Brexit. Texit. Calexit. Proponents of these movements see themselves as evoking the highest allegiance to freedom — the soul of the American spirt we celebrate tomorrow on Independence Day. Brexit happened. The other two, as well as the secessionist minded Alaskan Independent Party, are most often categorized as fringe movements. But as we’ve learned from our presidential campaign, an outright dismissal of outliers is unwise.
That’s essentially how Guardian columnist Gary Younge claims the Remain camp treated the opposition in the Brexit vote. He accused them of flouting an air of moral superiority which left them “tone-deaf to an insurrectionary mood” of the people. “Not everyone, or even most, of the people who voted leave were driven by racism,” he correctly noted.
Younge’s colleague Chris Bickerton saw that happening, too. The author of “The European Union: A Citizen’s Guide,” he understood the EU better than most but still had to defend his vote to leave. “The fact that the loudest leave voices are those of right-wing politicians,” he argued, “tells us much more about the trajectory taken by the British left than it does about Brexit itself.”
These are both critiques of the left by people on the left. Both are relevant to the way much of the American liberal establishment is attacking the candidacy of Donald Trump. And just as Brexit shows the pitfalls from stereotyping the opposition, it’s a justifiable opportunity to sincerely consider the grievances and ambitions of state secessionist movements.
“Britain’s decision to leave the EU should be a cause for celebration here in America,” writes Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom. “Brexit embodies the very principles and ideals the American people hold dear to their hearts: self-determination, limited government, democratic accountability, and economic liberty.”
Texan Daniel Miller absolutely agrees. He’s president of the Texas Nationalist Movement and has been fighting for an independent Texas for 20 years. He argues that the Leave campaign in Britain “is the case that the Texas Nationalist Movement has used for over a decade to advocate for a Brexit-style referendum on Texas independence.”
Could Texas actually survive as sovereign nation? The movement claims that Texas has the 15th largest economy in the world. And at the current level that Texans are taxed by both the federal and state governments, they believe an independent Texas could preserve and maintain every government job as well as fund its own national defense. And they’d still have budget surplus to do more or initiate big tax cuts.
In 2012, the movement submitted a petition to the Obama White House requesting the right to peacefully withdraw from the Union. It was signed by 125,000 people. How did the administration respond? With a condescending acknowledgment that while “we value a healthy debate, we don’t let that debate tear us apart.”
The White House’s Director of the Office of Public Engagement told the petitioners to work for change through the power of the ballot as intended by our Constitution. Alone that doesn’t sound unreasonable. But he added a reminder that “600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States.”
Maybe that’s why conspiracy theorists suspected the U.S. military had been ordered by Obama to impose martial law in the state last year. Their fear and anger pushed Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to direct the Texas State Guard to monitor the U.S. military training exercises within the state’s borders.
I’m not suggesting that this wasn’t a ridiculous reaction to a common practice. But I think the reference to a bloody civil war was intended to repress serious discussion. And that just feeds the public resentment of power which propelled Donald Trump to the GOP nomination for president and Leave camp victory in the Brexit vote.
Instead, I think we should be willing to debate the secessionist with full confidence that a clear majority wants to remain united. And if we discover that’s not the case, then we should allow a vote like Britain did.
“The only guarantee for the policies that we want is to win majorities for them through national elections,” Bickerton wrote. “There is always the danger of losing the argument but that’s democracy.”
Patriotism has to be an allegiance to that kind of democracy and freedom before it can be to the nation. Otherwise it’s pure nationalism. And if we follow that path, we’ll never be able to effectively criticize and fix our country’s most serious flaws.
