against ‘sabre-rattling and warmongering,’ calling for exercises to be replaced with more dialogue and co-operation with Russia. ‘Whoever believes that symbolic tank parades in Eastern Europe bring more security, is mistaken,’ he told Bild [German] newspaper.

“Former Soviet bloc countries, now Nato members, were alarmed by Russia's rapid annexation of Crimea during the Ukraine crisis in March 2014. That operation caused the biggest chill in relations with Russia since the end of the Cold War in 1991… Russia's occupation of Georgian territory after a brief war in August 2008 also signaled a Russian readiness to intervene militarily in what it calls its ‘neighbourhood’." BBC.com, June 20th.

Even in Japan, there are voices suggesting that such NATO actions are deeply provocative: “Moscow fiercely opposes the NATO moves, billed by the U.S.-led alliance as part of its ‘deterrence and dialogue’ strategy.

“And the Kremlin reacted angrily to the start of the manoeuvres, NATO’s biggest since the Trident drills last year involving 36,000 troops in Italy, Spain and Portugal… ‘The exercises… do not contribute to an atmosphere of trust and security,’ said spokesman Dmitry Peskov… ‘Unfortunately we are still witnessing a deficit in mutual trust.’” Japan Today, June 8th. With tensions between locals in Okinawa (Japan’s large southern island) and “bad behavior” from locally-stationed U.S. troops, there are pressures on Tokyo to ask that American contingent to leave. All this against the backdrop of a rather clearly xenophobic political movement in the United States. All over the world, nations are reexamining their relationships with China, Russia… and most of all, the U.S.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the notion that the United States can and will call the shots in the free world is something our policy-makers should no longer count on.

Will American Politics Ever Return to Civilized?

The battle over gun control is the poster-issue for national political division. An exemplar for polarization and legislative gridlock. And every time there is a mass shooting, a whole pile of Americans feel in their heart that something must and will be done… but just in case, they rush out and buy another weapon. Statistically one gun for every man, woman and child living in the United States.

But it’s not as if guns are spread evenly among the population. The trend is going the other way, more guns held by fewer people. “According to a recent survey by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, gun ownership in the United States has fallen by almost 20 percent since the 1970s. A report by the General Social Survey (GSS) found that around 32 percent of Americans either own a firearm or have one in their household in 2014, compared to the nearly 50 percent in 1973.” OutdoorHub.com, 3/13/15.

There are skeptics who do not believe the numbers, but this polarization of gun ownership very clearly defines the biggest issue in a nation torn apart in vicious mutual disdain: the great divide between an increasingly urban population with urban values (80%+ of Americans fit this demographic according to the 2010 Census, a number that should rise in the 2020 Census) and rural traditionalists. Pioneering/old world values (a gun on a farm or in the woods) versus values in crowded, cheek-to-jowl, diverse urban environments (a gun on the streets). Guns and the limits of the Second Amendment run parallel with conservative vs. liberal social issues across the board, a genuinely interesting metric for political civility.

You can see the shift to urban values in hunting statistics over the years. Today 7% of the American population hunts, a steady decline since the 1950s, and nearly 60% of those hunters live in small towns or rural areas. So obviously, the vast majority of gun owners aren’t hunters. The above chart will tell you how people explain their purchase of guns.

If it’s bad guys with guns who are the problem (since, if we believe the NRA, guns don’t kill people, people kill people), a bad guy with a high-capacity magazine (or one with a rapid magazine change-out feature) and an efficient military-style semi-automatic assault rifle (you have to pull the trigger for each bullet fired… fully automatic weapons have been banned in the U.S. since 1934) should be able to inflict lots of casualties before anyone can react. Anyone. Armed with anything. Worse than a bad guy with a knife… or even a handgun.

Assault rifles are bad form for hunters; they just don’t use them. They pale in comparison with shotguns as defensive weapons (no accuracy required) and are awkward to produce and handle quickly in a small residential space. So they really have limited uses. Sure target practice with one is fun and cool, but does that leisure-time activity justify generally releasing weapons designed very specifically for military purposes as “maximum close range” human being killing machine? The sale of assault rifles to non-military American buyers is a fairly recent historical trend.

“In its 2011 report ‘The Militarization of the U.S. Civilian Firearms Market,’ the non-partisan Violence Policy Center noted that ‘selling militarized firearms to civilians—i.e., weapons in the military inventory or weapons based on military designs—has been at the point of the industry’s civilian design and marketing strategy since the 1980s.’ And in its 2011 annual report to investors, Smith & Wesson Holding Company noted that there was a $489 million domestic, non-military market for ‘modern sporting rifles,’ a euphemism for auto-loading, assault-style rifles. Modern sporting rifles are perhaps the fastest-growing segment of the domestic long gun industry. From 2007 to 2011, according to the Freedom Group’s most recent annual report, domestic consumer long gun sales grew at a compound annual rate of 3 percent; modern sporting rifle sales grew at a 27 percent rate…

“A November 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that, as of 2009, there were approximately 310 million firearms in the United States: ‘114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.’ However, author William J. Krouse went on to note that ‘data are not available on the number of ‘assault weapons’ in private possession or available for sale, but one study estimated that 1.5 million assault weapons were privately owned in 1994.’” Justin Peters writing for Slate.com, 12/20/12. There are whole lot more assault weapons out there today. Gun manufacturers and the NRA don’t really want us to have the exact numbers, and the NRA lobby has effectively prevented governmental agencies from even trying to collect the relevant statistics.

Here’s what a video of the Pulse carnage confirmed. “[U.S.-born] Orlando gunman Omar Mateen shot continuously at wounded people on the floor of Pulse nightclub, according to surveillance footage, emptying a 30-round magazine to ensure the death of his early victims.” Washington Post, June 23^rd. He used that legally-purchased magazine with a legally-purchased Sig Sauer MCX assault rifle firing .223-caliber ammunition at a muzzle velocity of about 3,200 feet per second.

So on June 22^nd, when the Democratic minority staged a sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives over the complete failure to generate even the slightest movement on a post-Orlando effort to pass some form of gun control legislation – knowing that the majority of Americans are still reeling from how quickly so many people could be killed – the GOP majority responded by dismissing Representatives early for the July 4^th recess.

“No matter your politics, it was incredible political theatre. ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’ meets open mic night. Republicans gaveled the House out of session, cutting off the live video feed that C-SPAN broadcasts. Defying House rules, Democrats used their phones to stream low-resolution videos online. Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) used FaceTime on his iPhone to do an interview from the House floor – a first. MSNBC gave the drama wall-to-wall coverage.” Washington Post, June 23^rd.

Think gun control is going to be a seminal issue in the November elections? And as the demographics in this country move even more towards a huge majority of urbanites, exactly what will those left behind – old world rural traditionalists – do about it? To answer the above title question? If you think the current battles are unprofessional and horrifically uncivilized, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!!! Unless we learn how to get along and compromise… and we are going in the opposite direction… exactly where do you think we will wind up? And remember, between “most of us” and gangs plus those rural traditionalists, guess who has most of the weapons among civilians?

I’m Peter Dekom, and the last time the United States was so bitterly divided, we wound up in a Civil War with more American fatalities than experienced in WWI and WWII combined.