I received a lot of spirited comments from the last post, so I thought I'd keep poking the bear with the stick.
There's an assumption going through the topic of Sarah Palin's (non)relationship to the Alaskan Independence Party that works something like this: Secession is wrong, bordering on evil, the AIP advocates secession, Sarah Palin broadcast a speech to the AIP and her husband belonged to it, therefore she is a close enough proxy for the AIP and is therefore wrong, bordering on evil.
But is any of that sound? Not even at the beginning.
Our collective reference for secession is the American Civil War, wherein we are generally taught that the South was an evil. But the secession of the Southern States from the Union is an example of secession, not the definition of it. So what's the definition? Let's try this: secession is a group's formal claim of independence from a federation or ruling State. It might not be the independence you like, but it's clearly the independence somebody likes. So you already have a question of imposing one set of morals and tastes over another. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's not.
America was founded on the right of secession. That's why Northerners were often very uncomfortable with the War Between the States. What exactly were they fighting for – to keep people tied to the United States? Didn't their great grandparents bleed to put a stop to that sort of thing. What was the essential difference between an England that kept Americans as subjects largely for economic reasons, and an America that kept Southerners as subjects largely for economic reasons?
From here, we can say (partly because we're the victors), that the South's raison d'être for secession was to maintain the horrible practice of slavery. That's not exactly the historic truth, but whatever. Close enough, we'll say.
Because it's beside the point.
All of the former Soviet Republics are secessionists. So are Poland, Hungary and Austria. The Czech Republic and Slovakia seceded from one another. At one time France had to secede from England, recently of Germany. Mexico seceded from Spain and France. Heck most of Latin America seceded from Spain or Portugal. All of Europe seceded from Rome, all of Asia seceded from Mongolia. Taiwan is almost a secessionist. Manchuria and Korea were. The North Vietnamese seceded from the French then conquered their own Southern relatives. Most of us wish Tibet was able to secede. Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan. Pretty much all of the Middle East seceded from other rulers in the Middle East.
Israel is a secessionist, though there are fewer Progressives these days who are fond of that idea.
If you consider the acquiescence to partition secession by third party, then Joe Biden was also a secessionist, because he wanted to split Iraq. Dumb, maybe or not. But not evil.
Given that, we can see that there probably isn't a useful Kantian maxim about secession, and that before we presume to bathe others in our spittle and righteous indignation, we ought, perhaps, to spend a few more minutes contemplating the truth value of what we're arguing.
So the question we have to ask is: when is secession good. That's a much more prickly question.
If you want to argue that it's inherently immoral to secede from the United States, we should reconsider America's domination of Cuba and the Philippines. Thanks, but no. Most of us like an independent Cuba. Just not so much under mass-murdering, totalitarian Socialists.
While we certainly seem confident in our post hoc judgments about the virtues of a particular act of secession, there's probably no prima facie method for judging the merits of most, if any, cases. Look at Kosovo and Serbia. Look at Ireland.
I'm not defending the AIP; I don't like the idea of Alaska seceding. Also, there are claims that the AIP is a strictly racist organization that hates Native Folk. Seems a bit hard to sustain, given that Todd Palin is a Native Person and is the Palin who belonged to the AIP. But I suppose Progressives in San Francisco can simply write him off as a race traitor. A Native Uncle Tom "who's just acting White."
But what the Alaskan Independence Party tells us is what all separatist movements tell us: there's serious disagreement about how the State is relating to the people, and that we need to figure out how to address those disagreements rather than dismiss them out of hand. Truly, sometimes the only way to address those disagreements is by force of arms. But to dismiss those disagreements out of hand makes us guilty of tyranny. It creates the uncomfortable position of being loyalists to the State of America and traitors to its founding cause.
For Conservatives, that's almost always been a big question. For Progressives who spent the last 8 years crying "fascist imperialism!" it should be a sobering one.
Comments
One thing I noticed in Sarah's address to the AIP, she didn't wear that big gaudy flag pin. In fact they didn't even show a flag anywhere near her desk, odd from a governor's desk. I guess she didn't want to insult her secessionist buddies. The AIP never uses the US flag in their convention. She would know that being married to one of them.
Conservatives have really jumped the shark. Amos Wright must be a comedian.
You'd would write absolutory missives for Osama Bin Laden if he were on the Republican ticket.
Katie:
If you're referring to this video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4iCDBIAde8>, the reason you don't see the flag is that there's a credenza behind her, outside of which are the two flags. It's not an evil conspiracy; it's just videography. The camera would either have to sit further back or use a fisheye lens to get the flags and her face.
See this video: <http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2008/09/sarah-palin-has.html>FFWD to 2:16 as the gentleman announces, "Well, this is the Governor's office."
The U.S. flag is behind his back. You can see it about half way through the interview. The flag on the right is Alaska's. The small flag stuck in the blinds behind Ms. Palin's back is the Israeli flag.
++
As far as the content of her speech, she does call them "competition." Sort of knocks the whole "secret AIP member" meme right out, yes? As far as the virtues she's extolling, they are:
AIP's important role (whatever that means)
Upholding Alaska's constitution
Expansion of individual liberty and opportunity
Self-sufficiency, hard work, graciousness
Hope, trust, liberty (again), opportunity (again).
Other than expansion of individual liberty, opportunity, self-sufficiency and hard work, which of those things would not be believed by a Democrat? The first is a description, btw, not a prescription.
Amos, The truth that they are trying to hide is Sarah Palin was a AIP.
Sarah Palin AIPgate, Alaskan independence party member secessionist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twOPPzrkBwk
Write about that
In answer to your question posed in the headline, for people who love this country, the answer is yes. Country first? Give me a break.
People entrusted with running the federal government should believe that it can work-- instead of setting out to prove that it can't again and again like the current administration.
I must disagree with the examples you list. We are not China and Alaska is not Tibet. You've joined the hate America first crowd, Mr Wright. Shame on you.
Palin can't even wear white and not be called a KKK racist. If she said "good morning" at 12:01 they would say she can't even tell time and what she said was a lie. It is ALL BS.
As for secession, I live in Maryland and would gladly move to Alaska if they pull it off. Better than in a socialist state with our boy gov at the helm.
Would that we would cut Alaska loose and Palin would tout such radical libertarian ideals on the national stage!
A group of people has the right to secede from any political institution at any time for any reason as long as they are not bound by a contract that they individually assented to. As the Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The State does not have the authority to govern us unless we consent to it; otherwise, it governs through violence and coercion, not consent.
Those who argue that there is no right to secession are essentially saying that the State is the ultimate judge of our rights and our freedom. Should we think otherwise, i.e., should we think that our rights God-given or natural, the State has the right to kill us. Such is the thinking of all tyrants, slave masters, and dictators.
From my own Maryland Constitution.
"The Declaration of Rights.
We, the People of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:
Article 1. That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.
Art. 6. That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Art. 36. That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.
Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place.
Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion (amended by Chapter 558, Acts of 1970, ratified Nov. 3, 1970). "
LOL, Alaskans cede from the nation? Palin's bragging of Ted Stevens being the king of earmarks pimping the lower 48 state's during her podium pounding rants to her natives....recent history of her own which hasn't been relegated to a pile of burning books her spiritual constipation advocates burning.
Who would Alaskans pimp for those billions in earmarks to study sex lives of animals or build luxury cabins so politicians can salmon fish?
Oh wait! If they cede, they could drag their mukalukas and sleeping bags to DC and wait in line for those foreign aid billions and bonus! The GOP's henchmen can give them nukes so they could then get more tax dollars not to use them....it's worked for Bush/Cheney all over the world, it could work for Alaska, the Alabama with snow.
"People entrusted with running the federal government should believe that it can work"... precisely. If you don't believe the federal government can be trusted with your welfare then you shouldn't be running for federal office.
But besides the question of believing in the US federal government, the president takes an oath swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Regardless of popular opinion regarding secession, it is undisputed that the Constitution does not permit unilateral secession. (See also Texas v. White for the Supreme Court's ruling confirming this.)
Asking "when is secession good" is ridiculous - it's not a question of "goodness or badness" but of Constitutional law. Suggesting that secession is "good" by pointing to foreign nations is equally ridiculous -- obviously foreign nations do not follow the US Constitution! And the President of the United States has to believe in the primacy of the Constitution.
I think many people are missing the larger point. Nowhere did I say that Alaska should secede.
Don't get too busy trying to score points that you fail to appreciate the value of the game itself.
The larger point is that everyone points at Alaskan secessionists and says, "Ha! Secessionists!" without ever taking the time to think through the question, "Is secession always wrong?"
Which is not the same thing as "Is secession always legal." (Scintilla.) Stating that the law is more important than the good logically means that no law may ever be amended or stricken. After all, what justification is there for abolishing a law, other than a new view of the good?
It is of no use to point to the law. We're all well aware that the Civil War essentially decided the legal question. However, people from Thomas Jefferson to Martin Luther King (citing St. Augustine) pointed out that circumstances justify law breaking (secession is almost always considered illegal). Laws do not justify anything but lawyering and force. They are subsequent to a moral justification.
The President does not have to believe in the primacy of the Constitution. He only has to swear to protect it and abide by it. That says nothing about whether s/he may seek to amend it, as has been done many times. Wherefore does a President or a Congressman seek to amend the Constitution? From a different view of the good and the just than what the Constitution currently allows.
But as far as the practical matter of Alaska goes, I'm afraid others are also missing something. It's absolutely true that Alaska takes a huge amount of State money. Nobody denies that, and in point of fact Ted Stevens gets at least as much criticism from Republicans as he does from Democrats for his time-at-trough. It is also the case that much of Sarah Palin's popularity comes from her acting against her party, including, ultimately, being the one who killed Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere.
But let's make a bargain. In exchange for giving Alaska less federal funds, let us unburden them of federal interference regarding mining, petroleum, logging and the use of their resources, so that they can generate their own wealth. Will Progressives put their own money (actually, the top 20% of earners' money, but whatever) where their mouths are? Will Progressives keep federal dollars in return for being unable to tell Alaskans what they can and can't do with Alaska's resources?
amos you are a palin apologist
simple
no!!!!!!!!!! the north didn't have to depend off the south.. take Britain for instance when they couldn't get cotton from the south America they took cotton from India and some other place. and the south depended on the north a lot okay because the south needed products only made in factories which were "only" in the north weirdo. okay. anyways you uninformed human being. A democratic regime assumes a “demos” - a unit of political decision. Decisions made years ago by the people for the people to have a “UNION”. If all the dissident minorities secede after every decision they oppose, then there is no democratic regime at all. So the South was a dissident minority who constantly opposed decisions that had already been made. Their reason to secede was because Abraham became president; not a reasonable democratic principle. It is widely known that Abe Lincoln might have had made decisions that opposed democracy “but” he did this after he had to fight to preserve a union, Abraham Lincoln was never given a chance by the south to lead them-in the beginning. Therefore the south didn’t have a valid reason to secede in the first place. Although it is said that the south was different socially, economically, etc. etc. it doesn't matter it was majority vs. minority and if the minority lost then that's that, no matter how unjust it may seem. Too bad. That is why democracy existed!!!!! so the south was just being rebellious. The Southerners were rejecting the majority's wishes. The southerners felt weak against the others, and the only way to keep their standards alive was to secede. alright democracy in not to secede
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!