The American Spectator

Matthew Vadum| 4.17.09 @ 10:03AM

It could be worse. In 1995 49% of voters in Quebec voted to secede from Canada, yet for all the insufferable whining of Quebeckers, that province is still part of Canada. Re the 1995 vote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 10:33AM

There's another word for "secession."

It's called "treason."

Funny that a liberal is called a traitor for doubting the wisdom of a war against a country that never attacked us, but conservatives can openly call for treason against the United States government, and it seems business as usual.

Three quarters of a million Americans died disputing this question.

It's either astonishingly foolish blather to talk about this -- or seditious treason.

Tim| 4.17.09 @ 11:13AM

I thought it was free speech.

Joseph Brown| 4.17.09 @ 11:14AM

But could we secede Socialist State of Kalifornia from the United States?

I'm just askin'.

RM| 4.17.09 @ 11:22AM

The states created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated items. The states granted the federal government certain powers to be able to accomplish those enumerated tasks.

The states did not cede the unalienable rights of their citizens (because the definition of those rights is that they are INCAPABLE of alienation - cannot legtimately be bought, sold or otherwise infringed).

So, if the federal government continually oversteps its boundaries, the states are fully within their rights under the Constitution to refuse to allow the feds to do so.

The treason is being perpetrated by the infringers, not the defenders of those "unalienable rights."

It is called "separation of powers" - which is being violated every single day in DC; and "federalism" - which is being violated every time the feds presume to give you back your money only if you cede more of your rights.

The states are NOT the agents of the feds, honey. It's vice versa. Look it up.

Airtime| 4.17.09 @ 11:41AM

Tom Paine & Tim, there's a fine line here between treason and free speech. Tom, simply speaking of secession does not mean that one advocates it. One would clearly need to advocate it - at a minimum - to commit treason. 1770s British subjects no doubt thought the colonists were committing treason during the revolution, and by the common definition, they were. Yet today we don't call it treason, because we read Jefferson's explanation for the American secession in the Declaration of Independence. Have we come to the point where our government has become "destructive of these ends" of securing the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"? I say "no" (at least not yet), but this is the apparent standard to which any movement that would attempt to abolish any government should be held by those who support the principles on which the US was founded. Apparently if the government fails to carry out its prime directive - securing these rights - then the overthrow of that government is not treason. Otherwise, history would view the signers of the Declaration as traitors to Britain rather than American patriots.

Tim, while the First Amendment assures all Americans free speech, we need to be careful about how we use that right. I would say that it is highly irresponsible to throw around loose talk about secession or insurrection. If we can establish that a government has met or is close to meeting the Jeffersonian test of "destructive of these ends", then we may be right to consider that course of action. Prior to that, we probably should avoid even the appearance of entertaining thoughts of secession or insurrection. At any rate, there is a point at which "free speech" becomes "conspiracy".

Tyrconnell| 4.17.09 @ 11:43AM

"Funny that a liberal is called a traitor for doubting the wisdom of a war against a country that never attacked us,"

For some odd reason, I can't recall a single liberal being called a traitor for protesting against the war on Serbia. Which is the only war we've fought in the past 20 years that fits the "country that never attacked us" bit.

MLG| 4.17.09 @ 12:16PM

Actually its more along the lines of this:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

We haven't reached critical mass yet by any means, but we are starting to let the government know we are not impressed by them ... just say'n

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 12:22PM

MLG --

The Declaration (which is what you are quoting) is legally subsumed by the Constitution:

In other words, the right of a people to dissolve its ties with a government does NOT carry over to the American people.

The Constitution is binding on all the states, and for a state to attempt to dissolve its "ties" to the federal government would be treason.

The federal government would not have the option, it would have to the duty to destroy the insurrection by force.

That's what "rule of law" means. It does not mean you get to choose when you have a government and when you don't based on current tax rates.

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 12:26PM

RM --

The Constitution provides for an amendment process, the results of which are by definition Constitutional.

The relationship of the states to the federal government has changed over time, particularly as a result of the Civil War, or, as you people like to call it, the Wuh of Nothen Agreshun.

In short, your little essay on Constitutional law doesn't stand up to informed scrutiny.

Bernie| 4.17.09 @ 12:29PM

Funny how when Vermont talked secession in 2007 while Bush was in office, liberals cheered. But when a Southern state with a Republican governor talks secession, it's labeled treason. Liberals just don't seem to study much history. (Not surprising.) So is it rank hypocrisy on the part of liberals, or just hatred? I'll go with both. Check the link libs, especially the part of the article which states that 69% of DKos readers believe states should be allowed to secede from the union peacefully.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-magazine/vermont-most-likely-to-s_b_84820.html

MLG| 4.17.09 @ 12:54PM

Sigh,

The D.O.I. sets forth the idea that there are times when critical mass is reached and a people have the right if not the moral obligation to dissolve the political ties that bind them to another.

The Constitution is a Contract between the peoples of the States and the Federal Government. The Federal Government exists at the Pleasure of the People of those States. The States Do Not Exist at the pleasure of the Federal Government. Had Those original States NOT ratified the Constitution There would be NO Federal Government.

MY POINT was that We The People are starting to express displeasure with the government a very American thing to do...

Joe| 4.17.09 @ 12:56PM

Tom Paine

A "civil war" is one in which the revolting party wishes to overthrow its present government. The war in American history commonly, and incorrectly, referred to as "The Civil War" should be more properly called the "War Between the States" or "War for Southern Independence" (and, yes, I am quite happy that the Union was preserved).

Secondly, Texas, if I am correct, was a sovereign state for 9 years and joined the U.S. through a treaty. This places Texas in a different position than the other states in seeking an independent future. Saying that, I am totally opposed to Texas (or any state for that matter) seceding from the USA, and I do not believe that Gov. Perry was serious in his comments regarding Texas' secession. He did "succeed" in getting the media to carry his message, though.

Janice| 4.17.09 @ 1:30PM

Tom Paine:

Sad that you chose that name; you dishonor him.

You state that the relationship with between the federal government and the states has "changed" over the years, yet none of those changes were done through an amendment to the Constitution. The federal government has for decades, under Presidents/Congressmen from both parties, gradually usurped their authority granted to them BY THE STATES through ratification of the Constitution.
Read the 10th Amendment very carefully. It will tell you all you need to know.

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 1:53PM

Joe --

The treaty you refer to does not give Texas the right to seceed from the Union.

No state has that right. The Constitution is the law of this land -- in Texas as much as in California or anywhere else. And yes, including Vermont, too.

Texas retained the right to divide itself up into smaller, separate states. Those states would still be a part of the Union.

By the way, even if the federal government dissolved that treaty, Texas would still NOT be entitled to seceed under law. Secession would be an act of treason.

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 1:55PM

MLG --

You can sigh all you want.

The Declaration of Independence does not create precedent. The precedent it sets forth is considered fulfilled by the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot be dissolved because a handful of Fox viewers don't like paying taxes. It cannot be dissolved because Southerners believe they are entitled to own slaves. It cannot be dissolved for any reason.

"Critical mass" is not a legal term. A vague feeling of resentment and anxiety among middle class people is not a legally binding event.

The Constitution is the founding legal document of this country, not the Declaration of Independence.

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 2:02PM

Janice --

The Constitution provides remedies for the abuse of power.

The include challenging actions in the court; impeachment; or, our favorite, ELECTIONS.

In elections, citizens go to places called polls and cast things called ballots. Those ballots express the will of the people democratically.

That's how it works, Janice. Now, enough about my "dishonoring" anybody's name please.

Last fall Republicans put up a tough fight. 55 million (or so) Americans voted for McCain and Palin. Congratulations. About 5 or 6 million more voted for Obama. It's called democracy, darling. I know defeat is bitter. I lived through 2000, you'll live through this. Just try not to get too crazy.

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 2:08PM

Bernie --

It does not matter if a person who believes secession should be permissible is liberal or conservative, such a belief is in fact incorrect.
This is one of those happy times where objective truth is available to us. It's not a matter of opinion; Texas does not enjoy the "option" of staying in or leaving the Union. It's just not how it works, comrade. But nice try.

Janice| 4.17.09 @ 2:29PM

Paine-less :-)
Why is it that most liberals have such a condescedning tone when debating an issue? I am not bitter. Not in the least. Obama is my President. I'm fine with that. I can oppose his policies and plans and participate in those ELECTIONS to express my disapproval.
The discussion I raised was the 10th Amendment and your overly general statement that the relationship between fed/state had "changed" over the years.
I believe there will be court challenges from some of the governors not wanting to take federal funds, using the 10th Amendment, as well as other court cases like FERC v Mississippi.
You assume I am some secessionist and patronize me for questioning you. Sad that you are that insecure.

Janice| 4.17.09 @ 2:34PM

Hey Paine, I'll help you out on the the whole secession thing. Read Texas v White 74 U.S. 700 .
It states that once a state joins the union, it does not have the right to unilateral secession.
I quote it here: "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

Daphne| 4.17.09 @ 2:53PM

Treason is patriotic free speech ONLY when liberal fascists do it. Liberal fascists' motto: "Free speech for me but not for thee."

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 3:37PM

Janice -

Thanks for the information. I'm sorry if you think I condescended to you. You have to understand, I'm debating people around here who think Barack Obama is a Nazi. Thus it is difficult to be sure when I'm talking to a reasonable person.

People who use terms like "liberal fascist" or so ignorant of politics and history one does not know where to begin. The debasement of political discourse is so advanced, I doubt anything now can save it.

Daphne --

The phrase "liberal fascist" is by definition self-contradictory and absurd.

A little restraint would equip you with a moment's space to think about what you're saying and come up with something other than peurile name-calling.

Daphne| 4.17.09 @ 3:40PM

Liberal fascists' motto: "Free speech for me, but not for thee." You know where you can put your restraint, liberal fascist troll.

Smitty| 4.17.09 @ 3:42PM

Spittle soaked fascist liberal calling for restraint--couldn't get any funnier than this.

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 3:42PM

Janice -

And by the way, if you are the cheerful and reasonable dissenter you seem to be, then you are indeed being a true American.

My largest fear, my greatest fear, is that extremist political speech is actually discrediting dissent.

Believe me, the state has nothing to fear from the rodeo-clownification of dissent in America.

But what becomes of our democracy if dissent comes to be viewed as the bawling of red-faced, fist-pounding loud-mouths? Who will listen?

Fierce, ardent dissent is crucial. I hope Obama meets with trouble and with criticism every time he wakes up in the White House. That's what we do in this country: we give hell to politicians, and they deserve it.

But talk of mutiny, violence, extra-political or extra-Constitutional action -- all that is very bad indeed, because it discredits and undermines true dissent, and after all only leads to anarchy, which is the worst form of tyranny of all, because it is nothing but the domination of the weak by the strong.

Conservative One| 4.17.09 @ 3:44PM

THE PEOPLES' TEA PARTY--WASHINGTON, D.C.--JULY 4, 2009!! Maybe I'll see you there, Tom.

Daphne| 4.17.09 @ 3:50PM

I guess it all comes down to which side the military takes, you know? Considering the fact that you fascist liberals have just placed our returning warriors on a terrorist watch list, makes me think that it doesn't look too good for your side, TP.

Janice| 4.17.09 @ 3:52PM

I ask that you not lump us all as loud-mouthed red faced lunatics. Even those who are concerned with tyranny. There have been many steps taken since this whole financial crisis began that, in my opinion, are over-reaching. That started with the Bush administration, so it is a non-political issue for me.
I understand what you are saying about having fear of extremism....I watched the actions of many a Code-Pinker and read much on DailyKos and HuffPo that made my stomach turn. I also have many liberal, excuse me "progressive", friends that I KNOW are also turned off by such action.
I studied ALOT about the Great Depression and WWII. I am more frightened by the similarites to now, from what Hoover and FDR did with government intervention that even UCLA economists said in 2004 prolonged the depression by 7 years, to the state of world affairs. I feel as though we are sitting in a keg of explosives.
Have a good weekend, you liberal facist pig!
From, a right-wing nutjub. :-)

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 4:17PM

Daphne -

It most certainly does NOT matter "which side the military comes down on."

In a democracy, the military is governed by civilizans. They are entitled to NO say. They are not permitted by any means to "come down" on ANY side.

If you'd like to live in a country where they "come down" on a "side," I suggest you try Central America.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 4:21PM

I can't say you're not charming, Janice. I disagree with some of your claims about Roosevelt (whom Churchill called "the greatest man" he'd "ever seen" and who led this country to the greatest military victory in human history).

Certainly some leftist groups lost their reason during Bush's years in office. I'd be a fool to deny it. And there are some people -- particularly on the demented MSNBC channel -- who routinely make absurd comments.

I don't remember leftist rhetoric every devolving into violent threat quite so quickly as some extremist talk on the right does: I think you'd have to go back to the Black Panthers and groups like that in the 60s and 70s to find that.

You have a good weekend too.

Pkane| 4.17.09 @ 4:48PM

Mr. Paine,

"The phrase "liberal fascist" is by definition self-contradictory and absurd.""

First, I don't find it helpful to throw around the word "fascist." and both terms - "liberal" and "fascist" - have been subject to various definitions. A practical, non-textbook, explanation of these terms would be that "liberal" is one who wants to change the status quo and a "conservative" defends tradition.

A "fascist" is one - it can be either - is one who wants to impose a belief system on others through force. Nazism and Communism were BOTH fascist movements which attempted to imposed utopian fantasies on the people.

Today's liberals who want to be called "Progressive" should be commended for their honesty. The progressives of the early 1900s believed in a coercive remaking of society, using government to impose their expert wisdom on the people. The fascist movements that came a generation later, Nazism in particular, were an extreme manifestation of "progressive" thought (if you disagree just google progressivism and eugenics). Again, I'm not calling Obama or today's liberals Nazis, or even fascists. I'm just countering the notion that "liberal fascism" is absurd.

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 5:17PM

Pkane --

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

A few points.

1. Fascism and communism might both be termed "totalitarianism," just as cancer and bubonic plague might both be termed "disease." However, fascism and communism are very different political systems.

2. Defining "liberal" and "conservative" is very difficult, in part because they have different roles in different discursive systems. A "conservative" in academia thinks everyone should study classics all the time. A "conservative" Russian feels nostalgia for Soviet communism; a "conservative" American may feel nostalgia for the 1950s (or 80s). I think you are correct in seeing conservatism as primarily a cultural reflex that resists rapid change. (Obviously it is a healthy reflex.)

Liberalism, on the other hand, is a defineable political philosophy, an economic system (Milton Friedman was known to academics as "neo-liberal"), and a form of political idealism.

Technically, liberalism is a political philosophy based on rights and duties. The U.S. is a liberal country.

Liberalism has ABSOLUTELY nothing in common with fascism.

If you want to argue that some people who call themselves liberals really aren't liberals, that's fine. But no one just gets to make up the meaning of words.

Smitty| 4.17.09 @ 5:21PM

A Progressive IS a Fascist!! You mean the violent threats and actual bombings by Obummer's pal Bill Ayers' Weather Underground, TP? The bombings that killed innocent people? Is that the violence you're talking about? Freedom of Speech is still legal--that's why we're exercising it now BEFORE you fascist liberals try to take it away.

MT| 4.17.09 @ 5:23PM

You're not liberals anymore, you're progressives. Even Hilary said so, dope. Progressives are fascists.

Daphne| 4.17.09 @ 5:24PM

It'll be easier for you TP, if you'll just admit the truth.

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 5:25PM

I think George W Bush will be remembered by historians as "liberal" because of his Wilsonian belief in America's mission to spred democracy.

"Liberal" in this sense means primary a kind of political idealism that sees political liberty as essential to human life, not accidental or contingent.

It is not surprising that "liberal" is such a difficult word to define; it's given a lot of work to do. Western civilization since the Englightenment has grown more and more "liberal" -- i.e. rights based.

Generally, pundits and journalists misuse all of these words. Political philosophers, political scientists, economists, and historians are much more trustworthy.

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 5:27PM

MT --

Yes, you're right. I'm a "dope." I'm a fascist, too. And a traitor. And a child-molestor. And a communist sympathizer and a terrorist.

God, you're a regular Socrates, aren't you?

MT| 4.17.09 @ 5:27PM

Actually, you are defined by your actions--a word is just a symbol. You liberals are behaving like fascists, hence the moniker, Liberal fascists.

Daphne| 4.17.09 @ 5:30PM

Pedophile? Really, TP? Don't you think you should seek help for your affliction BEFORE the police find out? After all, you liberal fascists haven't been able to make pedophilia legal yet.

Angel| 4.17.09 @ 5:31PM

Some confession, TP.

Smitty| 4.17.09 @ 5:32PM

Wow!!

JB| 4.17.09 @ 5:33PM

LOL!

JB| 4.17.09 @ 5:33PM

LOL!

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 5:37PM

The attempt by some on the left to change our identification to "progressive" is and was foolishness.

There is nothing to be ashamed of in the word "liberal." It comes from the Latin word meaning "free," (hence words like liberty, libertarian, libertine, and so on.)

Liberalism is the modern antidote to the horrors of fascism and the maudlin and dour dreariness of socialism -- both of which constantly threaten complex industrial and post-industrial society.

I think conservatives tend to forget, however, that a rights-based society is based on rights AND duties, the two always go together. "Liberals" -- to use the word the way, say, Rush Limbaugh does -- tend to emphasize duties over property rights; "conservatives" tend to emphasize social mores (duties) over personal freedoms when it comes to other spheres of life.

In short, the labels are necessary but complicated and deceptive.

But trying to insinuate the word "progressive" was unhelpful. (It was actually first used by Republicans to describe themselves, by the way.)

Daphne| 4.17.09 @ 6:05PM

Hillary stated loudly and proudly that she is a PROGRESSIVE, TP. 'Fess up, boy--don't try to lie your way out of it. You're not liberals any longer. You're progressives or fascist liberals--take your pick. I think fascist liberals has a nice ring to it--the ring of truth!

PKane| 4.17.09 @ 8:40PM

Mr. Paine,

"liberals...tend to emphasize duties over property rights; "conservatives" tend to emphasize social mores (duties) over personal freedoms when it comes to other spheres of life."

I argue that today's liberals are progressive, in that they advocate using the power of government
to "progress" as a society. To a progressive, the institutions that founded the country are flawed or outdated and require change (ex. government run health care; expanded welfare programs). A progressive also wants to apply government force to promote their own values (ex. sin taxes on tobacco, bans on trans-fat; enviornmental laws).

The conception of rights and duties depend on your philosophy. Conservatives generally believe that there is a difference between a duty performed by one's own free will and one forced upon a person. Modern liberals tend to see no difference between force and choice (except on select issues, like abortion). If something is deemed good, then it logically follows that it should be the law.

Conservatives are more likely to encourage certain values then use force to impose their will. Aside from abortion (which involves a deeper philosophical question of life) I'd be interested to hear some specific examples of conservative coercion.

There's no question as to who wants to impose their values on others -- none. Now, you may argue that liberal/progressive ideas are right and swell. Fine -- that's another discussion, and a healthy one. But at least admit that the use of government coercion to achieve certain ends is CENTRAL to the modern liberal philosophy. And that is, in fact, the polar opposite of the liberal tradition of the Enlightenment.

Ironically, of all the thinkers of the revolutionary era, I suspect Tom Paine would be one of the last to accept a system where 50% of the people paid half their income to a centralized government so that the fruits of their labor could be doled to those who pay no income tax.

PKane| 4.17.09 @ 8:57PM

Mr. Paine,
Liberalism has ABSOLUTELY nothing in common with fascism.

Agreed. Neither does conservatism.

The point is that liberalism, as the term is used in modern politics, has NOTHING to do with the liberalism of the Enlightenment.

"fascism and communism are very different political systems."

My point is that they are quite similar in that they both attempt to impose idealistic fantasies on a people, and naturally devolve into totalitarianism.

That idealistic fantasy can be perfect equality, a workers paradise, a society of physical perfection, some theocratic manifestation of God's will ... whatever -- it all ends in misery and death.

Angel| 4.17.09 @ 10:04PM

Right on, PKane-- fascism and communism both depend on coercion. Tyranny is tyranny no matter what name you attach to it: And progressivism is tyrannical.

Tom Paine| 4.17.09 @ 10:35PM

When conservatives call our government a "tyranny" it is just the whining sound people make when the duty part of "rights and duties" gets imposed.

Liberals used to be mocked for being bleeding hearts and whiners.

Fair enough. But the modern conservative does his share of whining too.

So you don't like to pay taxes. OK. Fine. Nobody likes to pay taxes. But that's life. There is always going to be taxes. It's how things get done. It's why there are bridges and roads, schools and space stations, courts and judges, policemen and food inspectors, armies and navies. Government, when you think about it, is pretty cool. And here's the best part: if you don't like it, you get to VOTE them the hell out of office. Try doing that with Exxon, comrades.

Peace. Have a good weekend. Tom Paine is off duty.

Lynne| 4.18.09 @ 1:16AM

Exxon can't put me on a terrorist watch list, moron: How is Exxon a threat to my freedom? It's hard to vote people out of office when they cheat like democrats do with ACORN. A liberal fascist, and a silly liberal fascist at that.

MT| 4.18.09 @ 1:21AM

Tom Paine is Jeremiah. Hi, Jeremiah--why did you change your name, troll? What's up with astro-turf trolling for David Axelrod?

Angel| 4.18.09 @ 1:25AM

Not our government, TP/Jeremiah--your democrat progressivism is tyrannical--don't mis-quote me. Liar, liar.

Basil Plumley| 4.18.09 @ 1:35AM

Jeremiah is TP? Heck, I thought TP was only good for two things ............. papering trees and .............

Well, it looks like a few rolls were used today.

Tom Paine| 4.18.09 @ 4:46PM

Lynne --

Who put you on a terrorist watch list?

Don't believe everything you here, Lynne. Try to use your reason.

These posts above are the cackling of crows.

Secession. Good grief. Can't you come up with anything better?

K~Bob| 4.19.09 @ 11:21PM

Get a grip.

[1]It isn't treason unless it's acted upon in a manner inconsistent with law. I'll leave the myriad other problems with accusations of treason to the interested reader.

[2]It isn't treason if it is accomplished by following the electoral/legislative avenues required to get congressional votes to begin the constitutional process necessary to enable it (hence the qualifier in [1]).

So lobbying for secession is not illegal, it is not treasonous, and it is absolutely legitimate activity.

What is not legitimate is attempting to secede in fact, without following the elective and then legislative processes. This is obvious to anyone who cares about democratic process and the form of government our Constitution empowers.

Phelps| 4.20.09 @ 1:36PM

The bottom line is that when treason prospers, none dare call it treason.

Treason in America is defined by the constitution, and there is no way that saying that you support secession can fit into that description.

In any event, the Declaration of Independence should be seen as a warning, not legal precedent. The Declaration of Independence was illegal and treason the day it was signed. John Hancock was an instant fugitive the moment his name hit that document (and was one of the founders singled out to be denied clemency from the crown if peace could be made.)

TP can take all his yammering about what is and isn't binding authority and how legal secession is and throw it right out the window once rough men with guns from one side or the other show up to tell him how it really is.