Interesting, But Not Thoughtout, Proposal

 The other day Lanny Davis, who was and is an associate of Clinton's, tweeted that should (and when) President Trump wins a second term, blue states should secede from the USA.

Of course, the tenor of his tweets were quite condescending and had a stick a thumb in their eye attitude. Typical of democrats to think their opponents on the political spectrum are some kind of lesser human being. The old adage rings true: those of us on right think the left is wrong, those on the left think the right is evil.

In all honesty, when it comes to the subject of seceding from the USA, the progressives, in my opinion, actually have a better chance of making it happen than if the movement was conservative states wishing to form their own nation.

Here's why: although the right probably has a better argument, since the left has made it abundantly clear by their actions, deeds, and words there will be no compromise, no inch given, the progressives have something working in their favor. There are lots of Constitutional hoops that would have to be navigated to make secession happen. Approval from the residents of that state, Congressional okie-dokey, and a 3/4th approval from the remaining states. These aforementioned points would work against conservatives.

First off, despite that we know half the population feelings towards conservatives runs from ick to seathing white hot hatred, we really don't want to see the dissolutionment of what has been the greatest and most successful experiment in democracy and federalism the world has ever seen. Secondly, the progressives would never let it happen, just for spite. It isn't good enough for them to be able to rule over those who are likeminded. Nope. They have to crush their opponents and put them under their thumbs. This the only thing that makes a progressive truly happy. The misery of others, especially those they feel superior to, is what they live for, search for, and desire deep in their grinch small hearts. But on the other hand, if it really came down to it, we'd mostly likely let you go with a hearty good luck and a firm slap on the back, for all the reasons mentioned above. Go ahead, form your own nation (or linked nation-states), and let's us know how it works out for ya.

What Davis is proposing was that "Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the Northeast...including Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, and Washington DC." all would secede and form a new nation.

While he was typing out this series of tweets either he didn't really think this through completely or he did and just give a dang.

If he have taken a moment to ponder, he would have realized what he was proposing was a series of nation states spread across what he is thinking was the former United States of America. All one has to do is look at the most recent presidential election to see how the American people voted. Let's take a look at a few of examples.

In Washington, Clinton carried only ten of 39 counties. As you might expect, with one exception (Whatcom county, where WSU resides. But just barely), all counties were west of the Cascade Mountains. Nearly all of these west side counties are urban and suburban. And if one drills down even further, several of these counties were split, i.e., Clinton had a narrow margin of victory. In Thurston County, the city of Olympia voted heavily for Clinton, while the rest of the county skewed towards Trump. Of the ten counties that Clinton carried in Washington, only two could really be classified as an overwhelming Clinton victory.

In Oregon, which has 36 counties, Clinton carried eight, clustered in the Willamette Valley, and centered around Portland and Eugene. As happened in Washington, Clinton's margins were dictated by location. And similar to Washington, overwhelming victories were few and far between. Here too, if one chooses to look deeper, you will see how counties themselves were divided. Washington County, which has a large chunk of the Western and southwestern Portland metro area, was split between suburban and rural. Clinton carried Tigard, Beaverton, and Tualatin, but Trump took Forest Grove, Sherwood, and smaller communities along the Sunset Highway corridor. Clackamas County was similarly divided.

Illinois is another example, and even more so. Illinois has 102 counties, of which, Clinton carried only 12. That is just 12 of state, geographically speaking (math is easy-peasy). And, as expected, urban and some suburban.

Of the states mentioned in Davis's tweet there are 702 counties, and Clinton carried 213, just 30%. I will grant you that population-wise, the numbers swing heavily the other direction with about a 60%-40% split in Clinton's favor. I've included to breakdown below.

The point of this post was to show that while Davis might think this idea has some traction, he did not (or want to) take into account that very large chunks of the states he mentioned might not want to secede, become a blue nation, preferring to stay with the red side. Once you get out of upper New England, the blue areas are the big cities. New York/New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Chicago, Minneapolis, Detroit, Seattle, Portland, and the coastal area of California. Essentially what he is proposing is a series of nation states surrounded by the United States of America.

Davis also mentions several other "bonuses" of suceding. "Vast majority of shipping ports ... Costco. Starbucks, and Boeing ... Stem cell research and the best beaches (snip) ... Intel, Apple, and Microsoft ... etc."

Typical of a progressive to completely dismiss entire regions of the USA. While its true that several ports do sit in blue cities, for some reason he forgets that Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina are all along an ocean and they have deep water ports. He also forgets that a very large share of the volume that runs through these "blue" ports come from red states. Grain, corn, hay, lots of manufactured goods, etc. Maybe initially these "red" ports couldn't handle the volume. But can you imagine the economic boom that would occur when places like Galveston, Houston, New Orleans, Tampa, Miami, and Charleston go into high gear developing their ports. And as an eventual consequence, the hard times that would befall this west cost ports as shipping business declines as these red state ports overcome the initial problems.

Tariffs. As these blue states begin their destined to fail experiment in utopia, there has to be a way to pay for all those goodies. Like "free" health care, "free" college education, guaranteed minimum income and all of the other utopian ideals. As outlined below, taxes will have to increase sharply. But the blue states will need other sources of revenue. Tariffs. All of those goods flowing into the blue ports from red states will most certainly be charged steep tariffs. If the blue states think this will be something the red states won't attempt to eliminate, they are sadly mistaken. As mentioned above red states have plenty of deepwater ports. And those ports will be expanded for no other reason than to get out from under the blue state tariffs. As an added bonus, there will be many high paying blue collar jobs that will come from the expansion and operations of these expanded deepwater ports. As a general rule, we conservatives happen to not look down our noses at the men and women who get their hands dirty earning a living.

Another point he overlooks is taxation and the eventual fallout from these higher taxes. To live in utopia, it has to be paid for. And to pay for it, taxes will have to go up, and go up bigly. In his tweets he highlights how much venture capital and entrepreneurs reside in blue states (85% according to his tweets). Right now, we have a relatively favorable tax structure for venture capitalists and small business startups. If anyone thinks this favorability would remain under his secession ideas is delusional. As I said, utopia is expensive. Many progressives like to to point out how wonderful life is in the so-called socialist countries of Scandinavia. But utopia is expensive. 22% VAT, 100% tax on automobile purchases. 50%, or higher, marginal tax rates on income of any type (wages, capital gains, inheritance, etc.). The tax burden can reach as high as 85%. Does that sound like a healthy business environment? Venture capital and entrepreneurship is almost nonexistent in Scandinavia.

One advantage I could see is immigration. With all of these already deeply blue states taxing businesses and people to the poor house, they are exiting to areas that let folks keep more of their money. Red states think people, not the government, are better suited to make decisions on how best to spend the money they earn. If we become two separate nations, the red country to put immigration restrictions in place that would make it more difficult for blue country tax refugees to move there. Questions could be asked: whom did you vote for in the previous election? Do you believe that the 2nd Amendment exists for the reason the founders intended? Answer no to these and several freedom based questions? Sorry, but we're full.

How many of these big corporations would keep their headquarters in locations that tax heavily? California already has one of the highest personal and corporate tax rates in the country, and they are seeing an exodus of businesses, both big and small. Tesla is already making plans to move some of their operations out of the state. Let's look at Amazon. Jeff Bezos, a staunch supporter of all kinds of progressive causes, has clearly made his stand when it comes to high taxation. When the city of Seattle wanted to implement a "head tax" Bezos made it very clear that if the City of Seattle went forward with this plan he would move a sizable portion of his corporate operations from his new, gleaming, futuristic, building in downtown Seattle to Bellevue, a location that is more friendly, tax-wise. Granted, this wasn't moving to Idaho or Utah, but do you think he'd consider doing just that if this new blue nation decided to significantly up Amazon's tax burden to pay for all those utopian ideas?

A couple of points that he omitted, whether by oversight or on purpose, was energy and food production.

Energy. In the past few years we have become a net exporter of oil, the energy that fuels the economies of the world. Nearly all of that oil comes from red states such as Texas, Nebraska, and North/South Dakota. Other than California, none of his blue states have much in the way of proven oil reserves. And of the locations that do have reserves, it's all locked up per the laws in those states. I wonder if Californians would change their minds about offshore drilling if they suddenly found themselves having to import oil from us lowly red state Americans?

Some will say that fossil fuels won't be necessary in this new blue utopia. Energy can be generated via renewables, such as wind and solar. I'll point back to a blog post I did several years ago highlighting the generating capabilities of wind vs hydro (I know, hydro is not a fossil fuel. But many, many folks who live in these blue areas not only want to be rid of fossil fuels but also want to take down the dams). Think, and think hard, about how much renewable energy generation capability would have to be built to serve this new utopia. These wind "farms" and vast stretches of solar panels would be as much of a blight on the landscape as a dam or a natural gas fired plant. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that wind turbines are a danger to birds. And solar arrays need large tracts of land, often times interfering with endangered species. As for the capability of renewable energy, all one has to do is look back on the rolling backouts that occurred across California this past summer to see just how reliable renewables are. And this was not the first time rolling blackouts occurred in California due to the inability to generate locally enough power to feed the power need a of their residents.

Food production. Most of our food comes from regions and states that are not just red, but deeply so. The West Coast states do have agricultural areas. Apples from Washington, berries and wheat from Oregon, and winter vegetables from California. But these growing regions are red, and not likely to be a part of this new nation. Even if these red regions were somehow forced to go blue it wouldn't be enough to feed all of the folks that live in this new country. Oh sure, you could import from us, and I'm sure we'd sell it to you. But we're just a bunch of illiterate deplorables and we'd probably overcharge you, not really knowing what is fair market value.

Let's talk about exodus. With a few notable exceptions, these blue counties aren't deeply blue. There will be a couple of issues at play here. First of all, there is a better than good chance that folks that lean red will not want to live in a blue utopia. If having the means and desire to do so, they will move. And based on the 2016 election stats (those making more than $50K voted for Trump), they will have the means. And you could also include businesses in the mix. Maybe not companies like Boeing or Microsoft, but small businesses that work on a smaller profit margin. As I have repeatedly pointed out, utopia is expensive. Taxes will have to go up, and go up significantly. Small businesses that operate on a small profit margin will want to move to a region that is more small business friendly. This already happening. In the last two years California has seen a next loss of small businesses to more friendly business environments. The owners and employees find places like Nevada, Utah, Texas, and Tennessee are easier on their pocketbooks.

Secondly, how friendly will it be for a conservative to live in these arch-progessive areas? We already know that political violence is almost exclusively a providence of the progressives. Whether it be tearing down a flag, screaming in someone's face, or murdering, you rarely, if ever, hear the perpetrator of the violence being a conservative. The conservative is nearly always the victim. And don't bother to refute this. You and I both know this is the truth. If the secesion is successful and we are divided red and blue, I think the thin mask of civilization that progressives wear will be stripped when it comes to those of us who wont bow down to their rule. We have already experienced this in areas under complete control of progressives (democrats).

As you are formulating your rebuttal to the above points keep in mind that that if this secesion happened, not all of California, Oregon, Washington. Illinois, and the other states mentioned (outside of upper New England) would be part of this movement. The red counties would most likely not secede with the blue counties.

Counties in the "blue states" (# that Clinton won)

39 in Washington (10)

5 in Hawaii (5)

36 in Oregon (8)

58 in California (32)

102 in Illinois (12)

72 in Wisconsin (12)

87 in Minnesota (9)

83 in Michigan (8)

67 in Pennsylvania (12)

21 in New Jersey (12)

62 in New York (14)

14 in Massachusetts (14)

5 in Rhode Island (4)

3 in Delaware (1)

8 in Connecticut (6)

14 in Vermont (13)

10 in New Hampshire (4)

16 in Maine(8)

702(213) 30%