The movement for Vermont’s political independence draws support from across the political spectrum. There are those on the left for whom Cuba and Venezuela provide their ideal models for an independent Vermont, and there are also those whose ideal post-independence scenario would put New Hampshire’s Free State Project to shame. Between those two poles fall the vast majority of independence-minded Vermonters, but secession is not, fundamentally, a beast made purely of the left or the right.
Rather, the concept of secession is a screen upon which disenchanted Vermonters can project their political desires. One may want a variant of state socialism while another desires a return to tight-knit communitarianism, but they share the belief that their hopes for a better future cannot be realized as citizens of the United States. The reality is that our current political system precludes either individual from meaningful engagement within the political system. It’s not merely that their visions might be rejected after a fair hearing; rather, in the modern American political system, they simply don’t exist.
Now, if that were the case for only Vermonters with the most extreme political views, the prospects for secession would be dim. However, the vast majority of Americans actually have no political agency. They’re led to believe they do through symbolic initiatives and issues that capture the public’s imagination by being given the focus of the mass media, but the serious decisions (how much should the currency be worth, should a war be pursued) are decided first in private. If the nominal consent of the public is necessary, it is generated through a sustained public relations campaign (e.g. Colin Powell giving a slide-show before the invasion of Iraq), but for the most part people remain “blissfully” unaware that decisions that will profoundly effect their lives have been made at all.
As long as they believe their interests are being fairly represented through the American political system, most Vermonters won’t give secession a second thought. However, we’re currently going through a crisis of enormous magnitude, and fissures in the comfortably authoritarian American national narrative are beginning to show. The progressives who believed that the election of Barack Obama would create a just economic system and end American imperialism are beginning to see that, between the escalating war in Central Asia and the continuation of the “bailout the rich” regime, even the most “liberal” President will not create the society they desire. Similarly, many conservatives who watched in horror as “their” President destroyed the remainders of free-market competition in the banking sector are getting the feeling that their Federal representatives aren’t, in fact, representing them at all.
It is for this concern that Vermont independence provides an answer, regardless of one’s political affiliation. We’re citizens: we deserve a say. The simple fact is that one individual cannot realistically represent 650,000 people (as the average Congressional Representative does). Some smaller issues are decided by State legislatures that are far closer to the people, but the life and death decisions of war and monetary policy are made by people who generally feel more at home in Washington, DC than in the state they supposedly represent. I grew up in DC, and went to high-school with the children of politicians and bureaucrats; their sense of home and community was among the Washington elites, not the places of origin of their parents. This insularity of our national political elites does not bode well for the health of a representative republic.
In an independent Vermont, all important decisions would be made by people who actually represent their communities. The size of Vermont’s legislative districts are small enough that legislators can be personally known by the people in their own communities, and can take their opinions into account when making laws. It also means that if a fellow community member objects to the conduct of a legislator, he or she can mount an electoral challenge without having to prostitute himself for the hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars that are necessary to wage a state-wide political campaign. In this way, all citizens, no matter their beliefs, can have a true say in the most vital national decisions. Imagine if the Vermont legislature had to approve whether or not to send troops to Iraq in 2003; I’m sure the real consequences of that decision would have been more thoroughly debated.
This is the ultimate vision that can bind together the diverse supporters of Vermont independence. It’s easy to fall into squabbling over what a post-independence Vermont would look like (ecotopia, libertarian republic, traditional agrarian community, socialist paradise), but we must remember that none of us can have any real influence in the current system. Only by asserting our sovereignty and creating a human-scale republic can we begin the serious discussions and debates about the sort of world we want to live in, and by doing so finally don the mantle of Citizen. Until then, ideological squabble amongst independence advocates amount to spitting in the wind as our futures are mapped out by nihilistic elites (from across the political spectrum) who don’t give a damn about us. Free Vermont!
This is an excellent article offering a bridge over traditional political divisions to reach what is really important: true representative democracy. As a former Vermonter, I’d come back to help it happen. Marcuse had it right when he called democracy “the tyranny of the majority.” It doesn’t have to be- there are alternatives for those with the courage and intelligence to pursue them.