ZadekpediaCalifornia as a “nation-state”
In an April 2020 episode, Bob Zadek talks with author Frank Buckley about the concept of “American Secession” and the return to original federalism, exploring how states like California are increasingly acting independently of Washington, D.C. Did California Just Declare Itself a Nation-State? (2020)
Zadek raises the topic because California Governor Gavin Newsom had complained publicly about how President Trump and the federal government were handling coronavirus control and shelter-in-place, saying he was not getting his share of supplies, and announced California would exercise its power as a “nation-state,” acquiring its own ventilators and testing kits and using its bargaining power to economically separate itself from Washington. Zadek calls Newsom’s speech possibly a mini Fort Sumter attack. Did California Just Declare Itself a Nation-State? (2020)
Buckley responds that there is no magic particularly about the word “nation” by itself, and that one could imagine different nations within a single country very easily. He notes that Quebec says it is a nation while remaining part of the government of Canada, and that Scotland is a nation or something like that within Great Britain. But coupling “nation” with “state” suggests something more — a degree of independence. Buckley characterizes Newsom’s talk of California going its own way on the coronavirus epidemic as benign, indeed part of the Trump administration’s approach of letting different states compete and find their best way, which he says is just what federalism was all about. If what is being discussed is nothing like the Civil War but simply a return to the early federalism of the founders, Buckley says that is a good thing. Did California Just Declare Itself a Nation-State? (2020)
Bigness versus happiness
Zadek describes Buckley’s book as a data-driven analysis of bigness in terms of size of government and size of country, and of how bigness mitigates against individual happiness. He frames the discussion not as splitting the 50 states into 50 countries but as exploring the potential for returning control over our lives closer to home by transferring power from Washington to the states. Did California Just Declare Itself a Nation-State? (2020)
Buckley says the optimal size of a country was a big topic of debate when the country was created. At the Framers’ convention in Philadelphia in 1787, the winner of the debate was a group of small-state delegates who felt that smallness is goodness; the nationalists, people like Madison and Hamilton, were basically shot down. George Mason said the Western states in the Ohio Valley wanted to join the Union and that they did not want that — they wanted to stay small. Buckley says he did some number crunching and found that smaller countries are happier countries, less corrupt and freer. The intuitive explanation, he says, is that in a small country the voters are closer to their governor and can discipline leaders who are not doing a good job, which is harder in one country of 340 million people. Did California Just Declare Itself a Nation-State? (2020)
Buckley connects this to the Electoral College, which he says was meant to preserve smallness in a way, and says that the argument that the winner of the popular vote should be president is essentially an argument for bigness that chafes on people who instinctively favor smallness and localness. Did California Just Declare Itself a Nation-State? (2020)
Later treatments
In a July 2022 episode, Zadek interviews F.H. Buckley about his book Progressive Conservatism, which explores the historical roots of a political philosophy combining social conservatism with a nationalist, pro-worker economic agenda. Buckley argues that by embracing the “Western” progressive traditions of figures like Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt — focusing on economic mobility and direct democracy — the Republican Party can move past the “dead end” of modern libertarianism and the “woke” left to become America’s natural governing party. Progressive Conservatism with F.H. Buckley (2022)
Zadek notes that Buckley has written in recent memory American Secession, The Republican Workers Party, The Republic of Virtue, and The Once and Future King. Buckley argues that the word “progressive” has been adopted by the left, and that the people who now call themselves progressives are anti-moderns who want to turn politics into a battle of race against race and ethnic group against ethnic group. He says there is an important history of progressivism in the GOP, found in Lincoln’s internal policies, big time in Teddy Roosevelt, and also in Eisenhower, who called himself a progressive and said at one point that the Republican Party must become progressive or it is going to die. Progressive Conservatism with F.H. Buckley (2022)
A second July 2022 episode covers the same book, with Buckley described as Foundation Professor at George Mason University’s Scalia Law School. The excerpt repeats the framing of Progressive Conservatism as exploring the historical roots of a Republican Party that balances social conservatism with middle-of-the-road economic policies, and Buckley’s argument that the GOP must move beyond Trump while retaining the working-class voters he attracted by focusing on economic mobility and government reform. The same passage on the word “progressive” and the GOP’s progressive history appears again. Trumpism After Trump (2022)
Across episodes:
The topic is treated at length only in the April 2020 episode on California as a “nation-state,” where Buckley develops the federalism and optimal-country-size arguments; the two July 2022 episodes touch on American Secession only as a prior book in Buckley’s bibliography while discussing Progressive Conservatism, and the episodes show no development of the secession argument between the earlier and later treatments.
Book summary
1/12/20 - Frank Buckley on American Secession
“We’ve hit rock bottom.” — Sen. John Kennedy (R - LA).
NOTES:
1/12 - Frank Buckley on American Secession 1
Previous Show: Medium Article - Who will censure the censors? 1
Should the market or government police YouTube’s speech policing function. 1
Current Show: BLURB 2
When the Framers set out to tinker with the Articles of Confederation, few thought they would come up with a brand new Constitution. 2
LINKS 3
Part I - A Cure for a Divided People? 3
Part II - A Cure for Bigness 5
Part 3 - Lesser Cures 7
Related Shows: 10
BIO: F.H. Buckley (**@**fbuckley) is a Foundation Professor at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law.
He is a Senior Editor at The American Spectator, a columnist for the New York Post, and has written for the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, US News, National Review, the American Conservative, the New Criterion, Real Clear Politics, the National Post, the Telegraph, amongst many others. His most recent books are The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed, The Republic of Virtue: How We Tried to Ban Corruption, Failed, and What we Can Do About It, The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America (Encounter Books, April 2016) and The Once and Future King (Encounter Books, 2015).
Previous Show: Medium Article - Who will censure the censors?
Should the market or government police YouTube’s speech policing function.
Current Show: BLURB
Frank Buckley is one of my all-time favorite guests. In his new book, American Secession, he’s outdone himself – presenting a convincing contrarian argument that when it comes to country size, bigness is bad and small is beautiful.
Would America be better off as many smaller countries? While the case has been made by many inferior minds, Buckley brings a historical context that makes it seem less far-fetched to envision a Republic of California, Vermont, etc. The book launches on January 14, but I’m pre-ordering 3 free copies for new subscribers to my mailing list.
Tune in this Sunday, 1/12, from 8-9am PACIFIC.
WIN A FREE COPY
American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup
When the Framers set out to tinker with the Articles of Confederation, few thought they would come up with a brand new Constitution.
28 states have proposed a constitutional convention, or “con-con,” to tie federal government’s hands with a balanced-budget amendment. If the necessary 38 states pass such resolutions, we could end up with a much more dramatic event – secession.
Buckley thinks we are on the verge of a break up. The United States is no longer one country, but at least two. He’s issued this warning in previous books and on my show before. A left-leaning elite (mostly clustered in coastal cities) now comprises a “New Class” that shares little in common with the rural population that elected Trump in 2016. And although “secession” is still a dirty word for most progressives, that hasn’t stopped a number of breakaway movements like Calexit and the Second Vermont Republic from gaining momentum. If Trump is elected to a second term, these will surely gain steam.
So let’s say California got fed up and wanted to opt out. Then what? Texas tried it in 1861, but was smacked down by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White after the end of the Civil War. The Court ruled that Texas’ vote to secede from the Union prior to the war didn’t count – in other words, the relationship between states in the Union was “dissoluble.”
Nothing has changed since then, meaning the only legal route to secession is through a “con-con.” While most historians look favorably on the preservation of the Union during the Civil War, Buckley argues that there’s more to be gained today from a legally-sought secession.
Today, America increasingly looks like a unitary state than the republic the Framers gave us thanks to the explosive growth of Federal government in 20th century. This “bigness” has taken a toll on our happiness, our wealth, our freedom, and the overall effectiveness of the government.
You’ll have to tune in this Sunday to hear the full argument and “how-to” guide for a modern day secession movement. Those who read his new book will come away with a very message. Namely, that national self-determination can be exercised for progressive reasons, and that a looming break up may in fact be the best way to avert another Civil War.
LINKS
- [American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup [Amazon]](
Book Summary:
Part I - A Cure for a Divided People?
Ch. 1
Cultural differences between north and south still exist. Southerners still cling to their guns and religion. Buckley keeps coming back to South Carolina and California as the archetypal states that might secede (S.C. was the first to attempt in 1861).
But there have always been compacts between N and S allowing them to get along.
Introduces Don Livingston - a Hume scholar who studies philosophy of secession and works at Emory (also an adjunct at the Ludwig von Mises Institute). He has been listed on SLPC’s hate list.
Different compacts have held the union together, but might not for long.
1st compact - north accepted southern slavery - fugitive slaves were allowed to be captured. Dred Scott banned bans on slavery in any territories.
2nd compact - Abolition of slavery but permission to suppress the black votes, Jim Crow laws.
We forget that Woodrow Wilson was a dyed in the wool racist. Dwight Eisenhower talked about how much he admired R.E. Lee, and the confederate flag was displayed proudly. Reconciliation after the civil war was a success, but came at the expense of racial justice. This compact ended with outrage over 1960s murder of civil rights workers. Civil rights act followed
3rd Compact - state-sponsored discrimination banned, but expressions of southern pride still tolerated.
Ken Burns portrayed the confederacy genersouly.
The third compact has now ended, with groups like SPLC naming everyone racist, statues being removed, etc.
One part of the country looks at the other with disdain and scorn. Buckley cites this New Yorker article as typical of leftist view of the rest of America: Chick-fil-A’s Creepy Infiltration of New York City | The New Yorker.
On the left, mainstream pundits glorify and excuse Antifa’s behavior, reporters no longer pretend to hide their bias. Trump is hitler, etc. etc.
44% of liberals and 31% of conservatives have dropped FAcebook friends over politics.
He reiterates that American nationalism is liberal and cosmopolitan in essence. Some conservative nationalists reject this, but anti-liberal nationalism is self-defeating.
Ch. 2 - When Secession is Politically Correct
We’re overlarge.
Nationalism can be aligned with Progressivism, as it was in Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points - on the right to national self-determination.
If we split, we’d be among people we trusted more.
Libertarians cannot be nationalists if they don’t support a social safety net. This solidarity is key, he says.
Yes California independence campaign calling for Calexit, pits itself against Trump and his actions to dismantle California’s immigration and environmental exemptions. Vermont also has a secessionist movement.
Ch. 3 - A How-To Guide
Czechoslovakia offers a positive data point - the two cultures were very different. They split peacefully and haven’t had big problems.
The stakes are lower – we might adopt James Buchanan’s “prudence” over Lincoln’s “unyielding assertion of federal sovereignty.”
There’s no right to secession under the constitution but it is possible.
Buchanan appears wrong in hindsight, but at the time it seemed that the southern states had no reason to secede.
People would have been less likely to fight if they had known it would cost 750,000 lives.
Lincoln siezed many unconstitutional powers, including suspending the writ of habeas corpus when imprisoning John Merryman (p. 28).
“Lincoln is properly remembered as a champion of democracy, but here was good bit of Otto von Bismarck as well.”
We forgive lincoln because a) he was successful and b) he didn’t have the other marks of a tyrant. If Lee had won, and Lincoln hadn’t been assasinated, we might think of him as one of the worst presidents.
Americans today would not be willing to fight and die, so Buchanan’s approach is probably more sensible - read the quote on page 31 from his final SOTU summing up the position.
ARticle V “con-con” is the peaceful resolution. 38 legislatures must pass resolutions for a con-con. Many have done so for a balanced budget amendment (28), and six more have called for one for other reasons.
P. 35 on “What did the Framers think” - they were developing a compact. If a state thought the FEderal government trampled its rights, it could withdraw. See Madisons Federalist No. 43.