Calblog

Revisiting the CA Split

While we have talked about secession in the last few names, we have been using the wrong word. No one (in the discussion on this blog) wants California to secede from the Union: the question is whether to split it into 2 or 3 or 4 separate states. One commenter said it woul happen eventually.

That comment reminded me of a recent conversation between one of my daughters and her grandmother. When she was in high school, my mother-in-law said, the big issue was whether Alaska should become a state. They talked and argued about it on a daily basis. I never knew that the admittance of Alaska had any controversy.

It's been a long time since we admitted a state. Most of us have not lived through the creation of a state (though I recall some discussion of Puerto Rico). As a result, I think we fall into the tendency of seeing the union as a static being. It's not as if we had a goal of 50 states, a nice round number, and now we're full.

Approximately 1/8 of the country's population lives in California. In a country which ostensibly treats the states as equals, it seems inequitable to have 1/8th of the population exercising 1/50 of the power in some circumstances (eg, the Senate). In addition, state government was never designed to manage a population larger than Canada's or Australia's.

"Secession", or breaking California up appeals to the left and the right. The left, assuming that all of California is part of their group, talks about seceding from the rest of the union with this top ten list:

10 Most Bitchin' Reasons California Becoming Its Own Country Would Be So Cool

Four words: Vice President Nancy Pelosi.

State and local legislatures already extremely comfortable setting foreign policy.

Our own armed services. Eastwood, Schwarzenegger, Stallone or Willis in charge?

Opening weekend foreign distribution movie figures go way up.

You want a war. I got a war for you. We invade Florida for orange juice supremacy. Then take on Wisconsin for that whole cheese deal. Then France. For the wine? No, for the hell of it. Because now it's in our blood.

Our own intelligence agency. Imagine the allure of an assignment to one of our undercover cells in Reno.

Can extradite and convict Enron CEO, Ken Lay, at our own war crimes tribunal.

We charge a fee on every foreigner trying out as a contestant on "Wheel of Fortune." Call it a stupid tax.

Bechtel (a California based concern) builds a Great Wall right down the middle of Lake Tahoe. Screw the corner. Straight line. North to south.

We outlaw Fox News as a foreign propaganda tool.

On the right, here's a summary of the "right to secede" from Secession.net (which was not addressing California):

The primary political right of the individual and of political communities must be to secede from any larger political entity, whether they were born into it, were forced to join it, or voluntarily joined it. If one denies or relinquishes that right, one is little more than a slave--and no agreement to become a slave can be legally or morally binding.
Secession of individuals and communities does not have to mean war and violence. It should be a natural evolutionary feature of all political entities. Communities can form networks or confederations, since secession is accepted by both in principles. However, communities will not form "federations" which by definition do not allow secession. We will suggest practical and nonviolent means by which such separation can occur and the kinds of networks and confederations that could be created to replace oppressive nation states.

Primary rights of individuals. Local control. All very pleasing to the conservative.

Maybe the time has come to look at splitting California seriously. Maybe we're 100 years away. Unlees the reasons for it cease to exist, though, I think it is inevitable.

UPDATE: Here's an opinion piece in the SF Chronicle from August 7, 2003 suggesting a split of CA.

Posted by Justene Adamec at October 12, 2003 12:01 PM | TrackBack