Should some areas of the U.S. part company?

-A A +A
By Staff

To the editor:

The first serious thoughts on secession I heard were amusingly espoused by Walter Williams, head of the Department of Economics at George Mason University. His idea was that since the Northeast and the West Coast obviously wanted a secular, socialist, globalist, Western European-style government with cradle-to-grave entitlements and confiscatory taxation and income redistribution while those of us in the south and the center part of the country still wanted Jeffersonian government complete with individual liberties, self-sufficiency, low taxation and limited government that governs mostly at the state and local level, maybe it was time for us to simply part company. After all, how long can these polar opposite paradigms co-exist?  

Walter Williams has an enormous talent for allowing wit to color his discourse, so this might have been just an example of him being facetious in order to make a point. However, when you think about the points he was making and viewing how completely the nation seems to be polarized on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and how neatly the polarization seems to fit within specific geographic borders, it does make you wonder if we are approaching the need to part company. It is important to remember that state sovereignty was the issue that caused the farm boys from the south to take up arms. They didn’t care much about keeping their slaves because the vast majority of them didn’t have any. What prompted secession were incompatible paradigms that could not co-exist. One side wanted federal power to supersede state sovereignty and the other side wanted state sovereignty to supersede federal power. This yielded an unhappy marriage and a nasty divorce known as the Civil War.

We are seeing this type of incompatibility today. Honest debate has disappeared from our political dialogue because one side is not operating in good faith. Two sides arguing over the best way to conduct American foreign and domestic policy is very healthy, as long as both sides have the same goal — increasing the power, prosperity and influence of this nation. However, the liberal left, which occupies the center of gravity of the Democratic party and also represents the prevailing philosophies of the northeast and west coast, do not have this as a goal. In fact, their goal is the exact opposite — to diminish the power and influence of this nation and have prosperity managed and distributed as globalist elites see fit. A prosperous, powerful, free market, capitalistic America is anathema to their secular, socialist, utopian paradigms to which they still cling with religious fervor.  

How can we continue our co-existence with those who hold to Michael Moore’s opinion that this great nation is an evil empire worthy of collapse? You see, rather than wanting federal sovereignty to replace state sovereignty, the North and the West now want national sovereignty surrendered to international, globalist bureaucracy. How far down this disastrous road have we already traveled when we have elected a President who proudly proclaimed on foreign soil that he is a “citizen of the world.”  Therefore, those of us who still hold to the notion of American exceptionalism and to the belief that this is the world’s only indispensable nation may soon find it necessary to part company with those who, not so secretly, yearn for its sovereignty to be subrogated to globalist bureaucracies. Jefferson predicted that when the citizens started voting themselves disbursements from the treasury, our republic would end. In order for us to preserve Jeffersonian democracy and our way of life that has been built around it, we may need to part company with those who are lining up to abandon it.

Is my tongue in my check?  Well, like Walter Williams, maybe only half way.

Clarke Beasley

141 Woodhill Road