State Sovereignty

Imagine my surprise. I'm watching clips from Fox News posted to the media watchdog websites I typically peruse with my morning coffee and I see the likes of Glen Beck and Sean Hannity calling for dissent, secession and revolution. Unsurprisingly, it didn't take long for conservatives of all kinds to take up the banner of anti-establishment once they were ousted from positions of power.

And I have to give them credit. If nothing else, the right wing of the American political spectrum is a worthy adversary. During the Bush administration, the Democratic party basically rolled over and did as it was told, but now, riding high and full of energy from President Obama's landslide victory, they still can't manage to get anything done.

The Republicans under Bush and Cheney took full advantage of the nation's fear and anger to realize a seriously heinous agenda and when anyone complained, they more or less just told them to shut up. But they went too far. They screwed the pooch and now many of their pasty, bloated Republican faces no longer spew their xenophobic nonsense in the halls of power. They are not, however, taking it laying down, and this revolution is being televised.

Just like their favorite political party, the Fox News folks have made the astonishing transition from nationalist patriots to anti-authority rabble rousers. The whole charade has some traction with the more extreme elements of the party, but it's off to a rocky start. They repeat -- without irony -- the same rhetoric of the left-minded protesters they mocked for the last eight years. Not to mention they accidentally associated their first big protest event with the taste of scrotum.

I'd like to take a moment to ask you to visualize this role-reversal. Imagine Rush Limbaugh in anarchist riot black with a face full of pepper spray, Sean Hannity wrestled to the ground pleading, "don't taze me, bro!" to no avail. I want you to picture Glen Beck doing his fake weeping routine not for an audience, but for a judge about to send him away for conspiracy.

It's hard to do, right? That's because these guys are full of shit.

This is hardly breaking news, I know. The right is hilariously bad at this whole opposition thing and it shows. There is, however, one realistic and interesting point floating around in the whole mess; state sovereignty. It's a real shame this idea is starting to gain momentum now and with this gang of jackasses because it will likely be dismissed as the blatant power play that it is.

So before it is flushed down the toilet next week when Fox's precious hysteria reserves are committed to some other scandal, I'd like to take a moment to examine it from a perspective other than that of the paranoid conservative flash-in-the-pan populist.

You know, the paranoid anarchist perspective.

Fortunately, since I am not an elected representative nor am I a major media figure, I don't have to go through the rote platitudes required whenever one wants to criticize an aspect of our governance. You know, the "This is a great nation. I love my country, but..." nonsense. I care about our government as much as my last bowel movement, but here's how we might actually make it work.

As an anarchist, I believe that the most effective and least oppressive form of society is small -- the size of a band or tribe. Although customs and rules will vary from group to group, they ought to be voluntary gatherings of individuals. I think that organization on this level is far fairer to people than the bloated, faceless entities which currently control our lives, whose only real purpose is to gain more power which they use to justify their continued existence.

As a realist, I understand that this notion of being part of a large group, having support at high echelons, and generally not being forced to worry about some things is comforting to most people. I also realize that our culture has done a thorough job of convincing most people that if we consider decentralizing our government today, the bombs will fall tomorrow and there will be radioactive zombies by next Monday.

What I'm proposing is something far more gradual. Although I'd rather see a more drastic shift, why don't we start allowing the states more authority? That's right. I propose we try something out that lets you keep your big government that protects you from the communist space aliens.

You will immediately see a lifting of a great deal of the apathy that so characterizes our political system, It's easy to feel small and insignificant when all the real action is taking place in an arena as large as the entire country, but on the state level, one person can influence the system in far more profound ways.

It might even make a dent in the rampant corruption and nepotism we tolerate in our power structure for some reason. If the most powerful positions are many and have smaller constituencies, lobbyists and special interests of all kinds will have more trouble keeping them all in line. Aided by a more personal relationship to their voters, independent and third party candidates will have an easier time surmounting the challenges presented by the funding and support networks fielded by the major political parties. Even if the system is abused, it will be far easier to throw a wrench into it when there are so many parts.

It would give us all the chance to put our ideas to the test without subjecting everyone else to them. Life as a social experiment. Isn't that at all tempting? People and prosperity will find their way to those places with good, working ideas. We will be able to see what works and what doesn't, re-work it, try again. if something is a total failure, well we've still got a support system there because we didn't dismantle the federal government entirely. Not yet anyway.

Keep in mind that this is not what is being suggested by the windbags I mentioned before. They're posturing, bluffing, using wedge issues and tough talk to try to regain some of their lost influence. They are not interested in any kind of social experiment because their white asses are kept plump by the system as it is. They just want their guy back on the throne.

I'll be honest, I think this proposal will ultimately lead people to question this new apparatus of authority, to perhaps break it down even further, but even if I'm wrong, it will still have a positive impact on what I think is the biggest problem we face right now, the diffused responsibility for our actions.

The burdens of intolerance, of a lack of consideration for our environment, of overpopulation, of concentrated wealth, of dubious sustainability... It's hard not to look at these as abstract problems. They're too huge. "Someone should save the condor," "someone should save the Everglades", "someone should do something about degrading topsoil." If we can empower people in the way that I am proposing, we can change the way we approach these problems.

You can protect and cherish the natural wonders in your own back yard. You can do something about sustainability and inequity in your own community. That seems considerably more effective than electing someone else to congress, doesn't it?