Don’t Like the Election Results? Secede!

It’s been a week since the election. By now many, if not most of us, have settled down, relieved that campaign ads have given way to Christmas shopping commercials. But not everyone has come to terms with the election results. There are those who are so unhappy that the President has been reelected, that they are petitioning the US Government for the right to secede from the Union. According to the Huffington Post, citizens in 34 states have filed secession petitions. Any petition that receives 25,000 signatures within 30 days must be reviewed and responded to by the Obama Administration.    

            Most petitioners claim to be dissatisfied with the way the Federal Government spends our money and they are not happy about the way our rights are abridged by agencies such as the TSA. I can’t say that I blame them but I am a bit perplexed that they waited until after the election results were in to decide that secession was the best course of action. These problems go back to the Bush era. Of course secession requests do seem to follow Presidential elections. When Bush won and Kerry lost in 2004, there were petitions.

            What if no one objected and 30 or more states were gone? Would these states ultimately get together and form an even more perfect union? Or is it more likely that some states would band together and others, like Texas, would return to its lone star origins?

            Here is a list of the 34 states with citizens that thought it would be better to go it alone:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virgnia and Wyoming.,

            I guess the worst case scenario would be 34 separate countries. If I wanted to drive to New Jersey to visit family and friends, I would need a passport which I would have to show to the good people of the great nations of Virginia, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. I wonder what New Jersey would require of a visitor from another country? What if there were no treaties between Tennessee and New Jersey? What if there was a dispute and the President of Tennessee issued a travel warning about the former Garden State? On the other hand, a trip to Atlantic City would sound exotic. I mean gambling in a foreign land would be cool assuming the currency exchange rates were favorable. Would the Tennessee Moon Pie be the equivalent of the New Jersey cannoli?  

            I suppose the original Confederacy could get together but at the moment of this writing, only ten of the eleven states are in. So far Virginia, the birthplace of Robert E. Lee hasn't sent a petition. Let me say right now that if Virginia isn’t going to be part of this deal I’m out. Any nation that I’m a member of has to have a access to the Chesapeake Bay when crabs are in season. If they have to be imported the price will be outrageous. Equal opportunity for all in the new Confederacy goes without saying, but I don’t foresee a problem. This is the 21^st century after all.

            I really suspect that the petitioners haven’t thought through all of the ramifications of a successful secession. At first blush it sounds fine if you’re Texas. You have the fifth largest economy in the world. Why not go your own way? After all, they’ve been there before. But if a whole bunch of states are suddenly on their own, a treaty with the USA stipulating an alliance in the event of an attack on either country would be a lot less attractive if the USA consists of Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Hawaii. It’s a dangerous world out there. I wonder if the Texan that filed that petition considered the fact that a nation of 26 million people would be dwarfed by its neighbor to the south. Mexico has 112 million people. The outcome at the Alamo probably would be the same as it was last time.  

            One good thing about secession as an exercise at least, is that it forces us to recognize that regardless of who is in the White House we’re all in this together. I mean I don’t want to pay for an International permit just so I can drive to the Kentucky Derby. God Bless America.  

Copyright 2012, Len Serafino. All rights reserved.

Seriously? We need Fact Checkers?

President Washington says he loves America and will do whatever it takes to protect the environment. Yet he’s proud of chopping down the cherry tree. How many more trees will he chop down? You can make him stop. Vote for me on Election Day. I’m John Adams and I approved this message.

            Obviously, John Adams never ran an ad like this. Hardly anyone had a television in 1792. And fact checkers wouldn’t appear on the scene for another 220 years. They are a fact of life now though. With good reason I’m afraid.     

In his speech at the Republican Party’s convention last month, Mitt Romney said that Obama began his presidency with an apology tour. According to factchecker.org, the President did no such thing.   

In his speech to the Democratic national convention the President said U.S. automakers are “back on top of the world.” But factchecker.org says GM has slipped back to No. 2 and is headed for third place in global sales this year, behind Toyota and Volkswagen.

When our Presidential candidates are bending the truth or telling outright lies we all lose. There is an ocean of information for voters to wade through as they try to discern which candidate is more likely to move the nation in the right direction. It would help tremendously if we weren’t forced to distinguish information from misinformation. 

Am I the only one that’s bothered by the fact that we actually need organizations like factcheck.org and Pinocchio Tracker? If you’re running for President aren’t voters entitled to assurances that you won’t lie to us? You might think that presidential candidates would be highly insulted by the very accusation that they lied, that he or she would excoriate the person or organization making such a claim. Shouldn’t lying, at least the bold faced variety, disqualify a candidate from the race?

But that’s not the way it works in 2012, far from it. In fact, Romney pollster Neil Newhouse told an ABC News panel, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.” He said this in response to accusations that a Romney ad suggesting that Obama was removing work requirements for welfare eligibility was dead wrong.

When Delaware Governor Jack Markel said at the Democratic National convention that Mitt Romney likes to fire people, he deliberately took the Governor’s words out of context. Romney was clearly referring to health insurance providers and the services they provide.  In fact, Romney was simply stating he likes to be able to fire people who don’t provide good service. Honestly, don’t we all? His comments had nothing whatsoever to do with taking pleasure in firing workers.

One of the most insidious effects of campaigns that play games with the truth is the way they distract us from the real issues. When Newt Gingrich called President Obama “the best food stamp president in American history,” there were charges that he was oversimplifying the issue. The number of people on food stamps rose in seven out of the eight years Bush was president, in part due to changes in program policy. It’s also true that Obama inherited an extremely distressed economy. Regardless, when the debate devolves into a he said/she said contest, there is very little room for useful debate. Is it too easy to get food stamps, just right too hard? If 15% of the population really needs food stamps, what are we going to do to solve the problem? Arguing over which political party is at fault or what the real numbers are is self defeating. If our candidates can’t even agree on facts, chances of finding a solution are obviously reduced.

Is it any wonder voters are cynical? We are being asked to choose between leaders who are cynical about voters. They ask for our trust but don’t trust us in return. Then there’s the cynical media circus. Filled mostly with partisans, they strangle the airwaves with minutiae which deprive us of facts, options and learned opinions to help us grasp the issues. The paradox of our times is that we live in an era when the issues are more complex than ever while the discussion becomes less sophisticated every election cycle.

In his farewell address George Washington said, “I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is the best policy.”