The Republic of Vermont

So whatever happened to "Cascadia"?

by Glenn Reed

Liberal, moderate, conservative, or Green, blue or red state, Dem or Republican, the vast majority of Americans are reluctant to think outside of certain boundaries. For instance, when I've seriously floated the possibility of the Northwest seceding from the US ("Republic of Cascadia"?) to my progressive friends, they've typically responded with nervous laughs or a comment like "oh, that could never happen!"

The Vermont Republic flag is light green with a blue field of stars

But why not? Why can't we seriously entertain such options in the face of the most corrupt, centralized, corporatized, oversized, imperialistic government in US history. Why can't we explore alternatives to another bloated empire careening towards collapse from its hubris?

Thomas Naylor, a retired economics professor and the author or co-author of 29 books, is actively promoting such an outside the box option for the small, predominately rural State of Vermont. Vermont was actually an independent republic from 1777 through 1791, when it decided to join the United States and Naylor is saying that it's time for the state to return to that status. And in the last few years he's been gaining a bigger audience.

"Soon after moving to Vermont I thought that Vermont had made a mistake in joining the union," says Naylor, who taught at Duke University for about 30 years, "and what would have happened if it hadn't?" As he points out in his Vermont Manifesto:

"America is no longer a sustainable nation-state, economically, politically, socially, militarily, or environmentally. The only way America can possibly save itself is by becoming smaller, less centralized, less powerful, less intrusive, less materialistic, less high-tech, less globalized, less militarized . . . and more responsive to the needs of individual citizens and small communities."

Naylor's own attraction to Vermont accelerated with his co-authorship (with his wife) of the book "The Search for Meaning," published in 1992. The book included a chapter on "the longing for community" and the writers researched alpine towns in Switzerland, Austria, and northern Italy. Later Naylor learned, through a friend who wrote a book about "simple living," about an attorney couple who moved to Vermont to run an inn, and his desire to move there grew.

"We were living in Richmond, Virginia at the time and my wife was making good money there as a psychiatrist," he says. "She told me that if I found the US equivalent of alpine community life then she would move." The shooting death of a colleague's son helped to convince her. "Richmond was going to hell in a hand-basket," he says. Also, Naylor sent off his wife's resume to Vermont and she soon got job offers. The couple then moved to Charlotte, Vermont and have never looked back.

Naylor decided very quickly that Vermont had made a mistake back in 1791 when it joined the Union. He first wrote an article on this in 1995, and in 1997 he published Downsizing the USA, which includes a chapter using Vermont as a case study. Much of his argument was based on personal experiences with the corporate world and through his travel in eastern Europe in the 1980s.

"The Soviet Union collapsed because it couldn't manage from a central location, and the US can't do it from Washington, D.C. either," he points out. He also finds the breakdown in efficiency due to size occurring in corporations, public schools, non-profits, the military, and elsewhere. He points to his experience on the Board of the Christian Children's Fund as one example of how bigness leads to problems. "So many of these organizations get corrupt," he notes, "and the reality of actual dollars going to children was that it had to go through six levels of management first."

However, secession is perceived as a political pariah and people are loathe to even touch the topic.

"People assume it to be bad," emphasizes Naylor, who was born and raised in Jackson, Mississippi, and moved to the Green Mountain State 12 years ago. "When I first starting talking about secession, I'd get reactions like 'ha, ha, the quirky economics professor wants to secede!'"

Naylor notes two events that began to change this attitude. The first was the build-up to the Iraq War.

"In March of 2003 I was invited to speak at an anti-war rally at Johnson State College," he says. He decided the time was ripe to seriously broach the subject of Vermont secession once again. "I asked the audience what could prevent these wars of convenience from continuing and told them 'have I got a deal for you!'" The response was positive and the Second Vermont Republic movement has been building bit by bit since that time.

The next boost came on November 2, 2004.

The passionate dislike of George W. Bush and his Administration among so much of the US population has led many millions of Americans to begin looking at alternatives. For instance, the hits on a Canadian immigration web site increased by ten-fold in November. According to Naylor, visits to the Second Vermont Republic web site experienced a similar rise, from 400 to 500 a month to 5,000 in November.

There was an accompanying increase in media attention as well. For example, Kirkpatrick Sale wrote an article in The Nation titled "Blue State Secession" that focused on the Vermont movement. Media coverage also spread into nearby Quebec, which has a powerful separatist movement and overseas to Europe.

"Part of what attracted the Europeans' attention was their intense dislike of Bush," says Naylor. Europeans are also fascinated by a secession effort in the US and the absurdity of tiny Vermont standing up to the empire."

Vermonters have always displayed a bit of an independent streak and even its Republicans have tended to be seen as moderate to liberal. Senator George Aiken--a Republican--is fondly remembered for recommending in 1964, regarding Vietnam, that the US should "just declare victory and get out." Moderate Senator Jim Jeffords shocked by the Bush far-right agenda, shocked the Administration early in their reign by quitting the Republican Party. Congressman Bernie Sanders is the only avowed Socialist in Congress and has been regularly re-elected by landslide margins. Vermont has also been outside the mainstream on issues. For instance, it became only the second state to pass civil union legislation in 2000 and has long been known for some of the more progressive environmental regulations in the country.

Then there is that special New England tradition called the town meeting. It still flourishes in the predominately small-town Vermont environment and is probably the most pure, direct form of democracy.

Vermont town meetings have tackled many issues that buck, or anticipate, national trends. This past March 7, for instance, 49 communities passed resolutions demanding the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and an investigation into the involvement of the Vermont National Guard in the conflict. Only four towns voted it down. Another example was in 2002 when 28 towns passed resolutions calling for the labeling of GE foods and seeds, as well as a moratorium on the growing of GE crops.

"Vermont works because it is tiny, rural, democratic and there's a true sense of community in it," points out Naylor. When critics say that Vermont could never make it alone, he notes that among the ten richest countries in the world per capita are such nations as Iceland, Bermuda, Lichtenstein and Luxembourg, all with smaller populations than Vermont's 617,000.

Vermont also enjoys stability with its economy. The State displayed a significantly lower unemployment rate during the last US recession. It has also broken a reliance on a manufacturing base to diversify to such areas as organic farming and specialty products. Then there is that "special Vermont mystique" as Naylor calls it, that attracts a steady stream of tourists from the US and elsewhere.

Staying small and accountable to people is central to the Second Vermont Republic philosophy. Its basic principles include direct democracy--devolution of power from the federal and state governments back to local communities and the extension of participatory democracy; sustainability--small, clean, green, sustainable, socially responsible towns, farms, businesses, schools, and churches, as well as energy independence; economic solidarity--encouraging to buy locally produced products; quality education--return control and financing of local schools to communities; wellness--encouraging small, locally controlled health care systems; nonviolence--no support for state-sponsored violence and complete opposition to military conscription; and a foreign policy that would venture negotiations with neighboring states and provinces.

Many of these principles reflect those of the Green Party, while others hint at streaks of libertarianism. Ironically, Naylor says that some of the most difficult people to sell on the idea of an independent Vermont are liberal Democrats.

The Second Vermont Republic movement has increased its activity level since November 2. A post-election gathering last November attracted about 40 people who developed the "Middlebury Declaration" which called for secession. A follow-up meeting held in Montpelier during a snowstorm on March 12 drew 35 people who discussed strategies for making Vermont independence a reality. One of the first steps agreed to was to push the State to recognize Vermont Independence Day (Jan. 15) and this has attracted support from such mainstream politicians as Burlington Mayor Pete Clavelle, Senator Jim Jeffords and even some Republican State legislators. An independence day event on January 15 in Montpelier drew much media attention and included a funeral march to the State House to mourn the loss of independence on that day back in 1791.

Other questions revolve around the constitutionality of secession and how the Federal government would respond to such a move.

"Our Secretary of State (Vermont) recently attacked us on an NBC affiliate station, saying that secession would require an Act of Congress," Naylor points out. "That's not true. The 10th Amendment implies that if it's not a 'no-no,' then it's okay."

"As for the Bushies," he adds, "they wouldn't like it, but our movement is non-violent and it's not a foregone conclusion that they would use force against us." This is one reason that the Second Vermont Republic movement is forging close ties with Canada and Europe in particular.

Naylor is realistic about the short-term prospects for the Vermont movement, but senses that the next few years could significantly increase momentum. He feels that the nation will be pushed to the brink by the collapse of the economy, the imposition of the draft, another traumatic event like 9/11, further curtailment of civil rights, or an attack on Syria, Iran or North Korea.

"We aren't going to persuade Vermont to secede by ourselves," he says, "That's the job of George W. Bush."

There are currently numerous other state secession movements, with the strongest being in Alaska (www.akip.org) and Hawaii (www.hawaii-national.org/) . An effort in Maine seems to have been encouraged by the Vermont movement, while there are also secessionists in California (www.newcaliforniarepublic.or/index.html) and in numerous Southern states. Naylor emphasizes that the Second Vermont Republic (www.vermontrepublic.org) drive is entirely peaceful and that it avoids relationships with movements that condone violence, such as one in Texas.

Presently, despite the hopeful premise offered in the 1975 book Ecotopia, written by Ernest Callenbach, there appears to be no serious independence group in the Northwest, except for one in British Columbia. There is a "Republic of Cascadia" web site (http://zapatopi.net/cascadia.html) but it just for humor.

Perhaps, if any of Thomas Naylor's expectations for the US become reality in the next few years, the thought of an independent Cascadia won't be such a laughing matter anymore, but a matter of survival. One can only dream, but, as Thomas Naylor is showing, why shouldn't we?