The Case for a Wingnut Homeland Revisited: Possible Scenarios
I don't want to harp on about this, but I'm an idea guy, and I've been thinking a lot about secession lately. In the Bush-Cheney years I was inclined to be more of a "U.S. out of New England!" type, but the truth is that a majority of Americans are reasonable regardless of region. There just seems to be a constant 22% of hardcore wingnuts, spread out thinly and more or less uniformly over the nation, like scum on a stagnant pond.
It is my firm conviction that they could be dealt with without death panels or civil war, simply by selling off a portion of U.S. real estate (there's plenty to spare) for a Wingnut Homeland! Using some rough historical guidelines and with an eye to turning a prophet on the real estate, I suggest we sell off Texas, along with part of New Mexico — basically the old Republic of Texas — as illustrated above. We can see how that goes before unloading the rest of New Mexico and Arizona, too, if need be.
__________________________________________________
Establishing a homeland for wingnuts —
a Wingnutopia, if you will — may be the
most humane way of dealing with them.
__________________________________________________
Now, I know this sounds rash. But it makes good fiscal sense. Consider that there's something like 170 million acres of land in Texas, valued at an average of $1,200/acre. That's a cool $204,000,000,000 right there. Not exactly chump change. It'd at least put a dent in the national debt. OK, not really. We'd still be $11,703,578,971,834 in the hole, basically. But every little bit helps.
I know what some of you are thinking. Why oil-rich Texas? Why not send them to Utah or Nevada? Bah. I say, let them have whatever oil's left. That will give them some kind of economy. And it'll be extra incentive for us to pursue cleaner energy.
They won't have long to enjoy that Texas tea, anyway. How long do you think it'll be before Mexico starts getting ideas?
And because wingnuts don't believe in government, it wouldn't take long for an organized army to crush them. Oh, sure, their little wingnut "militias" might fight back, but having alienated themselves from all potential allies (and they don't have enough oil to be really good friends anyway), and without a government to represent them abroad, it will be difficult to ask for help, and all but impossible to pursue diplomacy. And screaming and throwing fits doesn't cut it.
Hmm. Not having a government when everyone else does kinda sucks, dunnit?
As soon as the wingnut migration is complete, US passports revoked, and the border secured on our side, we might offer one piece of advice to our new neighbors as they settle into their Wingnutopia: remember the Alamo, bitches.
You buy in way too much to the red/blue paradigm. In reality most states are various shades of purple and it's not so black and white. Even Massachusetts manages to elect republican governors fairly regularly.
Reply to this
But actually, Dani, I don't buy into the whole blue/red thing.
Leaving aside your conflating state and federal politics, which are apples and oranges, I'm from a Midwestern state, myself, with two outstanding Senators -- one Republican, the other Democrat. Lugar, the Republican, is one of the most sensible men in the US Senate. Indiana's Representatives are split 5-4 Democrat-Republican. The Governor is Republican. His predecessor a Democrat. In fact, for many years Indiana had a Democrat as governor, and went Republican in national elections -- The State went for Obama in '08, with a Republican Governor.
I'm willing to bet you thought Indiana was as red as red gets. Think again.
Personally, I am registered "undeclared." If it seems I come down on the Democrat side it's because the GOP has gone beyond a joke and into absolute disgrace territory. Have you noticed? I can't make any sense of a party that claims to want unfettered markets while micromanaging every aspect of social interaction. Whose strategy is "I want Obama to fail". Like I said, I have the utmost respect for Senator Lugar. Unfortunately, he is one of the few Republicans who deserve it.
When the GOP starts making sense, I'll be more than happy to listen. We need two parties in local, state and national government, if not more, not one and a circus sideshow.
But, did you read my post, Dani? I didn't even mention party. And what I said about wingnuts would, I think, put us in agreement:
I didn't say: South Carolina, which is a pretty red state (both Senators are Republicans, 4 of 6 Reps, along with their Family Values Governor Mark Sanford) is full of wingnuts. And my choice of Texas as a a Wingnut homeland has to do with Geography more than any political bent.
And while my 22% figure is drawn from President Bush's final approval rating, it goes to show that there are actually way more sensible people all over America than you'd ever suspect listening to the MSM.
Reply to this
I actually have to admit that about 5 seconds after I hit send I regretted posting that comment. I did in fact do a rush read of the post and thought I had the gist. In the end I do agree with you to a degree but only if we can stuff some left wingnuts into wingnutopia as well.
Reply to this
It's a deal.
Reply to this
RE political parties, I think a three-way import from our cousins across the pond might resolve the growing farce imposed by perhaps the weakest part of our vaunted checks and balances system, i.e., our two-party deadlock of Dems and Reps. Is there a viable third party? The Greens? Or perhaps the founding of a Wingnut Party? Or would that be Whig-nut?
Given the persistence of history and geography, there'll always be a Republic of Texas. Easy to sneer, I suppose, yet we all could acquire a few lessons from the smaller footprint of the Texan state bureaucracy, as well as its more enlightened (when compared to my own state of California) approach towards undocumented or even documented workers from south of the border. Equally Texas has made great efforts to develop such "green" energies like solar, wind, and thermal- in contrast to its past of oil-centrism (and again in contrast to California's lip-service).
As for Arizona and New Mexico, have you ever visited? More likely you'd encounter Libertarians...or at least independents. By which you may mean "wingnuts". Of course, the scenery's awfully grand when compared to the hills and burgs of Massachusetts. Perhaps the wide open spaces encourage free thinkers. Then again, you have New Hampshire for that.
I doubt even Mexico wants Texas back. I never found such misunderstanding of our southern neighbor (or even the U.S. West) as when I was in Boston for college. My in-laws are from Indiana, and during a recent visit one of them commented to me how full of Latinos (my word, not hers) SoCal was. I tried not to careen off the freeway as I gently (though with the merest trace of astonishment) mentioned that the Golden State's three major cities have Spanish names, and that in L.A. we are, after all, only 150 miles from the border.
On the other hand, if you're channeling Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, I tip my hat. Hence my enjoyment of your blog!
Reply to this
My choice of Texas has less to do with Texans (I actually have some very good friends in Austin) than with the location and landmass of Texas. I was thinking the wingnuts could be enticed to relocate, which would unfortunately inevitably result in some displacement of the current non-wingnut population of settlement areas. But I was trying to think of somewhere that would not feel like a reservation (Utah) or a gulag (Alaska), and that bordered more than just the US.
I have some connection to Texas myself, as I mentioned in another recent post, and have traversed the Southwest and agree that the landscape is singularly gorgeous. Maybe the natural beauty of their new homeland would calm the wingnuts down. At any rate, they have to go somewhere, right?
Reply to this