IS IT TIME TO RETHINK THE UNION?

Reason's Bill Kauffman looks at the history, and wonders if that's the only fix.

If, say, a libertarian-tinged state of the Rocky Mountain West should seek to leave the Union, the rebels surely would be smeared as meth-manufacturing, child-abusing white supremacists. Or if Portland, Oregon, taking a cue from Fernando Wood, the Civil War–era mayor of New York City who proposed making Gotham a free and independent city-state, should declare an independent Portlandia, President Trump might well introduce those angry-faced white girls throwing Molotov cocktails and hissy fits to the M1 Abrams Tank.

Unlike in 1861, there is no sectional fault line along which the union could cleave. A likelier scenario is the fissioning of states, as mammoth entities such as California and New York, whose rural and small-city populations are powerless outlanders, fracture into more comprehensible units. Lose the Last Frontier and the Aloha State, gain Alta California and Upstate New York. You don't even need to redesign the flag.

I hope Richard Kreitner's book gains a wide readership, especially on the thoughtful left. A loose federation of states, as existed under the Articles of Confederation—or even a continent of smallish republics—would be preferable to the current madness.

Perhaps I've grown timid in my old age, but perhaps having the governing structure spelled out in Article I, Section 8 and Article IV of the Federal Constitution is worth keeping, if within reason.  The national 55 mph speed limit was an abuse of the general welfare provision, and the practice of getting a president into office to sign executive orders that appeal to some sections of the country only to have a subsequent president signing countermanding orders is getting old.  On the other hand, Puerto Ricans have approved a referendum for statehood, and there might be some sort of compromise to expel Chicago from the rest of Illinois, or keep the communists west of Interstate 5 along the Pacific Coast.  Or something along the lines of what David Solway is contemplating might be in the works.

A feasible secession movement would likely have to begin with Texas. The terms of Texas’ admission to the Union are complex and debated, but the legal right to secede was embedded in its prior agreement to enter the Union. Moreover, Texas is ideally positioned to entertain the prospect of secession, possessing its own gold depository, owning 95% of state land, and blessed by an independent spirit.

As I wrote several weeks ago, the map tells an interesting story. Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, Nebraska, Mississippi, Louisiana and other southern-central red states, even Georgia, could align with Texas to form a powerful and coherent nation, say, the Free States of America (the FSA), with two open coastlines, a vast energy sector, adherence to the original Constitution, and a local industrial, agricultural and maritime base. Other non-contiguous states, such as Alaska and South Dakota, could opt to join the new Union.

Confirming these speculations, Texas lawmaker Kyle Biedermann has recently suggested a process similar to Brexit, pointing out as well that other states, under Article V of the Constitution regarding the Convention of States, have shown themselves interested in joining the process. Biedermann has outlined the series of steps leading toward the desired result, with Texas as bellwether. The initiative appears to be gathering momentum, as should have been expected. It worked for Brexit; it may work for Texit.

Kurt Schlichter keeps warning his readers that his novels aren't supposed to be manuals, and yet ... Sasha Issenberg asked, four years ago, "The country is hopelessly split. So why not make it official and break up?"  He continues,

It may be time to take the country apart and put it back together, into a shape that better aligns with the divergent, and increasingly irreconcilable, political preferences of its people — or at least to consider what such a future might look like, if for no other reason than to test our own resolve. An imagined trial separation, if you will. Or perhaps in contemplating a future apart we might stumble upon a few ideas for some new way to live together after all.

I suspect that was being considered as tongue-in-cheek.  I would welcome the Permanent Government losing its power, even if Mr Issenberg thinks the loudest voices would somehow replace them.

The most vocal opposition comes from fixtures of the Washington, D.C., Establishment and permanent bureaucracy, which fear a permanent loss of power. Both Fox News and MSNBC, on the other hand, herald the New Era of Good Feelings. For the first time ever, Gallup records three in four Americans declaring themselves satisfied with the way things are going in the United States — a supermajority that cuts across partisan and demographic divides.

Imagine no more national drinking age, no more mask mandates, no 55 mph speed limits. It's easy if you try. On the other hand, then it gets weird.  "After Illinois led a Blue Fed initiative to upgrade its rail service, the Red Fed ended all cooperation with Amtrak, even adjusting gauge size along the Mississippi River to prevent passage of passenger trains from one side to another."  Seriously?  Wouldn't the limited power residing in Washington, D.C. still have control over Amtrak's routes?  With fewer rural representatives standing up for the long distance trains, couldn't Illinois and the other thickly settled states continue the support of their regional trains, just the way Amtrak was funded in 2016?

It gets better.

A Blue Fed requirement that certain freight classes travel only by all-electric truck fleets had nearly doubled the cost of transporting products to the interior west. Frequent work stoppages by West Coast longshoremen emboldened by their labor-friendly administration affirmed a strategy agreed to by titans of Red Fed industry: They needed their own Pacific port.

Red Fed leaders negotiated a deal with Mexican authorities for operating control of the Port of Lázaro Cárdenas, in Michoacán state, investing some of its energy trust funds. A new terminal, staffed by American Customs officials, connects directly with a spur of the Kansas City Southern railroad. There, nonunion laborers load ships with minerals mined through the American West, including lithium and soda ash, heading largely to East Asia, and unload bananas and smartphones from Ecuador and China heading for the landlocked states of the Red Fed without ever once passing through Blue Fed territory.

The coastal states gave up on their freight railroads when the central states regauged their tracks? Seriously? And who pays for regauging the Mexican railroads?

It's probably a good thing that the dreamers about partition don't understand the transportation networks better.