Log in

View Full Version : Vermont secessionists running in elections



Revy
17th February 2010, 04:50
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1957743,00.html#ixzz0flLbFq7k



Time Magazine
January 31, 2010

The President on Wednesday may have reassured Americans that the state of the Union is "strong," but, just the week before, a group of Vermont secessionists declared their intention to seek political power in a quest to get their state to quit the Union altogether. On Jan. 15, in the state capital of Montpelier, nine candidates for statewide office gathered in a tiny room at the Capitol Plaza Hotel, to announce they wanted a divorce from the United States of America. "For the first time in over 150 years, secession and political independence from the U.S. will be front and center in a statewide New England political campaign," said Thomas Naylor, 73, one of the leaders of the campaign.



A former Duke University economics professor, Naylor heads up the Second Vermont Republic, which he describes as "left-libertarian, anti-big government, anti-empire, antiwar, with small is beautiful as our guiding philosophy." The group not only advocates the peaceful secession of Vermont but has minted its own silver "token" — valued at $25 — and, as part of a publishing venture with another secessionist group, runs a monthly newspaper called Vermont Commons, with a circulation of 10,000. According to a 2007 poll, they have support from at least 13% of state voters. The campaign slogan, Naylor told me, is "Imagine Free Vermont." In his fondest imaginings, Naylor said, Vermonters would not be "forced to participate in killing women and children in the Middle East."



Second Vermont Republic's gubernatorial candidate is Dennis Steele, 42, a hulking Carhartt-clad fifth generation Vermonter and entrepreneur. He owns Radio Free Vermont, an Internet radio station, and honchos an online venture called ChessManiac.com. Steele says that, if elected, his first act in office would be to bring home Vermont's National Guard from overseas deployments. "I see my kids going off to fight in wars for empire 10, 15, 20 years from now," said Steele, who served three years in the U.S. Army. "People in Vermont in general are very antiwar, and all their faith was in Obama to end the wars. I ask people, 'Did you get the change you wanted?' They can't even look you in the eyes. We live in a nation that is asleep at the wheel and where the hearts are growing cold like ice."


Steele and the secessionists have nothing but contempt for Vermont Senators Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy, who are otherwise considered among the most liberal members of Congress. "They've done nothing to stop the wars," says Steele flatly. Thomas Naylor was more pointed: "Every time a Vermonter serving in the National Guard gets deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, likely to be hurt or killed, Bernie and Patrick are there to commemorate the departure and have pictures taken."


With 20 or so mostly middle-aged attendees looking on, the candidates each stood at the podium to deliver a remarkably unified message: The U.S. government, they said, was an immoral enterprise — engaged in imperial wars, propping up corrupt bankers and supersized corporations, crushing small businessmen, plundering the tax-base for corporate welfare, snooping on the private lives of citizens — and they wanted no more part of it. "The gods of the empire," Steele told the room, "are not the gods of Vermont."
"It's an abusive relationship we have with the central government," says Peter Garritano, a square-jawed 54-year-old Subaru sales manager who is running for lieutenant governor. "We know it's scary to leave the abusive nest. It's a comfort zone in its own way. But we think we'll do better leaving."


An independent Vermont, the group believes, would expolit its already highly developed local small-scale agriculture, its "locavore" farm exchanges, with a tax structure reformed to incentivize small business and industry (and to make life difficult for large out-of-state corporations). By 2020, they foresee Vermont producing at least 75% of its own electricity and heat, using wind-, solar-, biomass- and hydro-power. They want to establish a Bank of Vermont owned by the people of Vermont — freed from the arbitrary controls of central bankers — as well as a local alternative currency, with Vermont pension and operating funds invested not in Wall Street but in locally owned financial institutions. "We favor devolution of political power from the state back to local communities, making the governing structure for towns, schools, hospitals and social services much like that of small, decentralized states like Switzerland," declares the group's "21st Century Statement of Principles."

Seven secessionist candidates declared for seats in the state senate. Among them is Robert Wagner, 46, an economist who is also a computing consultant with Oracle Inc. Wagner, who homesteads with his wife and six-year-old son in the Green Mountains, says that current U.S. law enables multinational corporations to abuse Vermont as a "resource colony." Citing a 2008 study by the University of Vermont, Wagner says the state stands to gain over $1 billion a year in revenue by taxing equitably the corporate behemoths that exploit Vermont's "commons," which includes everything from the state's groundwater, surface water, wildlife and forests, to the public spectrum of the airwaves. According to the UVM study, for example, Coca-Cola, Nestle and Perrier and other refreshment manufacturers avoid $671 million in taxes for the environmental damage incurred by their siphoning of state groundwater.
But what about that comfort zone of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps, plus the infrastructure currently funded by the federal government, including bridges, roads and particularly the interstate highways? One analysis by a researcher at the University of Vermont found that the state only gets 75 cents back for every dollar it hands over to the federal center. The secessionists say they'd prefer to save their money and keep it at home. "Not only would an independent Vermont survive," says Naylor, "It would thrive, because it would free up entrepreneurial forces heretofore held in abeyance. We're not preaching economic isolationism. We want to confront the empire, and that doesn't mean just owning a Prius and keeping a root garden."thoughts?

Red Commissar
17th February 2010, 05:28
I remember reading about this issue a while back. It's an honorable position but I doubt they'll get any traction. Honestly when it comes to "secession" Texans tend to say it the loudest but obviously they never act on it, so how could any one else.

I'm just curious about their political views. It says there the leader is a "left libertarian", but what about the rest? Has their ranks been swelled recently by Teabagger types?

Joe_Germinal
17th February 2010, 05:58
Vermont secessionism seems to me to be a terrible idea. I'm all for confronting the empire, but this seems a fairly dismal way to go about it. For one thing, this group seems deeply class collaborationist with all their talk about supporting small and local business. Are Vermont workers really happier to be exploited by fellow Vermonters when compared to those from outside the state? In my own life, I've worked for local, regional, and multi-national businesses; I've found the experience just as immiserating and alienating regardless of the accent of the bosses.

Also, Vermonters send $6,500 per capita to the Federal government in taxes while receiving $7,500 per capita in federal benefit, so it looks like the first act of a future "free Vermont" would be an austerity package to the tune of something like 13 percent. A better idea might be for Vermont workers to join with all American workers, and indeed all workers of the world in uniting and struggling for socialism. Sessesionism might be more successful in the short term, but in the long term class collaborationist secessionism is unlikely to satisfy the real needs of Vermont workers.

Tablo
17th February 2010, 07:16
I kind of agree with Joe, but I would really like to see a state give the US the finger and secede. Signs of a weakening America is good in my book. Plus if they start then other states may follow with all the financial problems going on. Not exactly feasible, but it is somewhat possible.

RaΓΊl Duke
17th February 2010, 07:41
There's a Vermont secessionist on this forum...

I'll like to hear what he has to say.

Tablo
17th February 2010, 07:44
There's a Vermont secessionist on this forum...

I'll like to hear what he has to say.
You mean theredson don't you? I love his blog. :)

Dimentio
17th February 2010, 11:01
Small states cannot achieve independence in this age. Estonia and Latvia are basically Swedish financial satellites for example...

Guerrilla22
17th February 2010, 11:33
Clowns.

Dimentio
17th February 2010, 11:36
Clowns.

Well, the entire libertarian movement in America is basically de-centralist and really wants to move the economic power from the large urban regions to the rural regions and the smaller towns. They also want to increase the power of the states at the expense of the federal level.

TheCultofAbeLincoln
17th February 2010, 11:48
It'd be cool to see them get 10%ish numbers, I have to say. For them, that would be a major victory.

That said, I've never been to Vermont and have no idea how popular this movement is, or what they're turnout numbers are. If the vote on this is in an off season it would be the best, but for 2010 the turnout should be higher due to congressional elections. That said, much better than an election year.

Revy
17th February 2010, 11:59
Vermont is a bit different politically, for example the Progressive Party is a third party there that's strong, although they haven't elected anyone to the federal government. But that's about it.

Only 13% of them support independence. You probably could get numbers like that anywhere.

The first Vermont Republic existed for 14 years between 1777 and 1791. It was formed after it seceded from the British provinces of New York and New Hampshire six months after the US Declaration of Independence. after the US was recognized as an independent country in 1783, momentum to join the Union began and resulted in them happily joining it. In fact, the first leader of independent Vermont was the first Governor of the state of Vermont.

I think it's odd when some left-leaning people channel their political frustrations into creating fake nations instead of building a real movement.

Dimentio
17th February 2010, 12:18
Vermont is a bit different politically, for example the Progressive Party is a third party there that's strong, although they haven't elected anyone to the federal government. But that's about it.

Only 13% of them support independence. You probably could get numbers like that anywhere.

The first Vermont Republic existed for 14 years between 1777 and 1791. It was formed after it seceded from the British provinces of New York and New Hampshire six months after the US Declaration of Independence. after the US was recognized as an independent country in 1783, momentum to join the Union began and resulted in them happily joining it. In fact, the first leader of independent Vermont was the first Governor of the state of Vermont.

I think it's odd when some left-leaning people channel their political frustrations into creating fake nations instead of building a real movement.

Its probably easier to build a real local movement than a real national movement, given the wide range of political opinions in America. If Vermont is more left-leaning than America in general, secessionism could actually make some sense.

Crux
17th February 2010, 18:49
Well, while I am dubious about the prospect of an independent vermount, I think it might be interesting to see this group strenghtened, if nothing else, as a left movement. They seem more "small-bussines" oriented than socialist though, but even so it might make a political space for a more radical left.

RedScare
17th February 2010, 19:08
I doubt it'll take off. The idea of peaceful succession was put bloodily to rest in the Civil War, I doubt that even if they gained some support they'd be able to pull it off.