by Paul Starobin - Jul. 3, 2010 06:07 PM
The Arizona Republic
Remember that classic Beatles riff of the 1960s: "You say you want a revolution?" Imagine this instead: a devolution. Picture an America that is run not, as now, by a top-heavy Washington autocracy but, in freewheeling style, by an assemblage of largely autonomous regional republics reflecting the eclectic economic and cultural character of the society.
There might be an austere Republic of New England, with a natural strength in higher education and technology; a Caribbean-flavored city-state Republic of Greater Miami, with an anchor in the Latin American economy; and maybe even a Republic of Las Vegas, with unfettered license to pursue its ambitions as a global gambling, entertainment and conventioneer destination.
California? America's broke, ill-governed and way-too-big nationlike state might be saved, truly saved, not by an emergency federal bailout but by a merciful carve-up into a trio of republics that would rely on their own ingenuity in making their connections to the wider world.
Arizona? Its resolute determination to chart its own course on immigration policy - a matter usually left to Washington - suggests a rebellious streak that could serve it well in a new life as an independent Republic or as part of a Southwest federation with neighbors Utah, Colorado and New Mexico.
And while we're at it, let's make this project binational - economic logic suggests a natural multilingual combination between greater San Diego and Mexico's Baja California Norte, and, to the Pacific north, between Seattle and Vancouver in a megaregion already dubbed "Cascadia" by economic cartographers.
Devolved America is a vision faithful both to certain postindustrial realities as well as to the pluralistic heart of the American political tradition - a tradition that has been betrayed by the creeping centralization of power in Washington over the decades but may yet reassert itself as an animating spirit for the future.
Consider this proposition: America of the 21st century, propelled by currents of modernity that tend to favor the little over the big, may trace a long circle back to the original small-government ideas of the American experiment. The present-day American Goliath may turn out to be a freak of a waning age of politics and economics as conducted on a supersize scale - too large to make any rational sense in an emerging age of personal empowerment that harks back to the era of the yeoman farmer of America's early days. The society may find blessed new life, as paradoxical as this may sound, in a return to a smaller form.
This perspective may seem especially fanciful at a time when the political tides all seem to be running in the opposite direction. In the midst of economic troubles, an aggrandizing Washington is gathering even more power in its hands. Not surprisingly, a lot of folks in the land of Thomas Jefferson are taking a stand against an approach that stands to make an indebted citizenry yet more dependent on an already immense federal power. The backlash, already under way, is a prime stimulus for a neo-secessionist movement, the most extreme manifestation of a broader push for some form of devolution.
Cries for secession
In April 2009, at an anti-tax "tea party" held in Austin, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas saw his speech interrupted by cries of "secede!" The governor did not sound inclined to disagree.
"Texas is a unique place," he later told reporters attending the rally. "When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that." The Texas Nationalist Movement claims that over 250,000 Texans have signed a form affirming the organization's goal of a Texas nation.
Secessionist feelings also percolate in Alaska, where Todd Palin, husband of former Gov. Sarah Palin, was once a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party. But it is not as if the right has a lock on this issue: Vermont, the seat of one of the most vibrant secessionist movements, is among the country's most politically liberal places. Vermonters are especially upset about imperial America's foreign excursions in hazardous places like Iraq.
The philosophical tie that binds these otherwise odd bedfellows is belief in the birthright of Americans to run their own affairs, free from centralized control. Their hallowed parchment is Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, on behalf of the original 13 British Colonies, penned in 1776, 11 years before the framers of the Constitution gathered for their convention in Philadelphia.
"The right of secession precedes the Constitution - the United States was born out of secession," Daniel Miller, leader of the Texas Nationalist Movement, told me. Take that, King Obama.
Today's devolutionists, of all stripes, can trace their pedigree to the "anti-federalists" who opposed the compact that came out of Philadelphia as a bad bargain that gave too much power to the center at the expense of the limbs. Some of America's most vigorous and learned minds were in the anti-federalist camp; their ranks included Virginia's Patrick Henry, of "give me liberty or give me death" renown. The sainted Jefferson, who was serving as a diplomat in Paris during the convention, is these days claimed by secessionists as a kindred anti-federal spirit, even if he did go on to serve two terms as president.
The anti-federalists lost their battle, but history, in certain respects, has redeemed their vision, for they anticipated how many Americans have come to feel about their nation's seat of federal power.
"This city, and the government of it, must indubitably take their tone from the character of the men, who from the nature of its situation and institution, must collect there," the anti-federalist pamphleteer known only as the Federal Farmer wrote. "If we expect it will have any sincere attachments to simple and frugal republicanism, to that liberty and mild government, which is dear to the laborious part of a free people, we most assuredly deceive ourselves."
In the mid-19th century, the anti-federalist impulse took a dark turn, attaching itself to the cause of the Confederacy, which was formed by the unilateral secession of 11 Southern states over the bloody issue of slavery. Abraham Lincoln had no choice but to go to war to preserve the Union - and ever since, anti-federalism, in almost any guise, has had to defend itself from the charge of being anti-modern and, indeed, retrograde.
Turning from the big
But nearly a century and a half has passed since Johnny Rebel whooped for the last time. Slavery is dead, and so too is the large-scale industrial economy that the Yankees embraced as their path to victory over the South and to global prosperity. The model lasted a long time, to be sure, surviving all the way through the New Deal and the first several decades of the post-World War II era, coming a cropper at the tail end of the 1960s, just as the economist John Kenneth Galbraith was holding out "The New Industrial State," the master-planned economy, as a seemingly permanent condition of modern life.
Not quite. In a globalized economy transformed by technological innovations hatched by happily unguided entrepreneurs, history seems to be driving one nail after another into the coffin of the big, which is why the Obama planners and their ilk, even if they now ride high, may be doomed to fail. No one anymore expects the best ideas to come from the biggest actors in the economy, so should anyone expect the best thinking to be done by the whales of the political world?
A notable prophet for a coming age of smallness was the diplomat and historian George Kennan, a steward of the American Century with an uncanny ability to see past the seemingly frozen geopolitical arrangements of the day. Kennan always believed that Soviet power would "run its course," as he predicted back in 1951, just as the Cold War was getting under way, and again shortly after the Soviet Union collapsed, he suggested that a similar fate might await the United States.
America has become a "monster country," afflicted by a swollen bureaucracy and "the hubris of inordinate size," Kennan wrote in his 1993 book, "Around the Cragged Hill: A Personal and Political Philosophy." Things might work better, he suggested, if the nation was "decentralized into something like a dozen constituent republics, absorbing not only the powers of the existing states but a considerable part of those of the present federal establishment."
Kennan's genius was to foresee that matters might take on an organic, a bottom-up, life of their own, especially in a society as dynamic and as creative as America. His spirit, the spirit of an anti-federalist modernist, can be glimpsed in an intriguing "megaregion" initiative encompassing greater San Diego County, next-door Imperial County and, to the immediate south of the U.S. border, Baja California Norte.
Elected officials representing all three participating areas recently unveiled "Cali Baja, a Bi-National Mega-Region," as the "international marketing brand" for the project. The idea is to create a global economic powerhouse by combining San Diego's proven abilities in scientific research and development with Imperial County's abundance of inexpensive land and availability of water rights and Baja Norte's manufacturing base, low labor costs and ability to supply the San Diego area with electricity during peak-use terms. Bilingualism, too, is a key-with the aim for all children on both sides of the border to be fluent in both English and Spanish.
The project director is Christina Luhn, a Kansas native, historian and former staffer on the National Security Council in Ronald Reagan's White House in the mid-1980s. Contemporary America as a unit of governance may be too big - even the perpetually troubled state of California may be too big, she told me, by way of saying that the political and economic future may belong to the megaregions of the planet. Her conviction is that large systems tend not to endure, "they break apart, there's chaos, and at some point, new things form," she said.
A romantic flavor
The notion that small is better and even inevitable no doubt has some flavor of romance - even amounting to a kind of modern secular faith, girded by a raft of multidisciplinary literature that may or may not be relevant. Luhn takes her philosophical cue not only from Kennan but also from the science writer and physicist M. Mitchell Waldrop, author of "Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos."
Even for the hard-edged secessionist crowd, with their rapt attentiveness to America's roots, popular texts in the future-trend genre mingle in their minds with the yellowed scrolls of the anti-federalists.
"The cornerstone of my thought," Daniel Miller of the Texas Nationalist Movement told me, is John Naisbitt's 1995 best seller, "Global Paradox," which celebrates the entrepreneurial ethos in positing that "the bigger the world economy, the more powerful its smallest players."
More convincingly, the proposition that small trumps big is passing tests in real-life political and economic laboratories. For example, the U.S. ranked eighth in a survey of global-innovation leadership released in March 2009 by the Boston Consulting Group and the National Association of Manufacturers - with the top rankings dominated by small countries led by the city-state republic of Singapore. The Thunderbird School of Global Management, based in Glendale, has called Singapore "the most future-oriented country in the world." Historians can point to the spectacularly inventive city-states of Renaissance Italy as an example of the small truly making the beautiful.
How, though, to get from big to small? Secessionists such as Texas' Miller pledge a commitment to peaceful methods. History suggests skepticism on this score: Even the American republic was born in a violent revolution. These days, Russian professor Igor Panarin, a former KGB analyst, has snagged publicity with his dystopian prediction of civil strife in a dismembered America whose jagged parts fall prey to foreign powers including Canada, Mexico and, in the case of Alaska, Russia, naturally.
Still, the precedent for any breakup of today's America is not necessarily the one set by the musket-bearing colonists' demanded departure from the British crown in the late 18th century or by the crisis-ridden dissolution of the U.S.S.R. at the end of the 20th century. Every empire, every too-big thing, fragments or shrinks according to its own unique character and to the age of history to which it belongs.
The most hopeful prospect for the U.S., should the decentralization impulse prove irresistible, is for Americans to draw on their natural inventiveness and democratic tradition by patenting a formula for getting the job done in a gradual and cooperative way. In so doing, geopolitical history, and perhaps even a path for others, might be made, for the problem of bigness vexes political leviathans everywhere.
In India, with its 1.2 billion people, there is an active discussion of whether things might work better if the nation-state was chopped up into 10 or so large city-states with broad writs of autonomy from New Delhi. Devolution may likewise be the future for the European continent - think Catalonia - and for the British Isles. Scotland, a leading source of Enlightenment ideas for America's Founding Fathers, now has its own flourishing independence movement. Even China, held together by an aging autocracy, may not be able to resist the drift towards the smaller.
So, why not America as the global leader of a devolution? America's return to its origins - to its type - could turn out to be an act of creative political destruction, with "we the people" the better for it.
Paul Starobin is the author of the newly published "Five Roads to the Future: Power in the Next Global Age" (Penguin) and a staff correspondent for the National Journal and a contributing editor to the Atlantic.