Breaking Point

[makattak]

With all the talk of Texas and secession lately (disclaimer: I do not think Texas will or should secede yet) I began thinking:

Currently the country is fairly evenly divided. Unfortunately, it is becoming more polarized as well.

As such, when one side wins, their goals are irreconcilable to those of their opponents. There is no "middle ground".

(Aside: Ironically, I view the Bush presidency as an attempt at this middle ground. He lowered taxes (a conservative position) which allowed the government to take in more revenue but also increased spending (a liberal position).

Even before Iraq, though, he was villified and rejected by the left. Therefore, I contend that the left will not accept any "compromise".)

Now, given the current rumblings of "Secession!", however unlikely they may be, what will happen in the states left behind?

Politicaly, it is simple to run the math: Texas has 34 electoral college votes. 32 Representatives, 2 Senators.

These have gone to the Republican candidate for president since 1976.

On balance, the Representatives are 12 Democrat, 22 Republican. The senators are both republican.

Now, should Texas secede, we will be left in the House with: 244 Democrats and 156 Republicans. (3 Independent).

The Senate would be at 57 Democrat 39 Republican. (2 Independent).

At this point, the Democratic platform cannot be opposed. With the loss of Texas, the presidency will be firmly in Democratic hands as would be the house.

In the current Senate, even a filibuster would be impossible.

My thought is, then: If one State leaves the union, how could any other states that share its political views not follow?

This is my question about the breaking point: Should one state begin secession, how could the other states not follow?

[Gewehr98]

Good question, although Texans have always considered themselves a breed apart.

[red headed stranger]

There would be the opposite effect if CA seceded . . .

Hmmmm. 

[Balog]

I've gotta think if things get bad enough that it's looking like time to go (which I don't believe will happen) it would be a coalition of states doing it together. But assuming the governors have heard about that little spat we like to call the Civil War I don't see that happening.

[RocketMan]

But assuming the governors have heard about that little spat we like to call the Civil War I don't see that happening.

That also presumes that said governors would have learned from history.

[makattak]

There would be the opposite effect if CA seceded . . .

Hmmmm. 

Precisely. Which is why I didn't make this about conservative or liberal- should one (especially the very large) state secede, why would any similar states remain in the Union?

Note, though, that the Senate is still safely Democratic without California. The Democrats would not win the presidency for a long time, though, and the House would have a dramatic shift.

[Perd Hapley]

I've gotta think if things get bad enough that it's looking like time to go (which I don't believe will happen) it would be a coalition of states doing it together. But assuming the governors have heard about that little spat we like to call the Civil War I don't see that happening.

Despite the hype, Obama is no Lincoln.  This is a different "Union" than the one that broke in 1861.  Presuming that a deal could be worked out to return, or pay for, fed.gov property in said state(s), is it crazy to think that Washington might just let them go? 

[MicroBalrog]

But assuming the governors have heard about that little spat we like to call the Civil War I don't see that happening.

What about the Civil War?

I understand that many people feel that Lincoln's victory there somehow 'proved' secession illegal, but we both know it's not true. More importantly, do you think there would be a will today to fight a second one?

Suppose a state like Montana seceded. Do you think many soldiers in the military would be enthusiastic about fighting and killing people who just 24 hours ago were their fellow Americans? Today, the sort of things that Lincoln's troops were forced to do to bring the South back into the union are (rightly), not even acceptable to most people when inflicted on foreigners who attacked America.

The North, in 1861, also had a powerful propaganda weapon, namely slavery – while it wasn't the single or even main direct reason for the war, many people saw it (and again, rightly) as an incredible evil. Do you imagine a liberal John Brown willing to lay down his life for the cause of secularism and socialized health care?  If California secedes, do you imagine invading them to fight to the death in the streets of San Francisco?

Now. Again. I am not advocating secession of any part of the United States, just as I am not advocating any form of rebellion. I am merely pointing out that it is not likely that a modern President, being fully aware of the Civil War's horrors, would chose to go down that path unless there was a powerful compelling reason that he could explain to the general public and get them on board with it.

[Jocassee]

Looks like ole Perry spoke a little too soon.

In Texas, 31% Say State Has Right to Secede From U.S., But 75% Opt To Stay

Thirty-one percent (31%) of Texas voters say that their state has the right to secede from the United States and form an independent country.

However, the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in the state finds that if the matter was put to a vote, it wouldn’t even be close. Three-fourths (75%) of Lone Star State voters would opt to remain in the United States. Only 18% would vote to secede, and seven percent (7%) are not sure what they'd choose.

Texas Governor Rick Perry, in response to a reporter’s question about secession at a protest "tea party," said Wednesday, "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that? But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." The comment was widely reported in the media.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.

The underlying views of Texans about government are generally similar to those in the rest of the nation. By a 73% to 11% margin, Texans trust the collective judgment of the American people more than the judgment of political leaders.

By a 62% to 21% margin, voters in Perry’s state believe that big business and big government typically work together against the interests of consumers and investors. And, by a 63% to 24% margin, Texans view the federal government itself as a special interest group.

Overall, seven percent (7%) of Texas voters have views that align with America’s Political Class or lean in that direction. Fifty-two percent (52%) of Texans hold views that can be considered populist or Mainstream. Nationally, those figures are seven percent (7%) for the Political Class and 55% for the Mainstream view.

When “leaners” are included, 15% of Texans can be counted as somewhat supportive of the Political Class while 73% hold the opposite perspective.

Texas voters who view the federal government as a special interest group are evenly divided as to whether or not their state has the right to secede. However, two-thirds (64%) of those who view the federal government as a special interest group would still vote to stay in the union rather than secede.

Nationally, the divide between the Mainstream and the Political Class is clear on an issue like immigration. While 66% of voters nationwide say it is Very Important for the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration, just 32% of America’s Political Class agrees.

The secession question was prompted by "tea parties" nationwide on April 15 to express frustration about the high level of new federal government spending. But President Obama has maintained solid approval ratings over the past month in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

In recent weeks, short-term expectations for the economy have improved dramatically, but longer-term expectations have moved in the opposite direction. Sixty percent (60%) of Americans now say it will take three years or longer for housing prices to recover. Confidence in the U.S. banking system is up slightly since February, though.

The Rasmussen Consumer and Investor Indexes, which measure confidence on a daily basis, ended a four-day skid on Friday.

In Texas, Perry finds himself in a challenging environment for reelection as he seeks an unprecedented third consecutive term as governor. Another Republican, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, will be running against him. Hutchison is viewed favorably by 67% of voters statewide, Perry by 55%.

Twenty-five percent (25%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Hutchison while only five percent (5%) of Texas voters have a Very Unfavorable opinion of her. For Perry, the numbers are 19% Very Favorable and 19% Very Unfavorable.

Among Republicans, Hutchison earns positive reviews from 83%, Perry from 78%.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free)… let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

[Marvin Dao]

What about the Civil War?

I understand that many people feel that Lincoln's victory there somehow 'proved' secession illegal, but we both know it's not true. More importantly, do you think there would be a will today to fight a second one?

Bingo.

The US doesn't have the will to stomach the number of casualties that would be sustained in a prolonged civil war and insurgency. Iraq is proof enough of that. Any civil war would involve casualty numbers at least an order of magnitude higher in a much shorter time span.

[Jamisjockey]

Secessation ?
Firstly, it would require will.  A State or states would have to have a very large majority of peoples in agreeance.
Secondly, after the memo this week, does anyone doubt that the fed.gov would treat an organized secessationist movement as "right wing nut jobs" and fill up gitmo?

We're in a deep recession.  Big deal.  Our country has been in many recessions before.
It would take some serious catastrophies like another full blown depression to kick off any serious movement.  Even then, the fed.gov wouldn't make it easy.

[MicroBalrog]

Secondly, after the memo this week, does anyone doubt that the fed.gov would treat an organized secessationist movement as "right wing nut jobs" and fill up gitmo?

There are real 'right-wing nut jobs' out there. Do you see them being put away?

[makattak]

Secessation ?
Firstly, it would require will.  A State or states would have to have a very large majority of peoples in agreeance.
Secondly, after the memo this week, does anyone doubt that the fed.gov would treat an organized secessationist movement as "right wing nut jobs" and fill up gitmo?

We're in a deep recession.  Big deal.  Our country has been in many recessions before.
It would take some serious catastrophies like another full blown depression to kick off any serious movement.  Even then, the fed.gov wouldn't make it easy.

First, we're not in a deep recession. We are in a recession. It may be a protracted recession, but it's not that bad.

Secondly, you are quite right that it would take a serious catastrophe to cause any such movement (hence my statement that Texas won't and shouldn't secede yet). My argument was that once that point is reached, there simply cannot be a single state that does so because of the consequences for those that remain.

[Gewehr98]

Depends who you ask.

Some analysts are tracking it right along with the Great Depression of 1929.

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3421

Me?  I have my own views, but only because I got laid off in what was supposed to be a recession-proof industry...

[Werewolf]

...Secondly, you are quite right that it would take a serious catastrophe to cause any such movement (hence my statement that Texas won't and shouldn't secede yet). My argument was that once that point is reached, there simply cannot be a single state that does so because of the consequences for those that remain.

Just for the sake of argument (I think Perry screwed the pooch really badly with his incorrect contention that Texas has the right to secede):

If there's any one state that could secede by its self and make it work then it is Texas (maybe CA). Large state with a very, very loyal and large population. You have to be a Texan - which I was for most of my life - even after moving to OK - to understand what it means to most of them to be Texan.

If those poll numbers reversed from 75% no to 75% yes I could see Texas seceding and making it work.

Diversified and strong economy, strong military presence that would IMO go with TX rather than stay loyal to the fed, long shoreline with access to the high seas thus assuring trade with the world community, loyal, well educated population all would work towards making TX a viable, thriving new country if the US just let 'em go.

If they didn't - well - it'd be one hell of a fight and if it did come to that - a fight - it is at that point that other like minded states might very well join in on TX's side. Oklahoma would be a strong contender to join in along with maybe Arkansas. I imagine MT, WY and maybe ID would at that time declare their independence.

Domino effect...

If Texas ever did secede it would probably be in the best interest of the USA to just let 'em go.

[RocketMan]

Depends who you ask.

Some analysts are tracking it right along with the Great Depression of 1929.

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3421

Me?  I have my own views, but only because I got laid off in what was supposed to be a recession-proof industry...

I don't know about the analysts you are citing, GW, but others are saying the much same thing.  In my opinion, this is going to get much worse before it gets any better.  We may not be far from falling into a full blown depression.
FWIW, Oregon is already at 12.1% unemployment, and the rate of increase is not showing any signs of slowing.

[Balog]

Micro: I think you're missing the point. If the state.gov of Tejas tried to secede, the instigators would be Gitmo'ed pdq. No large scale battles, just a whole lotta empty seats in the state.gov.

[Nick1911]

Micro: I think you're missing the point. If the state.gov of Tejas tried to secede, the instigators would be Gitmo'ed pdq. No large scale battles, just a whole lotta empty seats in the state.gov.

The Fed's have to arrest them first...

[MicroBalrog]

Do that and you pretty much ensure a state's secession.

[Balog]

The Fed's have to arrest them first...

You think they'd have trouble? Uber-monitoring once they start talking about it, if they're about to go official it's hello no-knock in the middle of the night.

Do that and you pretty much ensure a state's secession.

Who'd lead that rebellion? Anyone publicly identifying themselves gets snatched, anyone going to direct action gets labeled terrorist.

[MicroBalrog]

Who'd lead that rebellion? Anyone publicly identifying themselves gets snatched, anyone going to direct action gets labeled terrorist.

People don't get elected by magic. If Texas (or any other state) managed to elect so many pro-secession representatives that they could actually get a secession resolution through, it would mean a majority of people support secession. And people don't take kindly to brute force. The people in question would become insta-martyrs for the cause, and replacements would pop up in an eyeblink.

[Jamisjockey]

You think they'd have trouble? Uber-monitoring once they start talking about it, if they're about to go official it's hello no-knock in the middle of the night.

Who'd lead that rebellion? Anyone publicly identifying themselves gets snatched, anyone going to direct action gets labeled terrorist.

QFT! 

People don't get elected by magic. If Texas (or any other state) managed to elect so many pro-secession representatives that they could actually get a secession resolution through, it would mean a majority of people support secession. And people don't take kindly to brute force. The people in question would become insta-martyrs for the cause, and replacements would pop up in an eyeblink.

If such a movement were to begin gaining traction, I'd expect the fed.gov to be well ahead of it and begin interring people pretty quick. 

[Balog]

I don't think it'd get to resolution passing time. I think the feds are monitoring the pro-secession people closely now, and if they started getting too serious the feds would pay em a visit. I'd say one, maybe two high profile "accidents" followed by a night time visit to the rest would do the trick.

[crt360]

QFT! 
If such a movement were to begin gaining traction, I'd expect the fed.gov to be well ahead of it and begin interring people pretty quick. 

That would be the spark that really gets it going.  While Texans might be very passive at the moment and mostly think the idea of secession is silly, all it would take is the feds forcibly messin' with our state (especially stuff like no-knock snatching of dissenters), and you'd have plenty of folks ready to fight.

[Balog]

That would be the spark that really gets it going.  While Texans might be very passive at the moment and mostly think the idea of secession is silly, all it would take is the feds forcibly messin' with our state (especially stuff like no-knock snatching of dissenters), and you'd have plenty of folks ready to fight.

How would you know?

Besides, one major secessionist and his family dies in a "tragic house fire" and the rest get a visit from the feds saying knock it off or you're next, and it's bye-bye secessionist movement.