The Green Alps State
September 24, 2006 on 11:07 pm | In Main, Regional |
Note: This is the second in a series on states that have harebrained ideas. For the first, click here. [photo of Newport and Lake Memphremagog courtesy vermontvacations.com]
There is a very amusing piece in today’s Los Angeles Times about a movement in Vermont — albeit a small one — to secede from the Union. A group calling itself the Second Vermont Republic wants the Green Mountain State to split from the U S. and become a neutral and self-sustaining nation much like Switzerland.
Members of the group worry, according to the Times, “about global warming, the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, unfair trade practices, and the ‘tyranny of multinational corporations.’”
Of course, secession is a pipe dream, as even many of it advocates admit. But it raises some very interesting questions about one of the most interesting states in the nation.
As an undergraduate in nearby Quebec, I spent a lot of time in Vermont in the mid 70s to early 80s. I drove through it often on the way back and forth from my home in the Boston area. My girlfriend’s family had a place in Townshend, Vt. And the family of one of my best college friends from Montreal had a summer place in Highgate Springs. When we stayed there it gave us the opportunity to experience Burlington. What a fun and funky place …
My affection for the Green Mountain State prevents me from poking too much fun at it as a place of Birkenstock-wearing, goat-milk sipping lefties. To be sure, there are a lot of transplants from Boston and New York who moved to the land of Ben & Jerry’s to escape their frenzied lives and get back to the earth.
But drive around the backroads of the most rural state in the nation and you will see a lot of pick-up trucks with gun racks, NRA stickers and Dale Earnhardt “number 8″ decals. For every tree-hugger at Brattleboro’s Experiment in International Living, there is a food service worker at Killington listening to Rush Limbaugh on WSYB in Rutland. Now that’s what I call diversity!
But this idea of secession is so looney that it could only come from a state that boasts of “socially responsible companies” like Ben & Jerry’s and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, which has an entire section of its website devoted to “Social and Environmental Responsibility.”
It might surprise supporters of secession, such as economics professor Thomas Naylor, that Switzerland isn’t quite the socialist Utopia that he envisions. Among other things, the land of perpetual neutrality features not only great watches but relies on nuclear power for 40 percent of its electricity. There is compulsory military service and there are guns … lots of them.
There are few restrictions on purchasing firearms. Target shooting is among the most popular sports. In a nation of 6 million people, there are an estimated 2 million firearms. And guess what? Crime is so low that it’s scarcely worth keeping statistics. A liberal’s enigma.
Then it occurred to me that Vermont couldn’t remain neutral because, unlike Switzerland, it could not possibly be self sustaining — not in its current location, anyway. Like Switzerland, Vermont cannot produce fruits, vegetables or grains during the long winter and as far as I know there is not an oil well to be found. But the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vernon supplies 73 percent of the state’s electricity generating capacity. What would become of the nuke plant if people like Prof. Naylor ran the new republic?
Suffice it to say that nations that rely on their neighbors for sustenance have a tough time staying neutral, especially when they are sandwiched between the most powerful nation on earth (the U.S.) and its principal trading partner (Canada). It is interesting that the writer of the LA Times piece neglected to mention neighboring Quebec, where referendums on sovereignty were rejected twice in 15 years, mostly on economic grounds, if memory serves.
And if you’re tired of the “tyranny of multinational corporations,” try making a go of it with only small locally-owned businesses and see your cost of living skyrocket without the economy of scale the corporations offer. According to polls, only about 6 percent of Vermonters support secession, but even that modest number illustrates how clueless the far left is about economic issues.
And of course, the far right is equally dopey about legislating private morality (making divorce more difficult; clinging to blue laws; banning flag burning; getting tough on pornography), but that is a subject for another post — and a lengthy one at that …
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
Switzerland Fun Fact… It has a larger Army than the United States of America. Peace through strength, baby!
Can’t wait for your post on why no fault divorce had nothing to do with the exploding divorce rate in the 1970’s (or what percentage of divorces studies show would be avoided if there was a mandatory three month “cooling off” period). But hey, I know you were just looking for anti-right things to balance the anti-left stuff and maintain your centrist cred. Can’t fool me, though.
Comment by Jake — September 25, 2006 #
Social engineering from the right …
Comment by Terry — September 25, 2006 #
I’m moving to Vermont. Connecticut sucks!
Comment by bill h — September 25, 2006 #
Lets take over Cuba. then make it the 51 state. then have the mafia bankroll us, and then, succede from the union….
Life will be wonderful and warm!
Marshall
Comment by Marshall Miles — September 25, 2006 #
Re “tyranny of multinational corporations.” The issue of multinational corporations, from my leftist point of view, is not whether to have them, but how to regulate them. Most economists say that they are not regulated enough.
Re Switzerland and guns. There’s no liberal’s enigma here. There are lots of guns and they are all registered. I know of no prominent liberals who want to take guns away from law abiding citizens. The big difference between the the left and the right is in registration. We lefties are for it and the loony right is not.
Re “socially responsible companies.” Are you for the idea or against it? Socially irresponsible companies will require more regulation.
Re nuclear power. Does Prof Naylor suggest eliminating it with no alternative proposal? Some on the left favor nuclear power. Do you know where Prof Naylor stands?
Nothing in the article “illustrates how clueless the far left is about economic issues.”
Comment by Tom Cowgill — September 26, 2006 #
If I were living under “tyranny,” I would want to be delivered from it. And that would include eliminating it at its source.
So the dream of the Vermont secessionsists is to have a country with a large standing army, compulsory military service and a ratio of one gun for every three people, so long as the guns are all registered? Perhaps, but it sounds like a stretch. The point is we have lots of guns, many of them registered guns used to commit crimes, and we have a high crime rate nonetheless. That’s the enigma for the anti-gun crowd.
I’m not sure I know what a “socially responsible company” is. Sounds highly subjective to me. I think companies and individuals should be compelled to obey the law.
Re: Nukes. I merely raised the question as to what the professor would do. He is free to answer it. What if the plant at Vernon is owned by a “socially irresponsible tyrannical multi-national corporation?”
It’s the entire notion of Vermont secession itself that illustrates “how clueless the far left is about economic issues.†Next door in Quebec, the sovereignty issue was initially driven by the leftist PQ government. Thankfully, sanity prevailed on two occasions.
Comment by Terry — September 26, 2006 #
Modest suggestion: Discuss issues. Forgo the mudslinging, labeling, and categorical thinking. You could actually talk about “What’s Going On Here?” instead of “Who’s Good for Roasting Today?” It is you who has professed, so I believe, to dislike uncivil discourse in politics, and your blog is becoming a perfect example of it. It’s beyond my means to engage in these battles anymore because there’s so much detritus and close-mindedness.
Here, let me start: Nuclear Power–Our Energy Future or False Salvation?
Discuss.
–Fred–
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — September 26, 2006 #
Fred,
You need to lighten up a little and have some fun. Public discourse need not always be a sober-minded, examination of public policy with few labels (or readers). If that’s what you want, go to the Brookings Institution website. I don’t throw mud but discuss issues in a lively way. Apparently you find both my means and conclusions to be disagreeable. Sorry they’re not to your liking.
Comment by Terry — September 26, 2006 #
Re: “tyranny”. Methinks you are being a bit too literal here - a literary allusion perhaps?
Re: gun registration. You’re going to extremes again. No one proposes that registration will stop crime, just that it will help. Do you support less registration?
Re: “socially responsible company”. You brought up the phrase. I cannot tell you what it means to you. I agree that “companies and individuals should be compelled to obey the law”. The only question is what the laws should be. The ones who do not believe in obeying the law are mostly on the right.
Re: nukes. You say “I merely raised the question as to what the professor would do. He is free to answer it.” What is the purpose of this question? Do you expect that he reads your blog. “What if the plant at Vernon is owned by a “socially irresponsible tyrannical multi-national corporation?†That’s just being a smart-aleck.
Re: Vermont secession. You say “But this idea of secession is so looney that it could only come from a state” like Vermont - not true. This premise of your article is false. There have been several movements for secession in the west by the right. The most serious movement for secession was from the Confederacy, not lefties.
The purpose of the article seems to be to tar the left. Saying “It’s the entire notion of Vermont secession itself that illustrates “how clueless the far left is about economic issues.†is mudslinging because it lacks even cursory analysis. Since the right also contains secessionists, they must be clueless, too. That only leaves the middle. Oh, but that’s you.
Comment by Tom Cowgill — September 26, 2006 #
The right is clueless about lots of things, as I noted in the post. Funny, but you and Fred don’t object to my purported lack of analysis when I “tar” the right (or the corporate spies at Hewlett Packard) as clueless or dopey.
And yes, the professor might very well read my blog. Check out Technorati, the blog search engine where John Fund found me. People involved in the public arena use it (and others like it) all the time to see who’s writing about them.
BTW I am a “hybrid who tilts Libertarian” — not a centrist. I have abandoned that label in favor of a longer more accurate one (sorry, Fred). I don’t really claim to have moderate positions, but those positions do get me in trouble with both the left and the right.
Blogs are full of snappy opinion. They are typically written to educate, motivate and entertain. You can get mainstream analysis on any op-ed page.
P.S. The far right is also clueless about economics. In my travels through the red states, I’ve found that a lot of them don’t even care about the economy so long as they can pay their bills, religion isn’t banished from the public arena and no one gets an abortion.
Comment by Terry — September 26, 2006 #
Dear Terry,
I’m not such a humorless guy. Heck, one of my first articles for Compass poked fun at wine writing. Of course, I’m sure I offended some people. After all, one of my quips had to do with the St. Lawrence cement plant, which at the time was quite a hot issue. But as you must know, that’s in the nature of most humor: it usually has a target. I laugh uproariously most nights at Jon Stewart. Perhaps you don’t. The wheel turns.
So sure, I can take a joke. You can poke fun at those silly secessionists in their Bierkenstocks [sp?]. I’ll even allow that their idea is, practically speaking, absurd. It’s about as likely to happen as an alien invasion.
The truth is, sadly, that I’ve reached blog burnout. It’s not just that I have too many work and personal projects at the moment, which I do. It’s not that your writing isn’t smart and entertaining, because it is. It’s not that I don’t appreciate your willingness to take thoughtful and original positions on issues rather than just hewing to some party line, because I do.
And it’s not, in the main, because I “disagree” with a lot of your positions. In fact, that’s probably what drew me to jump into the fray in the first place. I like a good row now and then, and we’ve had some doozies. I took the bait. I suppose, in my conceited way, I saw an opportunity to put some balance into the things you are broadcasting and maybe steer you away from some of your more extreme positions along the way.
The bottom line is, I’m taking my toys from the sandbox and going home. I think you’re playing mean and dirty, now. It’s all about name-calling and labeling. People are anti-this or anti-that, right or wrong about the “economy,” yadda yadda. Just because it comes somewhere from the putative “middle” doesn’t make it any better.
You bundle up a tangled mess of assumptions, spoken and unspoken, and them serve them up as gourmet brain food. Yuck. And that’s the other problem. Untangling this dish would take me for-friggin’-ever. There’s just not enough time in a day. Even if I try, I suspect that it would be hopeless, like a dish of spaghetti (to continue the metaphor). If I pulled on one strand, you’d just tug on a different one.
I take some consolation from knowing that I’m not alone. Tom Cowgill (who is he, anyway — your brother?!) seems to be making a valiant effort to take up the banner, but I fear he’s doomed to fail and give up, like me. I think he’s dead on when he says your thing about the “left” and the “economy” lacks even cursory analysis. To that I would only add, where does one even begin to refute that, when you have defined the debate in such sweeping–and ultimately meaningless–terms?
Poor Tom. How long will he persist?
As for me, I’ve spent a lifetime dealing with this kind of thing, so I suppose I could be accused of having a certain lack of patience with it. My father and brothers all are wonderfully adept at verbal ju-jitsu, using political argument as a pretext for skewering others.
Well, that’s my last word for now, though I can’t promise I won’t poke my head in from time to time. I’ll see you around.
Your commie-pinko-tree-hugging-radical-pacifist-socialist-big-government-loving-corporate-hating-global-warming-screaming-leftist-Naderite-couch-potato-activist-endangered-species-lovin’-tax-the-rich-oswald-didn’t-act-alone-very-sleepy friend,
–Fred–
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — September 26, 2006 #
Fred,
Tom is my father. He keeps me honest and so have you (and so did Rick, but where is he now?). Thanks for your contributions to my blog.
P.S. I like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert very much.
Comment by Terry — September 26, 2006 #