Secession II!: Divvy the US Up

Here is my proposal for dealing with the current US crises: Break up the US.

The confederated states idea is bankrupt. States don’t have enough power to take on problems. They just have enough power to create coordination failures.In fact, states are literally bankrupt.

So they should declare bankruptcy, put their troubles behind them, and politically reorganize according to latent hegemonic political economies and the the distribution of networks accompanying said political economies.

This translates, I think, into reorganizing the US into four countries operating at a scale of efficiency, with more homogenous populations lending to improved trust, better capacity to negotiate with powerful organizations, and reduced opportunities for inter-state dysfunctional competition.

Here is how the US should be divided, taking into consideration political economies and geography (as best as I can):

1. The Plutocracy of New York
Plutocracy
Capitol: DC
Distinguishing assets: FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate), population concentration, private education, military contracting, tourism
Language: English, multilingual

Comprising the East-Coast megacities and their consanguine hinterlands, including New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, downstate New York, southern New Hampshire, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, mainland Michigan, Illinois, DC, and parts of Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and Florida.

Major political and trade partners: the UK, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Southern Europe, Egypt.

2. Texico
Military dictatorship with legalized slavery
Capitol: Houston
Assets: Oil, military contracting, agriculture, mining, and ranching, low-wage/slave labor
Languages: English, Spanish

Comprising southern suburban megalopolises and the Bible Belt, including North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, South-eastern New Mexico, Northern Florida, and parts of Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia.

Major political and trade partners: Latin America, China, Indonesia, Israel, Saudi-Arabia, Iraq, Af-Pak, Africa, and the Plutocracy of New York.

3. The Utah Fatherland
Patriarchal theocracy
Capitol: Salt Lake City
Distinguishing Assets: Mining, ranching, forestry, agriculture, and recreation
Languages: English, Spanish

Consisting of Utah, Nevada, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Southern California, southern Arizona, and parts of North Dakota, Colorado, Montana, Eastern Wyoming, and Idaho.

Major political and trade partners: Brazil, Mexico, the Philippines, Africa, Texico, and Eastern Europe.

4. Arcadia
Social democracy
Capitol: Portland, OR
Distinguishing assets: Forestry, recreation, high tech industries, educated labor, public services, shipping, agriculture, green industries, low pollution
Languages: English, French (for trade with Canada & Europe), Spanish (in Northern New Mexico), Japanese (Pacific NW), aboriginal

Comprising primarily northern territory including Northern California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, the Idaho panhandle, parts of Montana and Wyoming, Alaska, northern New Mexico, northern Arizona, part of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, The UP of Michigan, northern New Hampshire, upstate New York, Vermont, and Maine, with a transport/Bison & wildlife park corridor through Wyoming and Colorado to connect with northern Arizona and northern New Mexico.

Major political and trade partners: Canada, Japan, Western Europe, Korea, India, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina.

This four-country schema is broadly relevant and sensitive to existing networks of power, cultural differences, and major political economic variations. It establishes territorial blocs with coastal access and, within the framework of political-economic consistency, a diversity of resources, while locating strategic territorial access and wildlife corridors.

Because the land is divided into more political-economically and culturally consistent countries, better capable of conducting state affairs under advanced capitalism, there would be no need for “states’ rights.” Each country will divide itself into political subunits for the delivery of services, as befits its political system. Where existing states are not dissolved, they will no longer be in possession of their current array of independent powers.

There will be a binding non-aggression pact among the four countries.

This map (to the left) roughly depicts the proposed four country boundaries. It is missing Hawaii (Arc.) and Alaska (Arc.).

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s