*Having spent the entire week with flu, I had my er… bread saved by Chuck Gannon who offered to fill in this Sunday. We might host him at intermittent Sundays, when he sends us something. -SAH*
Breads, Circuses, and Separatists – by Chuck Gannon
The recent discussion and vote over Scottish independence has, according to some analysts and pollsters, given encouragement to US secessionists. It is certainly a significant debate, particularly as we dwell in the collective shadow of superstate and macrohegemonic realities.
It is important to note that the surge in US seccessionist conversations is by no means restricted, as some like to suggest, to Libertarians. Quite the contrary: a recent poll (Reuters/Ipsos, linked below) shows that the national US average of persons either supporting seccession or willing to consider it stands at about 24%. And the distribution of this sentiment is not so very lopsided: the partisan statistics are 21% of Democrats, almost 30% of Republicans. But here’s the kicker: no matter how much separatist Americans may dislike hegemonic power- politics (domestic or international), I wonder how many have taken the time to find and closely read a reasonable study on what is likely to happen when one–and ONLY one– hegemonic global power diffuses/fractures. (I have sat in on some of those studies and looked at some of those white papers, from both sides of the political spectrum. They have been most illuminating.) I am not talking about the cherry-picking expeditions of selective argumentation, employed by utopists and dystopists as widely divergent as Orwell, Rand, Wells. Rather, I am referring to sober projections carried out with comprehensive databases and reasonable application of games theory heavily informed by historical models.
I will not presume to say one word about Scotland. Not my country, not my right or my business. But in regard to the US, I offer one observation. When the people of a *superstate* dismantle it in a world where other vigorous–not to say “rival”– superstates are active, they have furnished their nation’s arch-competitors with the first condition of the most reliable strategic axiom on record, “Divide and (then) conquer.”
This is not a right or left argument. It is not, in its motivation, even a statist argument. Rather, it is a simple observation of historical fact to date. And given the costs of strategically significant technologies and infrastructures (which include not only the predictable military, high-energy, and aerospace domains but even those of education, medical technology, and information/automation systems), it is simply not in the fiscal and resource scope of smaller states to compete equally with superstates ( do not mistake some small nations’ excellent standards of public tech/service diffusion with total global leverage). They are materially unable to both make the breakthroughs and extensively deploy the resulting devices which ensure not merely their competitiveness with rival superstates, but also their autonomy from the commercial and military pressure that those same states can exert.
Whether one sees the limits of hegemony at the end of national borders or in the larger sense of traditional allies and cultural kin (such as the UK), a splintered US is a world with many new vulnerabilities in general–but particularly for those polities which were once part of the US. For instance, be assured that, in a scenario where separated states might attempt a limited recentralization, any rivals who hope to enjoy greater “freedom of action” in the absence of a US superstate will resist and confound, however they may, any corrective reversion toward closer ties, let alone a reformation of the nation.
And besides, if we are willing to dissolve our bonds of confederation over local inequities and partisan pendulum swings, it seems likely that such rival superstates will always be able to find enough willing collaborators whose cooperation may be purchased in exchange for a boost to their regional interests. Red state vs Blue state, city versus country, cosmopolitan versus fly-over, and all special interest groups versus all other special interest groups: in general, it has ever been thus in this nation. But two things seem to have changed. One change is structural: the increasing centralization of power. And this too has been an ongoing struggle and balancing act for our nation. It may be that we have veered too far away from the center at this moment, or it may be that these are disorienting and dislocating times for many groups in our nation, and that the pace of change and the centralization of power together cause proportionally greater trepidation… which manifests in some as a cautious withdrawal from the common cause and objective of healthy nationhood.
But I suspect that the greater force undermining the union of American States is the decline and even decay of civitas as displaced by sheer materialism and self-interest. When our media holds up self-aggrandizing sports figures and self-absorbed celebrities as the heroes and models for our youth, then we have reason to question what kind of citizens we are mentoring. And also what kind of citizens we ourselves have become in tolerating it. Lest a reader fear that I am about to invoke the tired rhetorics of an out of touch moralist who is more suited to telling kids to get off of his lawn, allow me to make clear that I am not espousing any particular set of morals or cultural shibboleths.I only suggest this: that we may be living in an age of unfettered electronic breads and circuses– which could be the unintended handmaidens to our national undoing. The Cult of Me has never been so strong. Small wonder that the value of We–particularly We The People–has become so weak that many Americans are willing (almost casually so) to undo the bonds that have made us–*together*–the pivotal nation and social experiment of the modern epoch.
If such considerations extend to traditional partners and cultural relatives in places such as the UK, well, obviously, that is ever and only for them to decide. But if their interests at all align with ours in this contentious world, then perhaps they will find some modest food for thought in these lines, as well.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0HE19U20140919?irpc=932
Dr. Charles E. Gannon’s Nebula-nominated best-seller, Fire With Fire, won the 2014 Compton Crook Award. It’s August 2014 sequel, Trial By Fire, launched (with a starred review in PW) as an immediate best-seller, as was Gannon’s June 2014 collaboration with Eric Flint, 1636: Commander Cantrell in the West Indies. Their 1635: The Papal Stakes, was a Wall Street Journal Best Seller. Gannon also collaborates in the NYT best-selling Starfire series and has been published (mostly novellas) in various shared universes and anthologies (Honorverse, Man-Kzin, War-World, Going Interstellar) and magazines such as Analog.
Although no longer in the classroom, Gannon remains a Distinguished Professor of English (SBU), was a Fulbright Senior Specialist (2004-2009), is a member of the sf think-tank SIGMA (advises DoD, NASA, NRO, others), has been featured on The Discovery Channel and NPR, and won the 2006 American Library Association Choice Award for Rumors of War and Infernal Machines.
Mad Genius Club 
16 responses to “Breads, Circuses, and Separatists -by Chuck Gannon”
An interesting analysis, refreshingly well written; well done, Mr Gannon!
Perhaps you have not considered the role played by the Constitution itself; our seminal document was designed to limit the power of that central government you allude to, and it has proved to be unsuitable for the greater purpose of shaping a nation with world responsibilities.
You speak of fracturing; I suggest that the best we can hope for short of that is a relatively-peaceful restructuring, beginning with reforming the Constitution, but this time also addressing how Congress does the nation’s business. Leaving that body to make its own rules, with control vested in partisans who gain such based largely on longevity, is foolish. Should we be surprised that those who come to power in such circumstances are too often the products of small geographic regions, adept at manipulating the people of those places, but poorly suited to address interests nationwide in scope?
I doubt that peaceful restructuring will happen.
The problems are severe, and growing. I don’t have an answer.
Before the nation cracks apart, I think we’ll see bloody revolution, followed by piecemeal takeover of the shards by whichever nation wants the remnants.
Assuming, of course, that there are nations left.
Current trends, if continued, may leave us with a world that will no longer support human life, possibly even life at all above the single-cell level of complexity.
I am familiar with the Scottish referendum only at the headline level, but one benefit of the vote appears to be that the UK plans to take Scotland’s demands and issues more seriously. It is entirely possible, even likely, that I am not reading this right, but it looks like Cameron offered enhanced powers to the Scottish Parliament and there is now talk of greater independence for Ireland et al. Sometime you have to get another job offer for your current employer to offer you a raise.
Completely off topic but of possible interest to folks here, indieauthorland does a weekly “best of” vote, and this week’s is “What’s the best indie book you’ve read recently?” They’ve had different genres for the last few weeks, and send their subscribers a list of the ones that have received the top 5 votes. James Young, who was profiled here, had an interview and a promotion there a couple of months back, so any of his fans might want to nominate him. I am under the impression it doesn’t take a lot of votes to place.
I just nominated Superintendent by Jeremiah Wolfe, which I wanted to recommend here, too, because I was tremendously excited by the story. It’s the story of a customs cop sent to a colony (in the British imperialism sense of the word) planet where the original settlers devolved back to the bronze age after humanity’s interstellar wars cut the core worlds off from their far-flung possessions. The hero faces culture clashes between the inhabitants and the questionable moral authority of his own people, brush wars and an ancient secret. It’s just excellent. It made me want to go back and re-read John Masters’ Nightrunners of Bengal, or maybe the Patrick O’Brian books.
(Ignore the reviewer who said the second half of the book is sociology. It’s only about an 8% epilogue.)
I’m not so sure we’re going to be allowed to break up, or indeed, even rebel. On the surface that comment may seem dumb, but we live in a world of super-surveillance.
There was an article in the Seattle Times this week about a man that had been convicted of having child porn on his computer and distributing it. He was caught by Naval surveillance of all things. Some naval investigator in the south followed a trail to a computer in Algona, WA, and discovered the porn on the computer. He checked, and discovered the man was not active military. Still, he forwarded his findings to DC. The Pentagon sent the info to local authorities, and shortly the man was arrested, and convicted. It seems like the 9th Circuit has decided the Navy has gone above and beyond in a bad way, so it looks like the conviction is about to be overturned.
Today’s surveillance capabilities make 1984 look like child’s play. Want to organize things? Your telephone, email, twitter, and nearly every other way of communicating can be tapped and compromised without leaving a trace.
Excellent points raised by the article. I would respond that I hope to see the Union preserved but the Federal government scale back to what I believe are its Constitutional bounds. That is abolishing or scaling back most agencies, and devolution of government to state and local levels. That is not to say the US walks off the international stage, it can’t. However, I would like to see a bit more walk softly and carry a big stick and less posturing with no follow through.
Several of teh groups watching the Scottish Vote included the Catalonians, basques, and Hungarians in Romania. According to the Hungarians I spoke to, the minorities wanted the Scots to win so that they could use the results to at the very least leverage better treatment (respect for language and history) to increased local autonomy, to mandatory minimum representation (and benefits) within the larger country’s government, to full independence. The English I spoke with, even if they sympathized with the Scots, thought the Scots had not thought things through (EU membership, passports, currency, insurance, and so on).
I’d posit that if one added the question of “Should the states be allowed to eject one of the fifty states, territories, or enclaves?” the “yes” votes would be higher. How many people joke about California falling into the sea, or floating Manhattan Island into the Atlantic, or cutting through the crust at the Beltway and waving D.C. goodby? Or getting rid of Texas and the pesky, recidivist Southern states?
But it’s also very, very true that if the US doesn’t find a way to hang together, the odds suggest that the smallest enclaves and bits will be hung separately; then the larger, and larger bits.
From a cold-blooded observer’s point of view, the break up of the US would be a fascinating study in the survival of the fittest part of social evolution.
I could see California, for instance, breaking up into several separate regions over water rights and usage. I could see Texas getting into a war with Mexico and annexing large chunks of it. The locations of large electrical generation plants and negotiations with neighboring states to transmit power through them to the purchasers, would be interesting.
Fortunately I don’t think I’ll ever see the start of this. I surely wouldn’t see the end of it.
I don’t see Texas annexing much of Mexico. The economic drag would be too great. I do see potential for annexing/ working with Oklahoma and New Mexico east of the Rio Grande. The cultures are similar in some ways (especially eastern NM) and the Rio Grande would make a logical watershed border and defensive line, with a hard border and serious immigration blocks. A neutral free-trade area along the border on the Mexican side makes more sense, and after a few generations perhaps annexation with re-creation of the neutral zone farther into what remains of Mexico. *shrug* That’s assuming we can get a large enough population of economically and culturally Anglo former-Mexicans.
The Cult of Me has never been so strong. Small wonder that the value of We–particularly We The People–has become so weak that many Americans are willing (almost casually so) to undo the bonds that have made us–*together*–the pivotal nation and social experiment of the modern epoch.
You have forgotten the divisive power of multiculturalism. We used to mean Americans. Now it is always some Hyphenate. America no longer promotes individual freedom. We only see one group trying to get power over another. And (I know I’m whining) the only group that is always demonized is what used to be the bedrock of society, white protestant males.
The America of “We the People” was an amalgam of individuals sharing the American culture. Can we retrieve that culture from the dustbin of history?
As for how vulnerable an out and out fragmentation of the U.S. would make us before our rivals: if we’d stuck with the Articles of Confederation I’m fairly convinced that the War of 1812 would have ended with the Colonies being returned to the British fold — and under the AoC, the U.S. wasn’t nearly as fragmented as it would be if we out-and-out Balkanized.
thanks for all the commentary and observations thus far. I will add only one thing, which is that I tend not to have overlooked things so much as I remained conscious of how limited the space is and how very quickly an interesting topic can become tiresome if it is explored in all of its many details. I certainly do not debate the many facets that you folks have so insightfully raised, but there is a virtue to brevity as well, & I would have been unvirtuous to have included all the details!
1 small addendum to go along with the essay. There is almost no social or political metric or value that is not useful to the Republic. The question is one of balance, adjusted by the immediate needs of the society. Unfortunately, when self interest allies itself to any one of these metrics or values, they tend to be over applied and can wind up producing almost as much derangement as they do productive change. when it comes to the ship of state, each touch to the tiller should be studied carefully, no matter how many times that touch has been productive before. Everything has limits, and the time that you exceed a limit will not necessarily trigger any warning. thanks to everyone for their enthusiastic interest!
“Hmm, what line to use? That’s too political for here, that too, don’t have an excuse for that…”
At least one case for Scottish independence I haven’t seen anywhere. Historically, the Border Wars worked to the benefit the of United States. Since circumstances never change, they would be just as good now if they were restarted. 🙂
I think any matter so irreconcilable as to cause a fragmentation of the USA would be enough to start the normal sort of endemic bloodshed.
Not that it matters — the Separatists are a Minority; and in any democracy, minorities learn real quick “the only way to achieve the change you want is through violence, not democracy” (to that end: Democracy only exists to justify the actions of the Majority).
So I’m not going to concern myself with any secession movement anywhere, until one of them starts figuring out to bomb the grocery story supply warehouses — when Joe Average misses three meals in a row, *then* the revolution starts, and not one second sooner.
“Democracy only exists to justify the actions of the Majority”
Jack Vance (Throy, I think):
“Is democracy impractical? Is this what you are saying?”
Glawen said: “As I recall, Baron Bodissey had something to say on the subject.”
“Oh? Was he pro or con?”
“Neither. He pointed out that democracy could function only in a relatively homogeneous society of equivalent individuals. He described a district dedicated to democracy where the citizenry consisted of two hundred wolves and nine hundred squirrels. When zoning ordinances and public health laws were put into effect, the wolves were obliged to live in trees and eat nuts.”
It is worth noting that the main obstacle to stopping the flood of illegal immigrants that threatens the long-term stability of America is the Federal government, which invariably blocks any serious attempts by the states to do so, no matter which political party controls the White House. Any government that does not control the borders fails the most basic test of legitimacy.
I’d agree that breakup of the United States, even into something still loosely associated on the order of today’s European Union, would most likely Not End Well.
At the same time, much of the support for succession is a direct reaction to the ever-increasing centralization of government control. Despite having conclusively become “This United States” rather than “These United States”, the balance of power, and the degree of local rather than federal control of day-to-day life was vastly different circa 1914 than today. Some of the changes since were arguably both inevitable and beneficial. Many, perhaps most, were not. And along the way we seem to have eliminated the idea that it’s OK for different people to do things differently, as long as they accord us the same privilege.
I’d argue that the one change that pushed us fastest onto the current course was the direct election of Senators (17th Amendment), which converted Senators from the direct representative of the interests of the state which sent them into Representatives with longer tenure and more individual power. And, most notably, no interest in championing state rights at the expense of the federal power they controlled. Repealing the 17th and returning selection of Senators to the individual states would be a good, though small, step to return to local autonomy.
Federalism isn’t a panacea – people *will*, at least some of the time, take short-sighted, mean-spirited, and selfish actions. But the one advantage is that in a federal system not every state will make the *same* short-sighted, mean-spirited, and selfish mistakes – and some might, through good fortune or good statesmanship even make better choices. You don’t like New York or New Jersey? Maybe Vermont, or Texas, or Oregon does things the way you’d prefer – and you’re always welcome to move there. Texas or Oklahoma doesn’t have the social welfare programs you deem essential? Move to California!
Fragmentation and succession movements are a natural reaction to centralization of power. Rather than fragmenting, or doubling down on centralization, I’d like to see what happens when we consciously try return stronger representation of local interests at the federal level.