Secession

On Tuesday, September 30th, JUST Books will discuss the book...

Secession: How Vermont and All the Other States Can Save Themselves from the Empire by Thomas H. Naylor

Here's an article on the topic:
Vermont, Breaking Out of the Empire Box
By Greg Guma
August 21, 2008
Source: Maverick Media
ZNet

Three days after the 2008 presidential election, no matter which political
party takes the White House, a convention will be held in Vermont's
Statehouse to consider more radical solutions to the problems facing the
nation. The organizing group is the Second Vermont Republic, a citizens'
network that aims to dissolve the United States and, in particular, return
Vermont "to its status as an independent republic."

This may sound unlikely, if not impossible. Yet a recent Zogby poll
commissioned by the Middlebury Institute, a think tank studying
"separatism, secession, and self-determination," indicates that that 20
percent of Americans think "any state or region has the right to peaceably
secede from the United States and become an independent republic." More
than 18 percent told pollsters that they "would support a secessionist
effort in my state."

Could it happen? Frank Bryan, a political scientist who co-authored a 1989
book that called for restructuring Vermont democracy along decentralist
lines, has argued that "the cachet of secession would make the new
republic a magnet" and "people would obviously relish coming to the
Republic of Vermont, the Switzerland of North America." For Thomas Naylor,
the former Duke University professor who launched the movement in 2003,
the question isn't "if" but "when."

"Lincoln persuaded the public that secession was unconstitutional and
immoral," Naylor has noted. "It's one of the few things that the left and
right agree on. We say it's constitutional - and ultimately it is a
question of political will: the will of the people of Vermont versus the
will of the government to stop us."

As you might guess, there's no shortage of skeptics. According to Vermont
attorney and historian Paul Gillies, "It doesn't make economic sense, it
doesn't make political sense, it doesn't make historical sense. Other than
that, it's a good idea." Vermont archivist Gregory Sanford even claims
that some of the arguments for secession, in Vermont at least, are based
on "historical facts of dubious reputation." The State Archives often gets
requests for copies of an "escape claus e" in the Vermont Constitution,
which supposedly allows Vermont to withdraw from the US. "The truth, drawn
from documents, is less satisfying; there is no, nor has there ever been,
such an escape clause," he says.

But the underlying issue isn't whether there is legal authority, but why
millions of people across the country think it's a reasonable and
attractive idea. An answer worth considering is provided by Rob Williams,
editor of Vermont Commons, a newspaper that covers secession and related
issues. "The argument for secession is that the US has become an empire
that is essentially ungovernable - it's too big, it's too corrupt and it
no longer serves the needs of its citizens," he explains. "Congress and
the executive branch are being run by the multinationals. We have
electoral fraud, rampant corporate corruption, a culture of militarism and
war. If you care about democracy and self-governance and any kind of
representative system, the only constitutional way to preserve what's left
of the Republic is to peaceably take apart the empire."

Vermont has been fertile ground for such "outside the box" thinking in the
past. For example, the state didn't immediately join the new United States
after the War of Independence, remaining an independent state from 1 777
until 1791. Plus, half a century later it was the first state to elect an
Anti-Mason governor during a period when opposition to the secret society
was growing.

The Anti-Mason movement - which elected two governors and ran a candidate
for president in 1832 - lasted only a decade, and most of its political
leaders eventually joined either the short-lived Whig Party or the more
durable Republicans. Along the way, however, it pointed out the dangers of
elite groups and, on a practical level, initiated changes in the way
political parties operated. The Anti-Masonic Party wasn't only the first
third party in US national politics. It introduced the concept of
nominating conventions and the adoption of party platforms, reforms soon
embraced by the other parties.

This wasn't the only time a short-lived political movement produced
unexpected change. In 1912, the new Progressive Party, formed by Theodore
Roosevelt when he lost the Republican nomination to William Howard Taft,
led to the election of Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt soon left the Party, but
its work continued under the leadership of Robert La Follette. Although La
Follette's run for president in 1924 netted only 17 percent of the vote,
he won in his home state of Wisconsin, and successful reforms were
implemented=2 0there.

So, what can a campaign for secession accomplish, even if the goal isn't
achieved? To answer that, consider the basic agenda underpinning the
Second Vermont Republic: political independence, human scale,
sustainability, economic solidarity, power sharing, equal access, tension
reduction, and mutuality. Running through it all is a strong decentralist
thrust. Secession advocate Kirkpatrick Sale describes decentralism as a
"third way," already evident in bioregional movements, cooperative and
worker-owned businesses, land trusts, farmers markets, and a wide variety
of grassroots initiatives.

In a recent article assessing whether Vermont could "go it alone," Bill
McKibben argues, "Functional independence would be the proper first step,
and useful in its own right." He also provides a list of practical
projects to help create more food self-sufficiency, energy independence,
and local economic power. Although he thinks "any political independence
movement is going nowhere now" - the main reasons given are the hope
offered by Barack Obama and problems requiring global action - McKibben's
advice is to build some affection and trust in the meantime by sharing
information and making small but effective moves in t he right direction.

Naylor aims for the fences, calling secession a rebellion against empire
designed to retake control from big institutions, and help people care for
themselves and others by "decentralizing, downsizing, localizing,
demilitarizing, simplifying, and humanizing our lives." In some ways, the
movement is reminiscent of an earlier effort in Vermont to reframe the
debate.

In 1976, dissidents from the Democratic and Republican Parties attempted
to create a "third way" called the Decentralist League of Vermont. The
group was convened by Bob O'Brien, who had just lost the Democratic
primary for governor, and John McClaughry, a Republican scornful of his
Party's leadership. Each invited allies for a series of meetings to define
a joint agenda. Contrary to some accounts, left-wing leaders such as
Murray Bookchin and Bernie Sanders weren't involved, finding an alliance
with people on the political Right unappealing at the time.

Although the Decentralist League lasted only a few years, ultimately
disbanding when its Left wing opted for electoral politics and Right
signed on for the Reagan "revolution," it pointed to what might unite
people who find the current national and global order unsustainable and
dangerous. Taking a im at all forms of centralized power and wealth, the
League asserted that decentralism is the best way to preserve diversity,
increase self-sufficiency, and satisfy human needs.

"Decentralists believe in the progressive dismantling of bureaucratic
structures which stifle creativity and spontaneity, and of economic and
political institutions which diminish individual and community power,"
said the group's Statement of Principles. The political platform included
support for local citizen alliances; widespread ownership of industry by
employees; a viable and diverse agricultural base; a decent level of
income for all; education that stresses self-reliance, creativity, and a
combination of learning and work; technologies that increase energy
self-sufficiency; and mediation of disputes rather than reliance on
regulations and adversary proceedings.

On the other hand, the League's demise underlines the fragility of a
left-right alliance, which also has recently created difficulties for the
Second Vermont Republic. The controversy began when the Southern Poverty
Law Center accused Naylor and the group of talking to an allegedly racist
group, the League of the South. Critics pounced, and Seven Days, a liberal
weekly in Vermont that was distributing Vermont Commons as an insert,
decided to end the arrangement. Labor groups soon demanded the removal of
offensive web links on Second Vermont Republic's website, disassociation
from certain groups or individuals, and the release of a statement clearly
opposing racism, fascism, bigotry, and discrimination. Although there is
no evidence that Vermont secessionists condone such things, they've been
pressured to prove it.

Whether Vermont's secession movement can recover and grow, especially in
the face of demands to break ties with groups that don't embrace all
progressive principles, remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, the
Decentralist League and McKibben's project list may point toward a
platform with practical, short-term benefits.

Greg Guma writes about media and politics on his website, Maverick Media
(http://muckraker-gg.blogspot.com). The full text of the Decentralist
League's Statement of Principles can be found there.