Alt.Secession: WIRED Has Entered The Chat

“Do do do
Down dooby doo down down
Comma, comma, down dooby doo down down
Comma, comma, down dooby doo down down
Breaking up is hard to do”

Ryan D. Griffiths, who according to his bio is a professor of political science at Syracuse University, has a short essay on WIRED‘s site on the topic of U.S. secession discourse.

It is not complementary.

The title starts it right off:

Don’t Listen to Anyone Who Thinks Secession Will Solve Anything

It’s a brief opinion-style piece, and not a scholarly essay, but I don’t see any reason to doubt any of the facts he cites in it.

He discusses the rise in pro-secession and pro-dissolution sentiment lately, along with several specific movements and discusses the case of the U.S. as compared to a few specific examples from other countries.

He’s not very sympathetic to the idea.

The essence of his problem with secession or dissolution, though, comes entirely down to the fact that actual secession or dissolution events are messy and are often violent.

And he’s not wrong about that.

Secession movements and national dissolutions are often contested, messy violent events.

What he’s wrong about is whether we should let that deter us.

Last year, I posted “First Things First: Have A Philosophy” here, arguing that the first step in any form of political engagement is to develop a political philosophy of your own, because “that gives you standards by which to measure things”.

I have no idea what political philosophy Griffiths would normally support, but his essay is quite consistent with itself in what philosophy it’s following.

The political philosophy this essay espouses is basically one of least uncertainty: the status quo, any status quo, is a known quantity whereas major changes to it are not. He therefore concludes that secession or national dissolution are less desirable than the status quo, regardless of what that status quo is.

This is a cowardly and morally bankrupt philosophy.

There appears to be no level of corruption or abuse by the current State that this essay would accept as justifying the risk and uncertainty of secession or dissolution.

It doesn’t even mention the issue, much less engage with it in any way.

The only gauge it uses is the risk of violence.

But there are levels of State corruption and abuse that fully justify a violent response from the populace, though what that level is and whether the U.S. has reached it are a choice each person must make for themselves.

And, presumably, the level at which risk of violence is justified must be lower than the level that would justify initiating violence yourself.