Wojtek writes:
> but you do not dispute that the Federal Entity in Washington (FEW) acquire a decidedly imperialist bend as result of the Civil War.
I think it always had an imperialist bent that was set in stone by the Spanish-American War.
> The bottom line is that FEW is an imperialist entity today, even if it came to that position via different route than my analogy suggested. So the real issue is not "how come" but "what is to be done about it."
FEW is imperialistic, but the "how" is just as important as the "what is to be done." I think you will get more people to oppose the FEW's imperialistic tendencies if you give them the "how" as well as the danger side.
> The idea of a "community of interest", be it libertarian, progressive, or for that matter fundamentalist Christian, taking over state governments and insulating it from the power of the FEW makes sense for at least three reasons.
It might make sense, but it would take a very homogeneous state population to achieve this. New Hampshire being 98.6% white makes the libertarians' goals much easier. Libertarians want to free themselves of the obligation of providing safeguards that promote and ensure pluralism. They are interestred in "communities of self-interest."
> The same thing may work for the progressives, if they concentrate their efforts on a few progressive leaning states (Vermont? Massachusetts? Maryland? New York? Pennsylvania? California? Washington?).
As far as New York is concerned, I think it is too large and too diverse for such a concentrated push. The urban parts of the state are always in tension the more rural parts. A small state like New Hampshire has a much better chance.
> Second, the "state autonomy" movement can bridge ideological divides and attract support of various political orientations. Thus, fundamentalist Christians will fiercely oppose any progressive or libertarian reform at the federal level, but may support a progressive or libertarian effort to gain control and autonomy for individual states, if they see it as a chance of gaining control and autonomy in "their" states. Sort of mutual back scratching, but it may work.
I think fundamentalist Christians will fiercely oppose progressive/libertarian efforts at any level. Fundies want a theocracy and will settle for nothing less. They are in it for the long haul.
> Third, if several different interest groups launch the state autonomy movement in several different states, this will substantially decrease the FEW's capacity to ideologically pigeon hole the movement and squash it.
I think only small states like New Hampshire and Vermont will be able to point to any success. In large states like New York or California the movement will fail to get traction. Such a takeover will be seen as the eccentric behavior of a couple of New England states (which are seen as out of step already).
Also, minorities have a better chance to secure their rights under the present system. Imagine African-Americans or queers having to wage 50 battles to secure equal rights. At least with the "full faith and credit" clause and federal legistlation there is a hope for equality.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister