Op-Ed: Blue State Peaceful Secession
by Marc Grambo, WashCo Dems Volunteer Recruitment & Engagement Coordinator
Why “taking back the country” is a bad idea and separatism is the path forward
In my vision, separationism or separatism is not merely a political ideology; it represents a gradual process that prioritizes state and local autonomy over federal authority. This approach emphasizes the importance of forming alliances among states and collaborating with neighboring countries like Canada, Mexico, and European nations based on mutual interests. These alliances would reflect shared values, such as human rights, and establish criteria for participation that align with the principles of the involved communities.
At the heart of this philosophy is a push for self-sustainability and self-reliance within communities. I believe that this process can be effectuated all the way down to the individual level. We should strive to control as much as we can, starting with what it means to protect ourselves individually and extending to how we protect and support our neighbors, our towns, our cities, our counties, and our states.
When I talk about separationism or separatism, I’m not referring to secession from the Union in the same way the South did. I understand that such terms can be interpreted as suggesting a sudden and violent uprising. While I recognize the weight of these words, I believe it’s important to use them when they accurately represent the reality we face. It is not inaccurate to conflate the term “secession” with a gradual process of empowerment and autonomy.
This vision extends to practical initiatives that can transform communities. For example, we can establish mutual aid networks that connect neighbors to share resources, from food and clothing to childcare and transportation. Initiatives like community gardens can enhance food security while fostering collaboration among residents. Additionally, organizing clothing drives and creating free access to healthcare services can address basic needs and empower individuals. Collaborating with local nonprofits can further strengthen these efforts, ensuring that support systems are in place for those in need. These initiatives are vital in fostering a culture of mutual support and resilience.
States are already taking actions to combine resources, making agreements among themselves, and collaborating on resistance efforts. For instance, California, Oregon, and Washington recently announced plans to form their own combined replacement for what has become an unreliable and dangerous CDC. These steps are clear manifestations of separationist thinking, as they reflect a commitment to self-reliance and local autonomy.
An aspect of what makes a separatist path more attractive than a loyalist path of staying within the framework of the United States is that simply taking control of the country would not fundamentally change our standing in the world. States like California and New York already possess a significant international standing. If these states, along with their allied neighbors, form bonds with foreign free nations, including Canada, Mexico, and European countries, they can create a powerful network of influence. Ideally, as red states begin to make pacts with blue states, we could lean toward a new kind of union—one formed on a basis of shared values and mutual interests rather than enforced unity.
The fear surrounding the potential loss of the United States’ superpower status often revolves around concerns of diminished global influence, economic stability, and national security. Many equate superpower status with leadership in international affairs, military strength, and economic dominance. However, it’s essential to recognize that numerous countries thrive without this status. Nations like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland consistently rank high in quality of life and happiness while fostering strong social systems and democratic values. These examples demonstrate that prosperity can be achieved through effective governance and a focus on the well-being of citizens rather than military might.
As far as concerns about abandoning blue cities in red states, I believe that’s not the case. It is ultimately up to those communities to turn their state in the right direction. Just as we have invested in the past in other countries’ pursuits of freedom and democracy, we will support them in their efforts. After all, it is in our interest to have neighbors whose policies reflect our values.
I also emphasize the economic power of blue states like Oregon, California, and Washington, arguing that their ability to be self-sufficient stands in stark contrast to the challenges faced by red states. This economic strength gives blue states the opportunity to thrive in a free democracy and potentially forces red states to either become self-sufficient or commit to the democratic and humanitarian values defined by the more prosperous blue states.
Recognizing the extent to which red states would need to change their values is crucial. It is clear that any overarching entity with power—like a federal government—would be incompatible with this idea for the foreseeable future. If the values of blue states do not rub off on red states, there would be little sense of unity. However, I acknowledge that there could be pragmatic instances of countrywide compacts to pursue, particularly regarding homeland security and national defense, and I believe that neighboring countries like Canada, Mexico, and those in Europe would be included in these partnerships.
If we understand the concept of separatism in this way, there is no reason to dismiss it as a mere idea because of its gradual and flexible nature. This philosophy asserts that in every way we can, we will become less and less dependent on the United States government, recognizing that the more we rely on it, the more at risk we are. It’s not a “Separationism Bible”; instead, it serves as a guiding principle or a North Star that directs our efforts toward greater autonomy.
Ultimately, I contend that opposing separatism in all aspects would imply that there is nothing within the current framework of the United States that necessitates a separation. However, I argue that the natural progression leads us to a point where nothing resembling the current United States continues to exist, and for the good! My vision is one of hope and possibility over oppression and domination. By pursuing this path, we can cultivate a better relationship with the world, where our power and commitment to human rights align with those of other nations, free from the baggage of the United States.
The call for separatism is a path toward forging our own way forward, one that liberates blue states from the liabilities of remaining in union with red states. Blue states currently act as donor states, often footing the bill for policies that do not align with our values or interests. By pursuing a separatist path, we can free ourselves from the burden of cleaning up the mess created by red states and create a future that prioritizes the principles and prosperity we believe in. This is not merely about decentralization; it’s about the opportunity to redefine our collective identity and establish a new alliance based on shared goals and mutual respect, allowing us to thrive independently and reshape our role on the global stage.
Disclaimer: Op-eds are the personal views of the author only, not necessarily the Washington County Democrats. Please review our Terms of Service page. User-generated content, to fully understand our publication process. Your op-ed submission is welcome here.
