Monday, November 26, 2012

Thinking about secession

Secession seems to be alive and well.  As Progressives love to tell us, we should take our cue from Europe.

The Czar of Muscovy puts up a very interesting post on what's happening in Europe:
Meanwhile, you look at Czechoslovakia. Pretty decent country. But how much better it became when the Czechs split from Slovakia. Want to suppose that the Czech Republic could easily split into three smaller countries: Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia?

Look at Yugoslavia. As soon as they could, the Yugoslavs split into six countries. And then Serbia and Kosovo split up. Eventually, Bosnia and Herzegovina will probably split.

Today, Catalan is looking to leave Spain—and with good reason.
In fact, the last quarter century in Europe has been an unending saga of secession, despite the Euro Elite's mad unification project.  Consider:

1989 - The Soviet Empire disintegrated, with its client kingdoms overthrown.  Some (as the Czar points out) like Czechoslovakia splintered.  Secession.

1994 - Yugoslavia falls apart.  The Czar covers this perfectly adequately, so read his post.

1997 - Scotland and Wales assume local authority after the voters approved Devolution referenda for local autonomy.

Currently devolution is bubbling away in Belgium and Catalonia at least, as well as Northern Italy.  What's going on in Greece may come to the fore soonest, but it won't be alone.

The list goes on, but you get the point: the story of Europe has been not the showy centralization of the EU and the Euro, but rather the weakening of the Westphalian Nation State.  Actually the Swiss have shown the viability of the post-war Europe under the Pax America/End Of History period - without an external enemy, central authority loses much of its allure.

And so to these shores.  Perhaps we should speak of "devolution" rather than "secession", following the Progressive's advice of being more like Europe.  Obama and company are indeed engaged in a grand centralizing experiment is the EU style, but without better chances of success.  Already we hear of States talking about reining in the TSA, or voiding Federal firearms laws.  We see perhaps a majority rejecting Obamacare's mandate for health care exchanges.

Even more - as Obama's wing of the Democratic Party ratchets up Class Warfare to a peak never seen before on these shores, at what point does serious Devolution become a real possibility?  Secession, we are told, is illegal (despite the certainty that the Constitution would never have been ratified without States thinking they could leave if they wanted to).  It is illegal, because Mr. Lincoln was willing to see 10% of the military age male population killed or wounded.  It is illegal because of force majeure.

But isn't that what Obama is ending, the Pax Americana imposed on a world through American force of arms?  It's hard to see that Mr. Obama's party would have the will (let alone the support) to force a group of States back into the Union.  After the likely massive Defense cuts coming in sequestration and the Fiscal Cliff, he wouldn't have the capability, anyway.

And so, it may be possible that Obama's class warfare driven grand centralizing design has the effect of splintering the Union and entirely removing the American stabilizing influence that has allowed Europe to sleep undisturbed, dreaming end of history dreams.  As American power recedes from that unhappy continent, the forces of devolution will continue there and here.  There, we can expect fragmentation to lead to bloodshed (as it always has).

Here bloodshed is less likely, because Americans have always been more practical that Europeans.

So will this happen?  Who knows?  Probably not - we saw the Left talking secession in 2004, and the Right talking it now.  I do expect to see a lot of States increasingly give Washington DC the finger, to general approbation.  Interesting times, this End Of History.


Old NFO said...

And it appears if you sign one of the petitions, it's cause for a negative report on your security clearance... sigh

knottedprop said...

The reason secession doesn't need troops to enforce is because of them big firecrackers that level cities. Liberals would without hesitation use them.

Expat said...

"Here bloodshed is less likely, because Americans have always been more practical that Europeans."

And, 1861-1865 were bloodless? Can't agree with you on this one.

Borepatch said...

Knottedprop, I very much doubt that you'd get missiles launched from red states targeting other red states, with service members pushing the big red button, just because some Blue Stater told them to. I might be wrong, but I don't see it.

As a matter of fact, with all the wailing and rending of garments that liberals go through every August 6, I don't see anyone getting away with giving the order.

Expat, I'll see your 1861-1865 and raise you a 1914-1918. Not saying that we're "practical". I'm saying that we're "more practical than the Ruropeans".

knottedprop said...

Borepatch you have a romantic view of America and it's people, the progressives are not nice people at all they will use maximum force when required to maintain their status quo. Also if you believe that your own military will not be used against you think again. The upper ranks of your military are corrupt and they are ones giving orders and any good commanders are currently being purged. The rank and file are being brainwashed to consider Tea Party members and secessionists as domestic terrorists. The "it won't happen here" doesn't wash anymore. You get a bunch of nervous soldiers facing civilians goading them on and you will have Boston massacre part 2.
Lincoln was a progressive of his day what makes you think the Muppet in chief being a narcissistic sociopath would not use force or I suppose the 1.5 billion rounds of hollow point ammo, armoured vehicles and bullet proof checkpoints for Homeland were just for giggles and grins.
I don't see a bright and happy future if any state really tries to secede they don't play games.
The only plus is a lot of good ole boys from the South in the military would switch sides to fight for freedom and they probably make up a third if not more of the armed forces.

Anonymous said...

Sadly, I have to agree with knottedprop: In the case of a serious secession movement, the military will be used. The generals are purely political animals, and will do what they are told. Most of the officer corps will go along, not having the personal guts to risk court martial. Same for the NCOs, and the lower-level enlisted personnel has no option.

Look at how many military activities in the past 10 years or so have been blatantly illegal. The number of officers of any rank who have refused to carry out their orders? I recall exactly one, a Lieutenant, who was promptly dismissed from the service.

Anonymous said...

[Not the same Anon as above]

I'm not so sure about the military turning on red states at the order of blue ones. Or if some did, not all would, and what happens thereafter is where things get truly messy.

Always keep in mind that a vast majority of the left is starkly terrified of firearms at a personal level. That's why they have to call on others to carry out the orders.

Geodkyt said...

I do not doubt that members of the military would use force, if ordered to by the President, to put down succession and insurrection.

I do doubt that any officer with "special munitions" release capacity would use such under the circumstances. I certainly feel the second officer would not concur, and may well use a sidearm to "nonconcur".