Throwback To Calhoun
by digby
Trying to keep up with GOP hypocrisy is difficult even in the best of times, but these days it's so pervasive it will give you a migraine just trying to sort out the most egregious from the merely laughable. The examples are flowing now that their eight year reign is over. I think one of the most interesting is their retreat to states' rights after the greatest expanse of not just Federal, but executive, power in history. It's quite a leap in just a few months, but they seem to be making the seamless transition that only a truly incoherent movement can make --- no shame or even awareness of their hypocrisy plagues them.
The New York Times touches on this rebuilding of the states' rights and secession movement today, indicating that it's having some problems since most people don't know what in the hell these weirdos are going on about. But it's an old old strain in American politics that asserts itself when the Conservative Southern Party shrinks to its essence.(Conservative isn't really the right word, of course, but it's the oxymoronic label most people now attach to this political rump. These people are radicals, always have been.)
Anyway, some people around the sphere have been doing some nice work on this that should be read. First of all, Daily Kos asked some questions along these lines in its latest Research 2000 poll that sheds light on the subject:
Do you think the state that you live in would be better off as an independent nation or as part of the United States of America?
US Independent
All 79 5
Northeast 90 2
South 61 9
Midwest 86 4
West 84 4
Would you approve or disapprove of the state that you live in leaving the United States?
Approve Disapprove Unsure
All 4 82 14
Northeast 1 94 5
South 8 63 29
Midwest 3 89 8
West 3 87 10
In most of the country, the 9 out of 10 people love America. But in the South, less than two-thirds would disapprove of their state leaving the US. And sure, while the "approve" contingent in the South is just 8 percent, 29 percent aren't sure.
Aren't sure? There's a debate as to whether leaving the US is good or bad? Is their love of America so shallow, so skin deep, that leaving the country is even an option? And check this out:
Would you approve or disapprove of the state that you live in leaving the United States?
Approve Disapprove Unsure
All 4 82 14
Dem 2 95 3
Rep 9 63 28
Ind 3 83 14
This is objective evidence that Democrats love America more than anyone else. 95 percent of them want their states to remain as part of the union, while only 63 percent -- less than two-thirds -- of Republicans similarly love their country.
Hence we'll continue to see wingnutty "sovereignty" resolutions and proclamations made in the South, and you'll continue getting wingnuts like Pittsburgh cop killer Richard Poplawski motivated to defy the authorities. As his friend said, "We recently discovered that 30 states had declared sovereignty. One of his concerns was, Why were these major events in America not being reported to the public?"
There's a lot of crazy out there, and it's mostly percolating among Republicans. Those bumper stickers that say "these colors don't run"? Well, they're running.
And to think it was only a couple of years ago that Ann Coulter was feted on the cover of TIME magazine for her book about liberals called Treason. Again, it's hard to keep up with the inconsistencies, but there you are. The great patriots who draped themselves in the red, white and blue for years are now metaphorically ripping it in tiny little pieces.
But as I said, this is an old story. Ed Kilgore takes us back to the beginning with this post about the history of the Southern State Sovereignty and the concept of "nullification" which is all in vogue among people who believe we are only one country under leaders of whom they approve:
There was plenty of chuckling in progressive circles when Texas Gov. Rick Perry made public remarks that sounded like a semi-endorsement of the idea that his state might want to secede from the United States, as it tried to do in 1861, or reclaim the independence it gave up in 1845. But Perry and a growing number of other Republican politicians are now embracing an idea that dates all the way back to 1832: that states have a constitutional right to nullify what they consider to be illegitimate acts of the federal government. As you may recall from your high school history lessons, the effort to put that idea into practice, by South Carolina at the urging of former vice president John C. Calhoun, didn't work out too well, though it was later cited as a precursor to the secessionist movement led, again, by South Carolina.
The vehicles for the sudden contemporary resurgence of nullification theories are "sovereignty resolutions" being introduced in the legislature of as many as 20 states, and passing in at least one legislative chamber in eight states this year.
The language of these resolutions, and particularly the throat-clearing "whereas" clauses, isn't uniform, but virtually all have a kicker similar to this Texas resolution, which Rick Perry endorsed:
That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and, be it further RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.
While these resolutions obviously aren't going to be enforced, they squarely assert the power of states to unilaterally define the powers of the federal government and to order said government to "cease and desist" in exercising them. That is nullification.
He goes on to discuss the more recent uses of this concept:
As someone just old enough to remember the last time when politicians in my home southern region made speeches rejecting the Supremacy Clause and the 14th amendment, I may take this sort of activity more seriously than some. But any way you slice it, Republicans are playing with some crazy fire. For all the efforts of its sponsors to sell the "sovereignty resolution" idea as a grassroots development flowing out of the so-called Tea Party Movement, its most avid supporters appear to be the John Birch Society and the Council of Conservative Citizens, the successor to the White Citizens Councils of ill-fame. And given the incredibly unsavory provenance of this "idea," it's no surprise that these extremist groups are viewing the "movement" as an enormous vindication of their twisted points of view.
There you have it.
Finally, I wanted to point you to this piece by Lance Mannion discussing the history of the Democratic Party in the South, should you find yourself confronted with one of those cretins who pulls out the standard "I know you are but what am I" idiocy about how the Democrats are the racists because Lincoln freed the slaves. It's a nice primer and beautifully written as always.
I'm certainly not surprised to see these arguments make a comeback. I've long seen a certain through line in American political history as essentially a two century battle between the old confederate states (and their later allies) and the rest of the country. The nation was forged through compromises (mostly over slavery)that were never fully accepted and which the civil war actually exacerbated. We have always been a country at war with itself to one degree or another.
This latest little throwback to Calhoun is clumsy and somewhat silly, but it's tapping into a strong and resilient strain in American history. It would be a mistake to simply discount the feeling that undergirds it. It goes far deeper than race or politics --- it's tribal and it is a definitional feature of American culture.
Update: Hilzoy demonstrates that in Georgia they are going all the way back to 1798 --- and cribbing from Jefferson for their nullification language, like nothing has happened in the interim. It's going to be a fun few years.