California Secession Making Headway in Silicon Valley Community(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
California Secession Making Headway in Silicon Valley Community
https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/10/calexit-is-silicon-valleys-plan-to-pack-up-its-toys-and-leave/
53 comments
As a "liberal", and one (from the sounds of it) who would likely disagree with many of your political stances, I am in complete agreement with what you have said here.
This is stupid for so many reasons, and un-American. I only wonder what Lincoln would say, who gave his life to preserve the Union and American Experiment.
Quite eerie, seeing these parallels to Designated Survivor.
Before the election (when all the Democrats thought they would be in control): We need to accept the election results. Protesting the decision hurts our democracy.
After they lose: Massive protests and a desire to secede from the the US.
If Republicans would have protested or suggested a secession after a Hillary win, they would be called 'sexist'. Democrats are sore losers. Republicans endured 8 years of Obama and never protested like this.
Instead of shunning half the country, figure out why you lost.
After they lose: Massive protests and a desire to secede from the the US.
If Republicans would have protested or suggested a secession after a Hillary win, they would be called 'sexist'. Democrats are sore losers. Republicans endured 8 years of Obama and never protested like this.
Instead of shunning half the country, figure out why you lost.
Remember how much condemnation Trump got for saying he might not accept the election result?
I support #Calexit and I hope this will not just be saying and playing. Trump is a successful businessman and he knows strategy very well. He must already have plans for those protestors, so for those who are really serious about this issue, we should not give in easily.
Don't want to sound like an extremist, but I do support #Calexit. The economic impact of California is tremendous not only for US but for the whole world, therefore, it's a great bargaining power against Trump.
How this not extremist, your protesting some hypothetical scenario you have on your mind? There is nothing concrete to protest. Liberals are protesting a Democrat who won running as a Republican, it's hard to understand why that upsets liberals. He's for gay marriage. He's for abortion, he more socially liberal than clinton and less pro war than clinton
[deleted]
If you are an American and a true patriot you cannot support Calexit. We need everyone in this together for the future political battles to come. Isolation will not help anyone.
I don't even live in California and I support Calexit. I'd also support the entire northeast from Virginia to Maine seceding. Though I guess PA wouldn't be on board with that any more.
This would probably kick off a trend if it were successful here. None of the other blue states would be satisfied with the loss of our progressive electoral college voting bloc. It'd put Republicans in the awkward position of denouncing the progressive left's sudden support of states' rights.
California, on the other hand, would continue to be a terrific place to live.
Preliminarily I would consider supporting #Calexit
California, on the other hand, would continue to be a terrific place to live.
Preliminarily I would consider supporting #Calexit
Yeah, till the other states take the water rights away. Or the conservative sierras secede in turn and then you have no snowmelt either.
But really, this is ill-advised. It's the same thing in Alaska when they don't like the winner -they whine. People don't realize that as LatAm immigrants assimilate into the fabric and Americanize, they tend to drift conservative, so be careful what you wish for.
Also, remember, once California's electoral college is disbanded, goodbye democrats for what, 40, 50 years in the rest of the states? For this reason democrats in the other states would be against it --they'd lose their California democratic bank (monetarily, electorally and congressionally)
But really, this is ill-advised. It's the same thing in Alaska when they don't like the winner -they whine. People don't realize that as LatAm immigrants assimilate into the fabric and Americanize, they tend to drift conservative, so be careful what you wish for.
Also, remember, once California's electoral college is disbanded, goodbye democrats for what, 40, 50 years in the rest of the states? For this reason democrats in the other states would be against it --they'd lose their California democratic bank (monetarily, electorally and congressionally)
Depending on the outcome, I think that we'd be able to figure some solution that works for what would become the nation of California (based on what land actually CalExits.)
Worst case scenario - either de-salt the water in the ocean, or buy it. If the United States can sell electricity with Mexico given our contentious at times relationship, I'm sure we could figure it out.
Totally agree with you - in principle it would be difficult, messy, and would very much be a disruptive conversation to have with America.
Then again, even the Trump campaign expected they would be unsuccessful in the end.
Worst case scenario - either de-salt the water in the ocean, or buy it. If the United States can sell electricity with Mexico given our contentious at times relationship, I'm sure we could figure it out.
Totally agree with you - in principle it would be difficult, messy, and would very much be a disruptive conversation to have with America.
Then again, even the Trump campaign expected they would be unsuccessful in the end.
The reason we consistently end up with a roughly equal two party split is because the need to get 51% of the vote. The Democrats would just adjust the party platform and pull some dis-satisfied portion(s) of the Republican party in until the vote was roughly 50-50 again.
States cannot legally secede unilaterally, and there's a no chance in hell Congress would approve. Unless you're willing to form a militia against the US Army that surely would be sent in--which, ironically for California, is more difficult because of the stricter gun control. (Reason had a great headline yesterday--something like, "Trump's election makes liberals realize appeal of limited government.")
I'm not sure the law matters all that much. I'm a bit doubtful the modern day US military would be genuinely willing to use violence to retain a state that tried to leave peacefully and democratically.
Also, California already has a militia. We just call it the "National Guard" these days.
Also, California already has a militia. We just call it the "National Guard" these days.
Except the National Guard could be called into federal duty by the president, which would most certainly happen in such a scenario. Additionally, their equipment is federal property, and they have to recompense the federal army for certain fungible items they use.
Most secessionist movements don't have a legal path to do it, that doesn't mean they have to be done violently.
On the other hand, a very significant number of military bases (packed full of military weapons and equipment) are in California, and thanks to California's out-sized population a major portion of the current active military are native Californians. That's not even taking in to account National Guard units and such.
California would take a very significant chunk of the US military with it if it left the union, and there are native Californians (who, if they backed California, could cause many problems) in key positions throughout the rest of the military as well.
Form a militia? That's ridiculous. California would be a global military power right out the gate, and a nuclear one at that.
California would take a very significant chunk of the US military with it if it left the union, and there are native Californians (who, if they backed California, could cause many problems) in key positions throughout the rest of the military as well.
Form a militia? That's ridiculous. California would be a global military power right out the gate, and a nuclear one at that.
You do realize that most members of the military love their country and would not secede? That's why they put their lives on the line.
And if you think the US military would simply allow "New California" to take its weapons and facilities, then I have a bridge to sell you.
And if you think the US military would simply allow "New California" to take its weapons and facilities, then I have a bridge to sell you.
[deleted]
> California would take a very significant chunk of the US military with it if it left the union
Perhaps, but remember militaries train discipline and chain of command for a reason.
> a very significant number of military bases (packed full of military weapons and equipment) are in California > California would be a global military power right out the gate, and a nuclear one at that.
If there were a serious rebellion, those would be the first targets. Thousands--even tens of thousands--of lost military and civilian lives would be a small price to pay in the US govt's eyes than to let a new nuclear power spring up on its doorstep.
Perhaps, but remember militaries train discipline and chain of command for a reason.
> a very significant number of military bases (packed full of military weapons and equipment) are in California > California would be a global military power right out the gate, and a nuclear one at that.
If there were a serious rebellion, those would be the first targets. Thousands--even tens of thousands--of lost military and civilian lives would be a small price to pay in the US govt's eyes than to let a new nuclear power spring up on its doorstep.
> Perhaps, but remember militaries train discipline and chain of command for a reason.
Indeed, and that's why its so significant that Californians make up such a large portion of the military. They bring that modern world class military training with them. Without that body of already experienced and trained people, a real military would be essentially impossible for years, even decades.
> If there were a serious rebellion, those would be the first targets. Thousands--even tens of thousands--of lost military and civilian lives would be a small price to pay in the US govt's eyes than to let a new nuclear power spring up on its doorstep.
If it actually reached that point, Californians would probably be just as ready for that.
Regardless, though, my point was that it's not so cut and dried as was suggested. The scenario would not be the full might of the US military against defenseless California, it would in essence be a gutted US military in total disarray against a cobbled together smaller portion of the US military.
Indeed, and that's why its so significant that Californians make up such a large portion of the military. They bring that modern world class military training with them. Without that body of already experienced and trained people, a real military would be essentially impossible for years, even decades.
> If there were a serious rebellion, those would be the first targets. Thousands--even tens of thousands--of lost military and civilian lives would be a small price to pay in the US govt's eyes than to let a new nuclear power spring up on its doorstep.
If it actually reached that point, Californians would probably be just as ready for that.
Regardless, though, my point was that it's not so cut and dried as was suggested. The scenario would not be the full might of the US military against defenseless California, it would in essence be a gutted US military in total disarray against a cobbled together smaller portion of the US military.
I think you overestimate it. People who go into the military are more conservative than liberal, on average. They are more patriotic on average and on top of that they are part of the _federal_ government and take orders from them.
I don't see many, or any significant amount going rogue and having a mutiny to please the desires of elites in California they probably have little in common with. It's not like the military is made up of mostly elite-college educated graduates who argue over what makes a good grind for poured over coffee at what temperature and humidity, or what are really authentic sessos tacos.
They are also likely not into the virtue signaling game.
I don't see many, or any significant amount going rogue and having a mutiny to please the desires of elites in California they probably have little in common with. It's not like the military is made up of mostly elite-college educated graduates who argue over what makes a good grind for poured over coffee at what temperature and humidity, or what are really authentic sessos tacos.
They are also likely not into the virtue signaling game.
> People who go into the military are more conservative than liberal, on average.
In-group loyalty is paramount to conservatives. Family and community first, and all that.
> They are more patriotic on average...
Exactly, and that supports my argument. If California declares independence, then the patriots from California will either side with their homeland, their communities, the places where their families are... or be traitors to their homeland, community, and family.
What do you think is the more likely thing for a conservative to do?
> I don't see many, or any significant amount going rogue...
If it reached the point where California declared independence, it would be those who sided with the US who were the ones "going rouge".
You are completely ignoring, most importantly, the issue of family. A service member from California almost certainly has their family in California. Your suggestion is that a significant majority of service members would side against their own family. That is what siding with the federal government in the even of California declaring independence would mean. Does that really seem likely to you? That they would side against their own family and home? Especially for a group that tends towards being conservative?
Think about it.
In-group loyalty is paramount to conservatives. Family and community first, and all that.
> They are more patriotic on average...
Exactly, and that supports my argument. If California declares independence, then the patriots from California will either side with their homeland, their communities, the places where their families are... or be traitors to their homeland, community, and family.
What do you think is the more likely thing for a conservative to do?
> I don't see many, or any significant amount going rogue...
If it reached the point where California declared independence, it would be those who sided with the US who were the ones "going rouge".
You are completely ignoring, most importantly, the issue of family. A service member from California almost certainly has their family in California. Your suggestion is that a significant majority of service members would side against their own family. That is what siding with the federal government in the even of California declaring independence would mean. Does that really seem likely to you? That they would side against their own family and home? Especially for a group that tends towards being conservative?
Think about it.
I hope you're just being argumentative and obtuse on purpose. I'd wager most Californians in the US armed forces have greater allegiance to the country than to the state. First and foremost they see themselves as Americans and secondly as whatever state they are from.
People in the armed forces are US military, not CA military, so going rogue would be the ones going against the US. The logic is easy to follow.
People in the armed forces are US military, not CA military, so going rogue would be the ones going against the US. The logic is easy to follow.
And you're ignoring the fact that the family of a conservative service member is most likely conservative as well.
Do you actually think that active duty service members would secede along with their home state? Or that the military would allow it?
Ah, yes, if only the British had responded to the American rebellion by "not allowing it", then the US would have never existed.
That sounds reasonable.
That sounds reasonable.
You're making assumptions about what I said. The US army wouldn't give its soldiers a choice of seceding or not. Using your logic that would be like Britain preventing its soldiers from joining the revolution, which most definitely happened.
This is very unrealistic - those military bases, weapons, and nuclear warheads are property of the US military (whose commander in chief is the President of the United States), not some kind of Californian military outfit that the US is currently leasing.
If a bunch of native Californian generals and colonels tried to commandeer a portion of the US military in support of some Californian revolution, you had better believe that would be seen as an act of war.
If a bunch of native Californian generals and colonels tried to commandeer a portion of the US military in support of some Californian revolution, you had better believe that would be seen as an act of war.
What about Florida? Can we dump Florida? ;)
Florida is leaving us anyway. In 2030, the average IQ of what used to be Florida is bound to increase due to all the dolphins and whales swimming about.
Republicans would be happy to see California leave, as it would ensure their control of the House of Representatives for the foreseeable future; maybe the presidency. They'd probably even agree to a sweet-heart free-trade deal. And I don't think people appreciate how deep the disdain is in many parts of the country for liberal, Democratic politics in general, and California in particular.
New England and some Midwestern states would fight it tooth and nail as it would leave them, culturally and politically, with substantially diminished power.
America was always an uneasy balance between the North's industrial and merchant ethos and the Southern plantation culture that emphasizes fixed social identity. The problem is that as income inequality, immobility, and non-European immigration has grown, the Southern plantation culture is predominating. It's even infected the more progressive Northern culture by emphasizing identity politics.
Race doesn't "exist", but racism exists, and it's easier to conceptualize and identify racism by classifying people according to "race", such that both perpetrators and victims will naturally self-classify. Likewise, as overt prejudice against various groups has moved into the public sphere in a way that permits it to be challenged, self-classification has grown stronger. Identity politics has always existed, but in Northern political culture it was much less consequential and more fluid. Change came fast and there was less time for pathological patterns to set in. In plantation culture social identity is more fundamental to how power is structured, brokered, and perceived; and obsession with avoiding change means pathological patterns are more likely to set in. This is why, despite racism towards blacks being alive and well in the North, Northerners have historically be more accommodating to power sharing; whereas in the Deep South despite blacks nearing 40% in some states they're still grossly disenfranchised politically, not just economically.
This election is further proof that Southern political culture is spreading like a virus. In most of the U.S. identity is used to exclude and antagonize; in California identity is still largely an inclusive concept (i.e. diversity is still largely seen as an empowering phenomenon, even by poor whites, or at worst a neutral phenomenon). I'd rather not wait to see California go the way of much of the rest of the country.
I grew up in the Deep South, and have lived and worked in the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and Chicagoland. I'd be happy to see California secede (with my family along with it), especially if both Oregon and Washington came along for the ride given the strong economic, legal, and political similarities. Though, that's even more unlikely than California seceding alone. My only hesitation would be leaving behind some other Northern states. The South and rural areas would be almost universally ecstatic to see California go, at least in the abstract. (Some rural white Californians notwithstanding.)
I'm also not oblivious to the fact that the current movement, such as it is, is a peculiarly techie phenomenon and a product of a particular tech-focused worldview I do not share despite my career. But I've thought for years that a California secession would make a ton of sense politically and culturally. The first time I came out here over 15 years ago it felt like a different country; it still feels that way.
New England and some Midwestern states would fight it tooth and nail as it would leave them, culturally and politically, with substantially diminished power.
America was always an uneasy balance between the North's industrial and merchant ethos and the Southern plantation culture that emphasizes fixed social identity. The problem is that as income inequality, immobility, and non-European immigration has grown, the Southern plantation culture is predominating. It's even infected the more progressive Northern culture by emphasizing identity politics.
Race doesn't "exist", but racism exists, and it's easier to conceptualize and identify racism by classifying people according to "race", such that both perpetrators and victims will naturally self-classify. Likewise, as overt prejudice against various groups has moved into the public sphere in a way that permits it to be challenged, self-classification has grown stronger. Identity politics has always existed, but in Northern political culture it was much less consequential and more fluid. Change came fast and there was less time for pathological patterns to set in. In plantation culture social identity is more fundamental to how power is structured, brokered, and perceived; and obsession with avoiding change means pathological patterns are more likely to set in. This is why, despite racism towards blacks being alive and well in the North, Northerners have historically be more accommodating to power sharing; whereas in the Deep South despite blacks nearing 40% in some states they're still grossly disenfranchised politically, not just economically.
This election is further proof that Southern political culture is spreading like a virus. In most of the U.S. identity is used to exclude and antagonize; in California identity is still largely an inclusive concept (i.e. diversity is still largely seen as an empowering phenomenon, even by poor whites, or at worst a neutral phenomenon). I'd rather not wait to see California go the way of much of the rest of the country.
I grew up in the Deep South, and have lived and worked in the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and Chicagoland. I'd be happy to see California secede (with my family along with it), especially if both Oregon and Washington came along for the ride given the strong economic, legal, and political similarities. Though, that's even more unlikely than California seceding alone. My only hesitation would be leaving behind some other Northern states. The South and rural areas would be almost universally ecstatic to see California go, at least in the abstract. (Some rural white Californians notwithstanding.)
I'm also not oblivious to the fact that the current movement, such as it is, is a peculiarly techie phenomenon and a product of a particular tech-focused worldview I do not share despite my career. But I've thought for years that a California secession would make a ton of sense politically and culturally. The first time I came out here over 15 years ago it felt like a different country; it still feels that way.
I was going to say, this is crazy it will never happen. Like the UK leaving the EU, the cubs winning the World Series, or Trump getting elected, this will never happen either.
Then I realized this is the year that anything could happen so...
Then I realized this is the year that anything could happen so...
The same effect could be gotten with less federal government and massive expansion of states rights... Irony.
Lol given the current California budget situation, would not recommend.
California has a pretty good budget situation, not perfect but much better. Indeed we have a surplus. The problem with CA and with most other states is long term public employee retirement costs.
The citizens raised taxes and gave Brown Democratic supermajorities which shut down Republican budget brinksmanship. Brown has righted the ship that Schwarzenegger left but medium term will require restructuring those retirement commitments.
Schwarzenegger was pretty much the same as Gray Davis. Not the worst, not the best but unwilling to do the really hard budget work. Jerry Brown lives to work.
The citizens raised taxes and gave Brown Democratic supermajorities which shut down Republican budget brinksmanship. Brown has righted the ship that Schwarzenegger left but medium term will require restructuring those retirement commitments.
Schwarzenegger was pretty much the same as Gray Davis. Not the worst, not the best but unwilling to do the really hard budget work. Jerry Brown lives to work.
Interesting. Brexit or Texit are bigoted, racist, xenophobic concepts but Calexit is moral, liberal and progressive?
Quite the false equivalency.
There have been clear situations where a territory has declared independence for reasons that were somewhat bigoted, racist and xenophobic (the confederacy), and many instances where a territory has declared independence for reasons that were not primarly bigoted, racist and xenophobic (probably most times, including the USA itself). Though of course all of these situations are much more complicated than those descriptors.
I'm not suggesting Calexit is a good idea at all, but suggesting an idea is good or not because there is some imagined liberal hypocrisy is not fair. Evaluate the idea on its merits.
There have been clear situations where a territory has declared independence for reasons that were somewhat bigoted, racist and xenophobic (the confederacy), and many instances where a territory has declared independence for reasons that were not primarly bigoted, racist and xenophobic (probably most times, including the USA itself). Though of course all of these situations are much more complicated than those descriptors.
I'm not suggesting Calexit is a good idea at all, but suggesting an idea is good or not because there is some imagined liberal hypocrisy is not fair. Evaluate the idea on its merits.
California is not a monolith --like Hispanics are not a monolithic bloc (~30% voted republican). The central valley and the sierras are conservative and they have the water. Water from the Colorado? Goodbye! Welcome to the waterless republic of coastal California right next to the state of inland California with all the water.
Also please don't flag this article. I just noticed that an article about Grubhub CEO telling Trump supporter employees to resign has been flagged. I hope there is no systematic trend in this sort of flagging.
There are a lot of people who don't want to have to have the argument about why this sort of cute posturing, much like talking about the popular vote count[1] undermines the serious work they think needs to be done.
It fits a convenient narrative for a moment--we'll show them! However it is not a movement, and is an expression of despair by a small number rather than an actual desire to secede. The temporary defeatist attitude, too, ends up getting quoted, long after people have figured out to move on productively.
To a lesser extent I think a focus on choosing DNC scapegoats sets back the important self examination that needs to be accomplished by people who were certain that the policy directions they were pursuing would also be beneficial to the people who voted for Trump. Was it a message delivery problem, a failure to understand a broader spectrum of grievances than economic pressures alone?
[1] It doesn't matter whether a shift away from electoral college would be better in the context of Nov 8, 2016, because the well known parameters of the electoral college determined voters' participation rates and the candidates' strategies.
It fits a convenient narrative for a moment--we'll show them! However it is not a movement, and is an expression of despair by a small number rather than an actual desire to secede. The temporary defeatist attitude, too, ends up getting quoted, long after people have figured out to move on productively.
To a lesser extent I think a focus on choosing DNC scapegoats sets back the important self examination that needs to be accomplished by people who were certain that the policy directions they were pursuing would also be beneficial to the people who voted for Trump. Was it a message delivery problem, a failure to understand a broader spectrum of grievances than economic pressures alone?
[1] It doesn't matter whether a shift away from electoral college would be better in the context of Nov 8, 2016, because the well known parameters of the electoral college determined voters' participation rates and the candidates' strategies.
Few questions:
1. Lots of talk about California and its economy. Is a possible reason it has such a strong economy because it's a part of the USA? Would it continue to have a strong economy as its own nation state?
2. How would they defend themselves military? Texas seems to have a lot more military inclined folk than California. What would they do without the support of the US Army?
3. If they put it to a vote, they need 2/3 yes to pass. The Democrats didn't have that many votes for Hillary in the presidential election. What makes anyone think that all Democrats + some Republicans would be OK with this? Forget about the rest of the states.
4. Did this joker really suggest that "small states with little diversity shouldn't determine Presidency"? Are you serious. Get a grip!
1. Lots of talk about California and its economy. Is a possible reason it has such a strong economy because it's a part of the USA? Would it continue to have a strong economy as its own nation state?
2. How would they defend themselves military? Texas seems to have a lot more military inclined folk than California. What would they do without the support of the US Army?
3. If they put it to a vote, they need 2/3 yes to pass. The Democrats didn't have that many votes for Hillary in the presidential election. What makes anyone think that all Democrats + some Republicans would be OK with this? Forget about the rest of the states.
4. Did this joker really suggest that "small states with little diversity shouldn't determine Presidency"? Are you serious. Get a grip!
I'll tell you what! Democrats, that's right Democrats in other states, in the US Capitol would not allow it.
There would go a balanced Democracy in the US for decades to come. There would be no California delegation to counter the 2/3 republicans in a new congress and they would lose their financial benefactors from the state. No way. This is all posturing, whining and petulance.
There would go a balanced Democracy in the US for decades to come. There would be no California delegation to counter the 2/3 republicans in a new congress and they would lose their financial benefactors from the state. No way. This is all posturing, whining and petulance.
For number 2, they wouldn't need a strong military, they've got friends on all sides. The US military goes well beyond what's needed to protect itself.
For 3, part of that is because of how the electoral college works, a lot of democratic voter probably didn't vote. Of course that goes both ways, who knows what the real numbers are.
For 3, part of that is because of how the electoral college works, a lot of democratic voter probably didn't vote. Of course that goes both ways, who knows what the real numbers are.
I'd think the US would not be California's greatest friend if this were to happen. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
According to data from Google and Wikipedia, 2.5 million registered democrats didn't vote Democrat and 2 million Republicans didn't vote Republican. Non voters probably don't factor in. I'd think that non voters would be less likely to support secession.
According to data from Google and Wikipedia, 2.5 million registered democrats didn't vote Democrat and 2 million Republicans didn't vote Republican. Non voters probably don't factor in. I'd think that non voters would be less likely to support secession.
I'm just tired of California paying for moocher Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, ...
The importance here is not the possibility of immediate secession: there is almost zero chance of that. The importance is that it is getting the left to take secession seriously as a concept.
Eventually we will need to separate out different sovereignties if we all wish to live in peace, in the types of communities we want. Peaceful secessionism is the moral way forward, but it will take many decades for it to work it's way into everyones brain as a legitimate possibility.
Eventually we will need to separate out different sovereignties if we all wish to live in peace, in the types of communities we want. Peaceful secessionism is the moral way forward, but it will take many decades for it to work it's way into everyones brain as a legitimate possibility.
Most of you (HN commentators) were bashing Britons when they decided to leave the EU (which policies they don't like), calling them backwards, xenophobic, etc.
And now you want to do the same. And perceive it as 'progressive'.
Moreover:
1. EU had been imposing unpopular polices over Britons for years. Trump administration hasn't introduced any policy yet, moreover, it hasn't formed yet.
2. Trump and Pence were _elected_ in a direct democratic elections. European Commission president and all commissioners are being _appointed_ by ruling elites.
In future political science textbooks this will serve as a prominent example of the phenomenon named 'liberal hypocrisy'.