No Need to Sigh. Let’s Make it Right!
American Greatness managing editor Ben Boychuk really doesn’t want California to secede. Lately, he’s taken to sighing on the hallowed editorial pages of the Sacramento Bee, expressing his exasperation by opposing the latest homegrown attempt at secession.
But let’s not be misled: Boychuk’s views are no more objective than the group he criticizes. In fact, by disparaging the project of independence, without simultaneously suggesting alternative ways for California to have its grievances redressed, Boychuk is inadvertently doing service to the narrative that independence is the only alternative to submission.
Let’s do away with a few of Boychuk’s non-starters before addressing the crux of the issue. Probably none of the so-called impediments to independence that Boychuk references is as misleading as the old saw that “the Civil War settled the question whether states can just up and leave the union.” It did not and could not.
First, the question of whether all citizens have the right of self-determination or whether their ancestors can forfeit that right on their behalf in perpetuity is a philosophical question. It can no more be settled by a war than David Hume’s skeptical argument against inductive knowledge could be settled by whacking Hume over the head. Whether the federal government would respect our decision or would choose to respond the way it did in 1860 is another question entirely. Much would probably depend on how it was done. But if we say that we will rule secession out entirely, we are tacitly admitting that we will submit to any injustice, so long as the United States promotes it.
Second, comparisons to the Civil War are inappropriate because they erase the suffering of African Americans under a brutal system of chattel slavery. The South was wrong, of course, but it was not wrong because it changed its government. In itself, that is a morally neutral act. Many governments, including the American colonies, have withdrawn from their previous systems and established their own forms of government.
The South was not wrong because it seceded; it seceded because it was wrong. The South wanted to indefinitely continue a brutal system of slavery and perpetually deny the right of self-determination to large swaths of enslaved workers. That was wrong. It was an abomination. And because it excluded the most fundamental rights of so large a population, it was not even an expression of self-determination. California is committing no similar moral outrage.
What about Boychuk’s other worries? What would become of federal military bases under an independent California? What about our debt and liabilities and other assorted social problems? What about the water? None of these problems are really relevant, because they exist even now under our current relationship to the federal government. And we must expect, for the most part, that solutions will come from California, not the federal government, and that those solutions will be roughly the same whether we are part of the union or not.
Let’s take his worries in reverse. What about the water? California is tied in a symbiotic relationship with the other states. They give us water, and we give them food. If they shut off the spigot, we will still have enough for drinking and bathing, but we won’t be able to produce the food they depend on. I hope they like corn and soy.
What about our other assorted management problems? Does anyone realistically expect the federal government to bail us out? We’re going to have to solve those on our own anyway.
And the military bases? My guess is that the U.S. would not relinquish its claim on those bases, so California would have to tolerate a U.S. military base on its soil — as more than seventy other countries already do.
Now that that is out of the way, I want to state that I do not believe that unilateral secession is appropriate at this time. I will not rule it out in perpetuity, however. California has a long list of legitimate grievances against the federal government, grievances with which Boychuk is familiar but never addresses. On a range of issues — from immigration to the environment, from taxation to currency — California’s interests and values are not being cared for, and that situation is unlikely to change regardless of who is in power in Washington.
CalExit wants a divorce. Boychuk says we cannot have one. But so long as we avoid the difficult conversation about resolving these differences, secession will seem like the only alternative to submission. Boychuk may be happy with that state of affairs — he is, after all, a supporter of the current Trump regime — but most of us would probably not be as happy with submission as Boychuk would be.
There is an alternative, one that has been pioneered around the world: autonomy. California does not have to choose between submitting to policies that are contrary to our values or declaring ourselves an independent country. We can negotiate a package of autonomy that gives California control over its own affairs. California could print its own currency, have its own system of banking, control its own immigration programs, regulate its own environment, administer its own social programs, and control its own National Parks. And since California would be relieving the federal government of the burden of administering all these programs, California could receive all the tax money from its citizens that currently goes to Washington.
Some say that the federal government would never agree to that, because we have nothing to offer the federal government. But that is not true. We have two senators and fifty-three representatives. Many of the other states would jump at the chance to make those senators and representatives non-voting representatives. This could be done by a supermajority vote in Congress and our legislature that changes our status from California the state to California the commonwealth. This was how the U.K. granted sovereignty to most of its former possessions. We could seek the same relationship that, say, Canada has with the U.K. without embroiling ourselves in a long and protracted fight for complete independence. The U.S. already has a Commonwealth status — think the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas here — and California would be wise to negotiate a package of autonomy under those terms.
The alternative seems to be either submission or divorce, unless you are optimistic enough to think that the long term trend of the country moving to the right will be over sometime in your lifetime.
— — — — — —
Caleb Castaneda is a human being. He lives in Victorville with his husband, two beautiful children, and far too many dogs. For a little money, he teaches philosophy to students in the California Community College system. He can be praised or berated at caleb.castaneda77@gmail.com.
