Secession: A How-to Guide
2020-01-12 · Guest: Frank Buckley (Professor at George Mason University) · 51:30
Secession and the potential for a national breakup
Bob Zadek and guest Frank Buckley discuss the increasing political polarization in America and the potential for secession as a peaceful, negotiated solution. They explore various historical and modern templates for breaking up large states, such as Brexit and the “Velvet Divorce” of Czechoslovakia, arguing that smaller nations often enjoy greater happiness, less corruption, and more responsive governance.
Topics: Secession, Federalism, Brexit, Czechoslovakia, Quebec, Home Rule, Administrative State, Constitutional Convention, Political Polarization, Small Government.
Speakers:
- Bob Zadek: Host
- Frank Buckley: Guest, Foundation Professor at George Mason University’s Scalia Law School and author of American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup.
- Caller (John): Listener from California
Introduction [00:00]
(Intro Music)
Voiceover: You’re listening to the Bob Zadek Show, a full hour of libertarian discussion with the smartest guests on radio. Live, spontaneous, and thoughtful. It’s the show of ideas, not attitude. Now, your host, Bob Zadek.
Bob Zadek: Hello everyone, welcome to the Bob Zadek Show, the longest-running live libertarian talk radio show on all of radio. Thank you so much for listening this Sunday morning.
About the greatest gift that a scholar can give to Americans, to the world, is to take a concept which is considered to be unthinkable—the word is even abhorrent to me—unthinkable, and to make it thinkable, if there is such a word as that. Our guest this morning has done exactly that. Frank Buckley, who has been on our show a number of times, always with great anticipation—I can’t wait to have Frank on the show—Frank has written a book which will come out on Tuesday, which raises a concept that my friends out there will think to be unthinkable. But it is not. It is fascinating, interesting, provocative, and once you start wondering about the concept, if you are like me at all, you can’t let go. There are so many facets. Frank’s book is entitled American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup. Frank, welcome to the show this morning and thank you so much in advance for the writing and the Tuesday publication of your book.
Frank Buckley: Well, Bob, thanks very much for having me.
The Depth of American Division [01:58]
Bob Zadek: Now Frank, your book is entitled American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup. First, we will discuss on the show that secession, although it clearly has a defined meaning, secession really can describe a continuum of political events or political circumstances. So secession isn’t, at least it will not be on this show, one concept, but a range of concepts. Now you talk about it being a threat to a national breakup. What is there about America today that makes you fear or wonder or look with anticipation—you will tell us which one it is—what is it about circumstances in America today that you think invites a conversation of secession?
Frank Buckley: Well, we’ve never been more divided. Maybe more now even than 1861, between different people of different persuasions in the United States. And it’s not just that there are divisions; it’s that the divisions are so intense, there’s so much animosity. You know, and I guess you have to wonder at some point where that’s going to lead to. I mean, if one half the country thinks the rest of the country is deplorable, I mean, why do they want to be in the same country as us? And if you’re one of the deplorables, I mean, you want to wonder, do you want to be in the same country as the people who despise you so openly? Particularly so when secession is, you know, not the great bogeyman. You know, it’s actually something quite feasible, quite doable, which is not what people understand. And it’s what’s happened in most of the world. I mean, most of the countries in the world are staring down some form of secession crisis. Why do we think we’re exceptional?
Bob Zadek: I will—we will come back to the word “crisis.” Whether secession is a crisis or whether the crisis causes secession and secession is a cure, not the crisis itself. We can visit that. But one statement you made that I’d like to spend just a second on, Frank, if I may. You said the country has never been more divided. I wonder if that’s really the case. The divisions have—they are social in many ways, political in some ways, but they have always been here. People didn’t just start feeling a certain way. So I think the country has always been divided, but it didn’t matter so much when we had less concentration of power in Washington. Because if California chooses to organize its government and its lifestyle in a certain way, it didn’t matter to California, or it shouldn’t matter, if Arkansas makes a different decision, or the people of Arkansas. Because California is free to live its way and Arkansas is free to live its way. And while there may not be approval, it doesn’t matter because who cares if somebody chooses red rather than blue or green? It doesn’t matter. It’s only when power becomes concentrated in Washington so that the team in power gets to impose—if the team in power is Midwestern in its organization, it gets to impose that point of view on the coasts and vice versa. So would you agree with me or take issue with the fact that the divisions have always been there, it’s just that centralization of power makes it more significant to the average person than if the states were the locus of political power?
Frank Buckley: Well, there are a couple of questions in that, so let me take them in turn. The first question is: are we really more divided now than at any time in the past? And I would argue the answer is yes. I mean, maybe the exception is 1776. But in 1861, slavery did not divide people. And I might invite people to take a look at the last State of the Union message that James Buchanan sent to Congress in 1860. And what he said is, “Okay, South Carolina, I get it. You’re not happy. That’s fine. But listen, no country in the world better protects slavery, and that’s not—we’re not going to change that.” And indeed, in the spring of 1861, the most prominent Republicans, William Seward and Abraham Lincoln, were prepared to have a constitutional amendment which would guarantee slavery in perpetuity. Okay, so that really wasn’t much of a division when you get down to it.
Right now the divisions are greater, the animosity is at least as intense. And you’re right, you know, one of the great problems here is the effort to create a one-size-fits-all government across the United States through Washington. And in one sense, the stakes are lower—far lower—than they were in 1861. I mean, slavery wasn’t an issue in 1861; it became an issue. But right now, you know, the civil rights revolution has largely taken hold. We’re not going to go back to Jim Crow or anything like that in any part of the country. And if secession happens, it might well come from a place like woke California. I mean, in other words, it would be politically correct. But here we have a federal government enforcing laws across the country and a Supreme Court upholding rights applicable across the country. And there’s no opt-out. And when the federal footprint was smaller, it didn’t matter so much, right? We could just sort of settle where we wanted and have the form of government we wanted. But you can’t escape the United States government short of something like secession or what I would favor would be a vast expansion of the rights of states.
Bob Zadek: And of course, the latter is just getting back, many of us would say, to the federalism the founders gave us. So that’s an easy one. There is widespread support for what you just said—power back to the states. In fact, I published a book a while ago on power to the states, hoping for that.
Secession Templates: Brexit and Czechoslovakia [04:59]
Bob Zadek: Now, there are two templates we can summon up in our brains. There is, of course, Brexit, which is secession—we can witness it happening before our very eyes—which is one small unit seceding, pulling out of a much larger unit. And then there is a quite different template, which is Czechoslovakia, both of which you discuss in your book. So tell us about those two templates and the absence of drama, at least in the Czechoslovakian model, to help our friends out there understand that we’re not talking about an event with great drama. It is a political event, it is a negotiation, but no armed conflict, no anger, just a negotiation. So if you would tell us what you teach us in the book about Czechoslovakia and offer some comparisons, if you will, both to Quebec, which you have experienced because you are by birth a Canadian, and Brexit, to help the audience to demystify the concept of secession.
Frank Buckley: Well, those are great questions. And again, there are two questions. The first is: well, if there might be secession, who are the secessionists? And let me offer a couple of thoughts. One is, you know, one plausible source of secession sentiment would come from libertarians. Imagine the ability to get rid of one entire level of government by snapping your fingers—and the bad one at that. As for Brexit, here’s another potential group of secessionists. There are a whole bunch of people who worry about how we’ve become a rule-less administrative state. Right? We’ve departed from the rule of law, we’ve given it over to the regulators. In the case of Brexit, Brexit is a form of regulatory reform. Right? I mean, what the Brits objected to, many of them, was ceding administrative power to Brussels. And Brexit completely reverses all of that. So if you’re one of those people who worry about the administrative state, you know, that would make you sympathetic to some form of either secession or broad devolution away from the regulatory state based in Washington.
As for Czechoslovakia and Quebec, the interesting thing there is there are a lot of people who kind of assume that if there’s secession, it’s going to involve violence. In other words, you know, we have the example of secession 1.0 in 1861, and that didn’t turn out terribly well. But that’s not the history of modern secession movements. Right? I mean, the history is they involve people sitting around a table and cutting deals, which is Czechoslovakia. You know, and by the way, the differences between the Czechs and the Slovaks were fairly small. You know, the Czechs were kind of more hip and with it and led by people like Vaclav Havel, and the Slovaks were more conservative, Catholic, agrarian. You know, they were two different kinds of people. The differences were basically pretty slight, but nevertheless, you know, they decided to go their own way and they’re getting along famously.
The other example you mentioned was Quebec, and I lived through a secession referendum in that country which came very close. And you know, here’s the deal: what the separatist government in Quebec proposed was not outright independence. What they proposed was something called “sovereignty-association,” which is to say, “Oh, you know, okay, there are a lot of deals to be worked out about the free movement of goods and people and, you know, economic union and customs barriers, and we’re just going to have to sit down and talk about that.” The other thing is what sparked this—you know, what got the separatist movement going—was enthusiasm for something called Bill 101. And Bill 101 was legislation passed by the separatist government which was really, frankly, kind of anti-English. So that was Bill 101. The Anglos, the English in Quebec, called it Bill 401. Why? Because 401 is the name of the highway between Montreal and Toronto. So the—you know, many of the Anglos just looked at what was happening and pulled up stakes and moved to Toronto from Montreal. You know, and that’s kind of what you would expect to see happen were there a secession movement in the United States. In other words, it’d be great for U-Haul, but it wouldn’t mean more.
The Opt-Out Model and the Administrative State [08:56]
Bob Zadek: But of course, what I started thinking about as you are talking about Brexit being seeking relief from the administrative control from Brussels of life on the English islands. And what I started thinking about is a far less dramatic, cataclysmic, if you will, change would be simply if federal legislation—much federal legislation—were enacted with an opt-in or opt-out election, so that every state could elect to have a federal law—something like nullification, which Jefferson and Madison speculated about with the Kentucky Resolves in I think 1798—where states could not nullify, but could elect to adopt and be governed by regulation and otherwise not. That would be a huge relief of pressure, and that would remove the pressure to secede if states could simply elect not to be governed. Whether we’re talking about minimum wage legislation or right-to-work laws or whatever federal legislation abounds—drug regulation—if states could simply by a vote of the state legislature opt in or opt out, that would in effect be secession-light, wouldn’t it?
Frank Buckley: Yeah, it would be, although I think it would take more than that because the problem is not Congress perhaps so much as it is the Supreme Court. And that gives one a clue as to why the debates are different in 2019 than they were 10 years back or 20 years back. I mean, there were divisions then, right? But something cataclysmic happened for the left in 2016 with the election of Donald Trump. And why was that—I mean, why did the left go nuts? I mean, really seriously, you know, stand in need of medical attention and meds. What exactly happened was the left had assumed it had won the culture wars. And back in 1992, Irving Kristol, the father of Bill Kristol, said, “The culture wars are over, the left won.” And the left pretty much assumed that. And Republicans like Mitt Romney or even George W. Bush never seriously threatened the hegemony over the culture enjoyed by the left in the media and through the courts. And so there was, I think, an assumption on the part of the left that things can’t get too bad, right, with respect to gay rights or abortion or whatever it is, whatever the issues are, because we’ve got the courts. And you know what? Now they don’t. And if Trump gets to make a couple—I think Trump will win election this year—if Trump makes a couple more Supreme Court appointments, the changes with respect to the Supreme Court might be fairly substantial. Okay, so for the left, this is like an existential crisis. I mean, it was like a religious war. So Trump represented something entirely different in American politics, which is a complete reversal of something the left thought it had won—the culture wars. And I mean, and that I think helps to explain the craziness of the left in some respects, the intolerance, the “no enemies on the left” psychosis with respect to the Antifa people. All the ways in which—or the assumption that when you win an election, you’re the president, you don’t resist. All of that went by the wayside, and Trump was the explanation. And it’s not easy to see how that could be—what could happen thereafter. I mean, it seems to me, if I’m right about Trump winning election, the left’s going to have to do one of two things: either it’s going to have to say, “Well, maybe we didn’t win, we’re going to have to compromise,” so, you know, drag queen story hour, forget about it. Right? That’s one possibility. I don’t think it’ll happen. The other possibility is they’ll look seriously at secession.
The Mechanics of Modern Secession [12:23]
Bob Zadek: Now, when you talk about secession, who do you—is it secession where one or a few states one way or another leave the Brexit model? Or do you imagine, like splitting the atom, the country virtually divides somewhat evenly in half? And then you deal with all the issues of military and all the other stuff, the incredibly complex division process. But in—as you use the word in your book, which model do you have in mind, or is there a third model for the very word secession?
Frank Buckley: Probably the 1861 model, which is one state taking the lead. That was South Carolina in 1860. And other states following. And you know, my assumption has been it would be a move from the left, so you could expect a state like Oregon to say, “Right, we’re out of here.” And then joined by some other states. I mean, other states came along rather slowly. My Virginia held three votes on secession and it failed the first two times. And the unionists at the time included Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. And what happened at the end was the South Carolinians stupidly fired on Fort Sumter, Lincoln called up the troops, and Virginia had a third vote and seceded. Right? I mean, it’s hard to predict how these things could turn out, but I think the most likely model, as I say, would be one state opting out. And what would happen thereafter would be a recognition that there might be such a thing as a right of secession. I mean, up until 1861, people assumed there was a right of secession. I mean, the framers did, for example. So the originalists on the Supreme Court, faithful to the intentions of the framers, would say, “Yeah, I guess they have that option.” Or at least, you know, what they’re doing has some legitimacy. And so what you’d expect would be a referendum in a state followed by a declaration of secession from the state legislature signed by the governor. And at that point, what happens thereafter? Well, all these things inevitably end up before the Supreme Court. And I think the Supreme Court at that point would be forced to conclude that neither is there an absolute bar nor an absolute right to secession, but instead the parties would have to get together and talk about it. And so what you’d end up with is some kind of—you’d end up with an Article V constitutional convention, probably.
Bob Zadek: Well, we’ll come back—we’re going to go to a break in a second. But since secession can be carried out as a negotiation rather than with high drama—although there would be a lot of drama involved—it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. There are degrees, which we will talk about after the break, where a country—where the end result is federalism simply with a somewhat different label, with power devolving back to the states, which in my view, when that happens, so much pressure is relieved, like lancing a boil. If the stakes are not that great, then the left can have their way of life, the right can have their way of life, and there’s no external force affecting that. And once people are allowed to live their life, to pay the level of taxes they think is appropriate, and to provide the level of public services they think is appropriate—once people at the local level are allowed to do that, all of the pressure goes away and then, in my view, case closed, we don’t need anything with high drama. So this is a fascinating topic. The how you go about relieving the pressure in this country—political, social, economic—the pressure caused by the division is the challenge facing us, and secession being the ultimate remedy. Maybe the least likely, maybe not. We’ll learn more in about 30 seconds when we come back to continue our conversation with Frank Buckley. Frank has written American Secession: The Looming Threat—is it a threat?—The Looming Threat of a National Breakup. Lots more to follow. Please stay tuned. We’ll be back in 30 incredibly short seconds.
(Commercial Break)
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show, the longest-running live libertarian talk radio show in all of radio. This morning we are speaking with Frank Buckley. Frank has just written American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup. And we are discussing whether in fact it is a threat, whether in fact it is a breakup. And the topic, Frank, I think really is we are discussing whether one group of people ought to be able to force their will as to lifestyle, as to level of taxation, as to social control, as to behavior—whether it is politically healthy to have any group be able to force their will as to other than the most basic standards, such as “don’t harm me” and “don’t take my stuff,” the core libertarian principles—whether or not that is politically healthy or not. And we can discuss it globally: is it healthy for a country, a big country, to force democracy or force its way of life, its way of political life, on others? Probably not. And if that’s not healthy, is it healthy for one state to force its will upon another state? Probably not. We show that today. So I think your book is really, when you talk about the threat, I think it’s more of a threat if we don’t solve the problem than if we do solve the problem.
The Cost of Bigness and Military Glory [10:14]
Bob Zadek: And the conversation along the way, Frank, which you discuss in your book, is the very concept of bigness per se. Are Americans better off if we are big and powerful as opposed to being less big and less powerful, just as free and just as safe, just smaller and less powerful? You discuss that in the book because the byproduct of secession is the resulting country or countries are smaller and less powerful. Is that good or bad?
Frank Buckley: You know, a moment ago I described the kinds of people who might favor something like secession, and they would include the people who are just tired of being hated. It would include the people who are libertarian and like the idea of getting rid of one level of government. It would include the people who worry about the administrative state and who would see secession as something like regulatory reform. It would include the people like Peter Schweizer who worry about corruption, which is mostly Washington-based corruption. So who are the people on the other side? Well, I think we’re talking nationalists. And what drives the nationalists? I mean, what is it about America that would make them want to hold the whole thing together, you know, in spite of all the centrifugal forces here? And one of the things is the idea that in America, 330 million people, one of the biggest countries in the world, we’re the toughest kid on the block. We got all the guns in the room and we can dominate any other country militarily. And you know, this is something the neocons thrilled in after the fall of communism. Right? So you’d be giving up that sense of glory if we split into smaller countries. Right?
On the other hand, you know, maybe there are some people who don’t think glory is all it’s cracked up to be. I mean, you could offer the following deal to California: if you didn’t have to pay for the military of the United States, that would—you’d save enough to finance a national health scheme in California. You know, if that’s the deal offered Californians, I think a lot of people would take it. Right? Because the point is that glory has a price tag. Right? It has a price tag in terms of American lives lost in foreign wars, and it has a price tag in terms of how we dominate the world in terms of military spending. I mean, you know, we’re spending—I’ve forgotten the most recent statistics, but it’s something like 40% of the world’s military spending is our military spending. I think it’s maybe a bit less than that at this point. And we’re spending more than the next 23 countries put together. So, you know, if fine, if you want to have neocon dreams about dominating the world and riding in triumph through Persepolis, okay, if that’s your idea, that’s how you get your jollies, that’s fine. But just recognize it’s costly. And you know, one of the reasons why Trump won in 2016 is he opposed that. Right? I mean, he’ll do surgical stealth, but in general, he wants to pull back American troops except where there are American interests at stake. And you can argue, is he doing a good job in that respect? I don’t care, you know, I don’t know, we don’t—I don’t want to get into that. But that was, you know, that was definitely a plus in 2016. A lot of voters had had it up to here with, you know, a neocon foreign policy. I mean, we got that message in the 2006 election and we got that message in the 2016 election. So, you know, I think most Americans would trade off glory for other things at this point.
Bob Zadek: And what you just said, Frank, sort of is what I had in mind when I, in the introduction to this morning’s show, I said your book makes the unthinkable thinkable. And your comment about glory and bigness, kind of bigness for bigness’ sake, proves that point exactly. And I went through a mind game that I invite our listeners to do. It’s to me it was fascinating. As to every American out there, how would you feel in the deep corners of your psyche, how would you feel as a citizen of the country and of the planet if America was—remember, totally safe, our defense is rock solid—but if we were smaller militarily without being any less safe, if we were less dominant in world affairs, if we had a foreign policy that didn’t care all that much about what the rest of the world did so long as they treated us fairly and were not a threat? You were just another country. A free country, a prosperous country, a happy country—and Frank will discuss happiness in a moment. So I ask our listeners to just do the mind game. How would you feel as you went about your life if we were that country, the country that I fantasize about, a not a world power, just a really prosperous, safe, happy place? And if that is appealing to you, then you’re signed on to Frank’s observation that bigness is A) not necessarily good and B) kind of necessarily bad. So Frank, America as a non-world power, no less safe, no less prosperous, just less important.
Frank Buckley: Well, I, you know, I think what you’d be—you would be a world power. What you wouldn’t be living in necessarily—what you wouldn’t be living in is a unipolar world completely dominated by the US military. You’d be, you know, you wouldn’t be Denmark, but you’d be closer to Denmark. And when you take a look at the experience of other countries, which is what I did, then it’s easy to conclude that bigness is badness. Right? Because the happiest countries tend to be smaller countries. They’re less corrupt, they’re less, you know, entangled in a swamp. Right? The government is closer to the people, better reflects them. Um, and that’s a cure for a lot of the ills. It’s a cure for the regulatory state, it’s a cure for corruption in many ways. I mean, I’m looking across the river sitting on my porch at the Capitol over there and, you know, it’s issuing laws that affect you over in San Diego, in Coronado. I mean, what the heck do, you know, what gives them the power, the intellectual power, to be to tell you how to govern your life? I mean, bad enough in Sacramento, but Washington? You know, and then of course as well, the bigger the country, the easier it is for interest groups to step in and get their own way. So in all those respects, small is beautiful. Right? And if you look at those smaller countries, you have countries that are free or freer than the United States, you have countries that are pretty well governed, countries that are a whole lot less corrupt. And you’d be surrounded, you know, in your new state with people who tend to agree with you about most things. And there’d probably be some form of association with the rest of the United States. In other words, we don’t want passports—I don’t want a passport to visit you in La Jolla, in San Diego. But that, you know, those kinds of discussions would be on the cards. Right? In a breakup, it wouldn’t be a declaration of independence; it would be something in between, for which there are historical parallels in our history. Right? In 1776, we declared independence from Britain, I mean, which made sense because they didn’t know anything about us. Right? And two years later, the Brits came to their senses and said, “Okay, look Americans, we get it. We’re going to offer you everything you want. You complete self—complete independence about internal government. All we want is, you know, we’d like to keep foreign policy and we want you to maintain your connection to the British Crown.” And the Americans at that point said no, you know, we’re too far gone. We’re in the middle of a war, we’re not going to do this. But that kind of a deal offered to the Californias and Oregons and so on, I mean, that should be pretty tempting. I mean, that’s the kind of compromise that would come out of, I think, a secession vote.
Home Rule and Negotiated Federalism [12:23]
Bob Zadek: And the great contribution of the book, Frank, is that it invites in a very important way Americans to rethink the core relationship of American citizens to Washington. While secession is at the very end of the spectrum, there are so many intermediate grounds as we have spoken about. And Brexit is kind of a good example. It is expected, although right now it’s really messy, but it is expected that the UK will be trading with the EU, that it’ll—no doubt have—they’re still part of NATO, they already have defense treaties. So if done right—underline “if done right”—if done right, the effect upon the UK will be profoundly positive and very little negative. They will get back local control of a lot of their life without losing very much in exchange. And whatever they lose, it’s the product of a negotiation, not warfare. So if you keep that as a template, or Czechoslovakia, as Frank explains beautifully in his book, it’s simply a negotiation. And who among us wouldn’t want to have more local control? The only people who don’t are the people who yearn to control others. But if you surrender that yearning to control others, you really can’t oppose what Frank is proposing in one form or another. So Frank, and you made reference to the founding era. You really want to go back to the past, and you want to go back to the past in the most positive way, where Washington—who was president was about as significant as who was the Postmaster General in terms of the effect upon everyday life of Americans. We don’t have that today, but that’s kind of the goal that we would hope to achieve with secession or some political federalist similar movement to secession. So you’re really opting for good old-fashioned federalism, aren’t you?
Frank Buckley: Pretty much. You know, I like going back to the framers for a lot of reasons. One is these guys were about the smartest people around then or anytime since. Eminently practical people. And with respect to secession, they well understood the possibility of the union splitting apart. I mean, they were governed by the Articles of Confederation, which were meant to be perpetual, but nobody believed that. And when the framers met, on several occasions people said, “Well, okay, we’re going to leave you guys, we’re going to go our own way. We might make alliances with some foreign country that’ll treat us better.” You know, and people thought, “Well, that’s in the cards, and the big states will stick together.” They were kind of carving up America at that point. And there’s one other interesting point as well. At one point, Madison suggested the possibility of federal troops being sent in to enforce federal laws upon the states. I mean, he proposed that at one point. And then almost immediately thereafter, he said, “Oh my god, I don’t really think that. I don’t believe that. I mean, no federal government should be given the power to invade a state.” Of course, when Alexandria was invaded in 1861, it was from federal troops the other side of the river that did it. I don’t think that would happen. You know, I mean, one possibility, if it were Oregon or California that wanted out, a president like Trump might take a look at the Electoral College and say, “Oh, okay, I can live with that.”
Caller: John from California [13:39]
Bob Zadek: And therefore, the whole concept of secession, which inevitably people in their consciousness, and understandably, the only frame of reference they have is the Civil War—a violent, bloody conflict with 750,000 American lives lost. But that’s not at all, as you point out in your book, and I must remind the audience because secession inevitably brings that picture into people’s minds. We are talking about a political—a political rejiggering of the relationship between citizens and the federal government and citizens and the state government. We are not talking about anything with high drama, with any violence at all. Simply, as you made reference to several times, a negotiated readjustment of that core relationship. And in doing so, in my strongly held belief, that readjustment would in and of itself relieve us of almost all of the negative consequences of the polarization we have in America. Now Frank, we have a caller on hold. I’d like to take the caller. We have a few minutes. John, good morning. Welcome to the show.
Caller (John): Thank you. I have friends in other states who would like to secede from California, as California leads—is leading the nation in having—what the people of California having lost control of their government. And so I wonder if—if you have thought about whether or not the idea that California would secede is archaic?
Frank Buckley: Well, you know, there is the Calexit movement in California. You kind of wondered how other states would react to it. And conservative states might well say something like, “Don’t let the door slam you on the way out.” You know, right now we see your influence as pernicious in Washington and we can do without that. But I, you know, but gosh, you know, there are a lot of questions that would have to be decided, like the US fleet in San Diego or free movement of goods and people. You know, that would be on the table. I don’t know, you know, whether any of this would happen. All I want to say is you won’t lose any money if you invest heavily in U-Haul.
Conclusion: Small is Happy [14:44]
Bob Zadek: So, and the point is things like military bases and post offices, those are all for the negotiating table, just like NATO has its fleet in various ports around the world in other NATO countries and the like. So those to me—any questions that arose in my mind as to how you’d do it, what would it be like, are already answered on the ground around the world in the various treaties among countries, in what you had said earlier about Czechoslovakia, in what we have learned from Quebec. So this is not, “Oh my god, how will we ever do this? It is so complicated.” It really is not if there is good-faith negotiation. And all we are talking about is local control. Now Frank, you mentioned in your book a concept called “Home Rule.” Tell us about that. We have a few minutes left. What is the concept of Home Rule and how does it play into this discussion?
Frank Buckley: Home Rule was something that the Gladstone government in England offered to Ireland as a way of pacifying that country. You know, right now you Irish object to rule from Westminster; okay, we’ll give you self-rule within Ireland with the exception of certain things. What was excluded was Ireland establishing a particular religion, foreign affairs would remain with Westminster, there’d be free movement of goods and people, and stuff like that would be the kind of stuff that would be discussed if we were to go that route in America. And again, I mean, the way this would happen would be something like an Article V constitutional convention. I mean, you’d have to get people bargaining over this. And the most plausible way of doing that is for the states to get together. I don’t think there’s a unilateral right of exit, and I don’t think there’s a unilateral barrier to exit. I think we’re in the middle ground somewhere where, you know, if there were a referendum to secede ratified by the state’s legislature, you have to choose between your allegiance to a unified country and the rule of democracy. Okay? Because the rule of democracy, that counts too if you have a secession referendum. That counts too. So you can’t completely ignore that and claim that you’ve got a democratic government. So that’s why I’m saying all of that points towards a renegotiation of federalism in the direction of something like Home Rule.
Bob Zadek: And I would—I would sort of, as we come close to running out of time, I would offer this observation: that a proposal—and Home Rule and the reason I asked you to speak about it is—is a sensible starting point for the states to have, quote, “Home Rule.” I said earlier opting out. If much federal legislation allowed the states to opt out, that would immediately—immediately in my opinion—weaken the negative influences of division in this country. It doesn’t matter if people feel different ways about different ways of life and social issues, economic issues. It wouldn’t matter if states are not forced to adopt a point of view that most of its citizens don’t want. Californians wouldn’t or shouldn’t care about what life is like in the Midwest; it doesn’t matter to Californians. And I think a simple change—not simple perhaps, but a negotiated change in that relationship—would make us a far more united country, and it would be perhaps a manner of secession or a secession-light as I said earlier. And a simple act like that would make us so much of a—and you use the expression in your book—a happier place. So Frank, as we—as we wind down to the hour, you make reference to happiness. You did a little bit earlier in the book, but let’s close on an upbeat note and tell us about happiness in smaller countries versus happiness in big, tough America.
Frank Buckley: You know, that’s a debate that goes back hundreds of years to people like Montesquieu. I mean, people ask, are people happier in smaller countries or in bigger countries? And on one side you had Montesquieu arguing for smallness, and the other side you had Madison arguing for bigness. And when you look at the data currently in terms of subjective reports of well-being, Montesquieu won. Smaller is happier.
Bob Zadek: So I ask—I will close our session by asking our friends out there, as I said earlier: how would you feel if America was strong from a military defensive standpoint, strong economically, but unimportant in world affairs? We would just be a happy, prosperous, safe place, but not exporting Americanism around the world. Would you wake up with a smile on your face more so than now or not? Frank, thank you so much for your book. It invites so much original thinking on a very interesting topic. We wish you good luck with your book sales, and we sure hope you’ll be visiting all our friends around the country at local bookstores promoting sales. So thanks a lot to Frank for giving us an hour. Thanks to my friends out there for listening. This is Bob Zadek saying so long for now.
Frank Buckley: Thank you, Bob.
(Outro Music)