Rush Limbaugh and Secession

Rush Limbaugh spent his entire career praising Lincoln and decrying secession. But he has recently caused a stir by revisiting the issue. And he says that he doesn't advocate it now. However, he is not backpeddling on this statement: “There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs."

So where do we go from here?

Sometimes things don't work out, and you simply have to peacefully dissolve the arrangement. This is preferable to shooting your way out. Rush Limbaugh, of all people, should get this, having been divorced four times.

Divorce is tragic, and should be avoided at all costs: except the cost of violence. It is better to peacefully settle up one's affairs and separate rather than for one spouse to compel the other to remain "married" by brute force. Such a marriage is not really a marriage, but is rather enslavement. Better to peacefully end the union by judicial decree than violently by murder.

The divisions that currently plague the country are not cosmetic issues that can be papered over by compromise. We have (at least) two fundamentally different and opposed worldviews concerning government competing in a winner-take-all contest: 1) make government large and empower it to address all the major issues in our lives collectively, and 2) shrink government and get it out of the way to allow us to address all the major issues of our lives ourselves.

You cannot merge these two visions.

And this division is actually older than the constitution itself. It is the Hamiltonian nationalist vision of the Whigs, of Lincoln, of the 19th century Republicans and the 21st century Democrats of the so-called Federalists of the 18th century vs. the Jeffersonian truly federalist vision of the 19th century Democrats (and 21st century populist/libertarian Republicans) of the so-called Antifederalists of the 18th century.

Like Limbaugh, the leaders of the Confederate States of America were nearly all reluctant secessionists who loved the Union, but saw no way to merge the two founding visions of the United States without violence. Secession followed by peaceful negotiation to resolve financial entanglements was their non-violent solution to the fundamental divisions that plagued the country. Lincoln and the Republicans wanted none of it, and refused to recognize the orderly votes of the people of the Southern states to opt out of the Union. The result was more than three quarter of a million dead Americans and a whole slew of unintended consequences.

Ironically, there was, and is, a way to live together peacefully under one flag - a way that neither side wants, but by which both sides would win: true federalism as laid out in the Tenth Amendment.

By devolving power to the states (as the last amendment of the Bill of Rights stipulates, but has since essentially been struck down by activist courts), and by shrinking the federal government back to its constitutional proportions, New York could live in a Union with Texas, and South Carolina could remain "married" to California. But it would take both sides to back off and stop trying to dominate the other. This model works in Switzerland, for example, in which the local cantons have more power than the national Swiss government.

It would mean that folks in Oregon would have to swallow hard and realize that Alabama may not recognize homosexual marriage. And likewise, folks in Idaho would have to understand that Massachusetts will continue its policy of infanticide. These issues would have to be settled locally rather than federally. Yes, the issues would continue to be fought out, but it would not be a one-size-fits-all affair affecting 330 million people. The principle of subsidiarity would allow individuals to have a much greater say in their own states and localities. And the states themselves could devolve power to counties and local governments as well.

The states and local governments would have great authority over their own affairs, and the more local that issues become, the easier it is to "vote with one's feet."

But what is more likely to happen is that both sides will continue to want the whole prize, like the dog with the bone in his mouth in Aesop's fable who saw his own reflection in the water, and in his greed, thinking he could take another dog's bone - lost his own treasure.

We have foolishly declared the matter closed at Appomattox, and we have painted ourselves into a corner. We have surrendered to the Hamiltonian, Lincolnian, Nationalist understanding of who we are as a country (which indeed does require some clever historical tapdancing and convenient Orwellian self-censorship). We have embraced the "one nation under God" view, we have entangled our sense of patriotism with the idea that when it comes to government, the bigger the better. We have put all of our eggs in one basket.

And since “There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs," the solution won't be peaceful. Either one side or the other will be enslaved and dominated, elections will continue to be bitter, divisive, and suspect, and we are forever doomed to the two sides swapping the hashtag "RESIST" and the constant threat of armed uprising.

Or we could take another look and reconsider the peaceful alternatives of separation and reconfiguration, or we could make another try at true Jeffersonian federalism.

Rush Limbaugh is not a secessionist, but then again, neither were President Jefferson Davis, Vice President Alexander Stephens, nor the commander of the armed forces, General Robert E. Lee.