-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)
"A Vote for 'ABBH' (Any Body But Harris) is a Vote for Trump and Republo-Fascism" (S. Jonas, March, 2024)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is obvious to nearly all observers, on whichever side of the great, and deepening, political divide in our nation they stand, that the upcoming Presidential election will be like no other in our nation's history. And that includes the one of 1860 --- in which as it happened, there were four contending parties, two "Northern" and two "Southern." Although there had certainly been talk in the South about leaving the Union should their interests not prevail, there was (to my knowledge at least) no talk in advance about using various measures which could be seen by any reasonable observer to be aimed at undermining the electoral process itself. Nor was there any talk by one or more of the contending parties of contesting the results, with threats of violence focused on the electoral process (as well as attempting to change the traditional ways that were then in place under which votes were both cast and counted). Nor was there any even implied talk about the possibility of using violence in an attempt to change the announced outcome of the electoral process, after it had been completed
Of course, as is well known, there is now indeed talk, and, much more threatening to U.S. democracy, apparently active planning to use violence of various types, as well as legal measures, to attack the announced results of the 2024 election should they go against Trump-Vance, as was done by the Trumpublicans 2020-21. (Unfortunately, it has to be repeated, over and over again, that 60-plus legal challenges to the electoral process and its outcome, undertaken by the Trumpublicans, all failed. AND, in the "Vice-Presidential Debate" of Oct. 1, 2024, Vance refused to acknowledge that Trump lost ) As far as the threat of violence this time around is concerned, how else might one interpret Trump's promise to, if re-elected, commute the sentences of all the "Jan. 6" rioters, and plotters.
This sends a clear message from Trump to his supporters: "violence aimed at disputing the outcome if that outcome goes against me, and, then hopefully changing that outcome, is just fine." Of course, Trump could well achieve victory legitimately. The polls show a very close race. And it is very well-known how one of the 18th-century-relics-designed-to-persuade-the-slave-states-to-join-the-Union has the potential to completely distort the outcome in terms of the popular vote, as it has done for so many of the Republican Presidential candidates over the last 40 years or so.
It cannot be repeated too much that Trump has made it very clear what he will do to (and that's to not for) the nation if re-elected. He may deny that he has even read Project 2025. But that doesn't tell us much. Many of its provisions are certainly right in line with Trump's thinking about government and about how he would govern. P2025 is 925 pages long, so that is a lot to go over. But some people outside the Heritage Foundation and their allies have done that. It's quite a compendium for how to change U.S. Constitutional government without actually bothering to go through the amendment process. (For a broader view of what the U.S. Right wants to do, and certainly would be able to do should Trump be re-elected, see the Southern Poverty Law Center's "Decoding the Plan to Undo Democracy.")
One critical summary of Project 2025 says: "Project 2025 is a 925-page document that outlines how-in-practice a conservative administration can reshape the federal government and the country according to a Christian nationalist vision. The plan, supported by former Trump officials and organizations, includes a detailed first "180-day agenda to purge and replace federal workers and policies." The latter, in particular, is a key indicator of what a 2nd Trump Administration would do to overturn Constitutional government just like that: without the benefit of legislation, they would repeal the Civil Service Act of 1883, as amended, fire tens of thousands of civil servants, and replace them with political appointees. One of the principal objectives of that Act was, of course, to prevent that from happening ever again. And under Trump it would happen just like that.
"But what about the courts," one might say. Obviously, any legal challenge on matters of this kind would get to the Supreme Court. "Well even this Supreme Court wouldn't uphold those kinds of actions," one might say. "Oh really[?]" one might respond. Well, in the now-famous "Presidential Immunity" decision, otherwise known as the "let Trump off the hook for criminal activity" decision, the Court actually amended the Constitution on its own authority. For there is nothing in Article II, which defines the Presidency, that comes anywhere close to providing for the "immunity exception" that this Court has created. So why would not the Court's "Trump's-our-guy" majority not give a "have-at-it" to Trump's gutting the Civil Service Act?
As for what a 2nd Trump Administration would look like more broadly, even without referring to P2025, one needs only to point to Trump's personal criminal behavior, as reflected just in the crimes for which he has already been charged. Trump and the law seem to have only a passing acquaintance. And of course, as for the Congress, if Trump wins this time around, both Houses will likely either be Republican or paralyzed.
So, where to turn, for folks who do not want live under a Trumpist version of fascism (for the definition that I use, see below)? Secession from the Union for certain states is one direction to consider. (Please note that the possibility of some sort of secession, should the TrumpRepubloFascists triumph, in one way or another in the upcoming election, is being discussed by authorities with much more authority than I have.) I do think that secession is one of the options that those of us who believe in the rule of law and Constitutional, not authoritarian, government might have to turn to, as complicated, and to-be-sure difficult, as that process might be. (BTW, a Google search on "secession" produces about 2.9 million results (!!!) Not being considered/talked about, eh?)
Civil War is another direction the country might take, that needs to be considered (which we shall do briefly, here). However, leaving aside all the political, ideological, and racism-as-always-at-the-center-of-politics-and-governance-in-the-U.S. considerations, there are certain, shall we say, practical considerations, which weigh against civil war, at least in the traditional senses, as in the U.S. of the 19th century, and Spain of the 20th century. Primary of course is that there would be no natural geographical separation of the two sides. For example, in terms of its governance, Texas is one of the most reactionary, and Republican-controlled, states in the nation. Yet Pres. Biden got about 46% of the vote there in 2020. Other than in some of the smaller states of the mid- and upper-mid-west, that pattern held. So, while there would be plenty of resistance on the ground to a truly Republo-fascist government coming in, as for organized, armed, resistance at anywhere near the level needed to create real civil war, its development would be highly unlikely.
As for what might happen to/with the national and state-level armed forces, I am not dealing that here. Except to say that if a President Trump attempted to use the Insurrection Act against the Constitutionalists, he would have to deal with Armed Forces Chiefs with appointments Congressionally confirmed under the Biden Administration. One or more of them might well refuse to obey an order considered to be Unconstitutional.
And so, turning to the prospects for secession, or at least the development of a serious consideration of the process and just how it could be carried out, first what would be the issue which would tilt certain states over the edge likely be? Not the matter of voting rights. As critical as it is to the viability of U.S. Constitutional democracy, it is not enough of a central issue, to a large enough proportion of the population, to bring about secession. The issue that would be central is of course was the "Dobbs" decision, which made the presumed natural right of what a woman can do in terms of managing her own body a matter of politics, as well as putting into political play the religious belief that "life begins at the moment of conception," which of course violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. That is, Mr. Trump, duh, "leaving it up to the states," is, in terms of the plain reading of the 1st Amendment, it is clearly un-Constitutional (whatever this Catholic-dominated, "life begins at the moment of conception," Supreme Court thinks). States that are heavily Democratic, like New York (in which abortion became legal even before "Roe," in 1969), using abortion rights and women's rights in general as the leading issues, could well move to secession. Regardless of what Trump says (or does not say, depending upon the day), giving him a Republican Congress, a national law criminalizing abortion would be a significant possibility.
Many questions would of course, arise, beginning with, would a Republo-fascist Federal government attempt to put down the attempted secessions (which would likely be numerous)? But women, most of whom favor abortion rights some level, comprise more than half of the population, and of course the support for abortion rights among men is also very significant. One major issue of course would be that unlike the situation in 1861, the seceding States would be geographically separated. How would/could that work? I wish that I had a simple answer to that one, but I do not. But nevertheless, the question is on the table.
In sum, it is predictable that with a Trumpublican government there would is a harsh, arbitrary, fascistic crackdown on civil liberties, on any kind of organized protests, on particularly outspoken Democratic members of Congress and state governments, and so and so forth. But, what would that look like? That's easy: look at Nazi Germany before World War II, Spain until Franco died, Imperial Japan until they lost the war, and even, to a lesser extent, countries like Chile, Argentina, and Greece under right-wing dictatorships. Such a crackdown would provide another strong impetus towards secession.
Among the other major matters to be dealt with are:
* What would be the decision-making process for states in which there would be major political movement towards secession?
* What would the geographic division of the country look like? What would be the decision-making process for states in which there would be major political movement towards secession be? How would the division of the national treasury and debt, powers of taxation, currency, be handled?
* How would population transfers between the two new countries would be handled (hopefully not as they were under the "Get-out-as-quickly-as-you-can" approach adopted by the United Kingdom for itself at the time of the Partition of India in 1947).
* How such matters as air traffic control, border controls, customs-checks for goods that originated from abroad, national health problems (just for openers), would/could be handled.
VERY tough questions and VERY difficult decisions. But if a significant number of U.S. citizens in a significant number of states decide that they simply do not want to live under a Trumpublo/Project2025/fascist government, which would be the result of an overturning of U.S. Constitutional government by decree, for them secession will be the only possible way out (short of course, civil war).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fascism, a definition:
"There is a single, all-powerful executive branch of government, in service of a capitalist ruling class that controls, for the most part, the functions of production, distribution, finance, and exchange. There is no separation of the principal governmental powers: executive, legislative, and judicial. There are no independent media. There is a single national ideology, based on some combination of racism, misogyny, religious bigotry and authoritarianism, homophobia, and xenophobia. There is a political party supporting the movement. There is a state propaganda machine using the big and little lie techniques. There may be a full-blown dictatorship, a charismatic leader, engagement in foreign wars, and the use of the mob/private armies to enforce governmental control."
(Article changed on Oct 02, 2024 at 1:39 PM EDT)
