Has the U.S. Government Outgrown Our Ability To Affect It?

I've placed a post here which I wrote for the Boston Globe website discussion section.  I titled the discussion "Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?"

It has been prompted by my many years of observing national politics, exasperating experiences with local and state governments in Georgia, and more recently the massive failures of economic stewardship by the federal government; the latter of which provides the primary argument for the topic.  And, though this post was directed to the six states we think of as New England, it is has applicability to any region in the U.S.

POST:

I fear my topic here shall be a lightening rod for knee-jerk reactionaries, but it is a subject worthy of deliberation.

There are varied reasons for prompting such, but the most compelling is likely that which ends up moving people the most, and that is economic survival.  First, let's not forget that men, as well as women, in New England broached this very subject less than 24 decades ago.  So, I say to those who wish not to even entertain the idea, you are following the precedent set by many a Tory and Loyalist of the Colony of Massachusetts, who thought it folly and madness to think of leaving the British Empire, then the world's wealthiest nation and, arguably, its strongest military power. 

We first must dismiss the modern notion of the secessionist movements in North America, to which we've been exposed.  They've largely consisted of disaffected political groups whose most distinctive rationale for their movement has rested more on social and cultural grounds, and little, if any, on economics.   That isn't to say that social and cultural differences are not important in setting political divisions, but they must be stark and pervasive to bring about major political upheaval for their own sake.

At the founding of this country, our knowledge of markets and our need to tend them as a people was still in its infancy, as were our expectations of our government as a provider of services.   The joint action and collaboration of the thirteen British colonies in America in declaring their independence and fighting to attain it was a necessity, as the British government was not given to relinquishing profitable expansionist endeavors.  The continued union, of the now sovereign states, after winning their independence was in large part seen as a necessity to provide a defense against foreign aggression.  The political and economic power of the states at the beginning of their new country was likely more akin to the existing European Union of today. 

Since that time, massive growth has occurred in the role government plays in our lives.  In conjunction with that growth, control of its economic elements has moved well away from the state governments to a federal government, now overseeing 50 states.  It's not unreasonable to believe that such a pervasive role by the federal government was never intended when the, then independent, states acceded to a union.  This is not meant to applaud or disapprove of any particular government activity at the federal level, nor suggest a states' rights argument.  It is intended to bring up the subject of size, though it is not the only subject to discuss here.

The U.S. government's fiscal business is enormous.  And yet, the element of fiscal responsibility is not there.  A discussion on size, and how it adversely impacts fiscal responsibility would take more space than I have here; and too, I am not wholly convinced that size alone is the principle culprit. 

Yet I do know, the political structure we began with and have evolved into has destined us to our current economic ills.  Given the significant percentage of our collective wealth put into the hands of the federal government, the massive expectations we have for that government and our dependency upon it to protect our markets from the ills of unfettered capitalism, we are imperiling ourselves by giving little attention to the methods by which we choose those who direct the government.  

Our electoral processes and legislative structure are ill suited to safely handling such a massive government.  It will take many generations for this nation to collectively assess and be willing to make the changes necessary to safely govern in our age.  Though no political system is perfect, Europe has progressed far ahead of us in this area.  Canada too, is yearning to make changes, and is only 1/9 the population of the U.S.

There are certainly other reasons which can be cited to justify an independent New England.  And, such a nation would be no small instance, having what would be the tenth largest population in the EU, the tenth largest in the Western Hemisphere and more populous that 2/3 of the world's sovereign nations.

If only John and Samuel Adams were here; what would they think?   

-RLee