9 ms·

As a native Texan, it's weird for a few reasons: a) Pragmatically, separating from the rest of the United States would be devastating to our economy. Much lik

As a native Texan, it's weird for a few reasons: a) Pragmatically, separating from the rest of the United States would be devastating to our economy. Much like the United Kingdom from the EU, but on a much larger scale, because the vast majority of our trade, people, and connectedness come from being part of the U.S. Texans like to trot out the factoid that relatively little land in Texas is owned by the federal government because the feds didn't get any when Texas joined the Union, but the land that is owned by the feds contributes a massive amount to our economy. Metro areas like Killeen and a good chunk of San Antonio would simply cease to exist if the military left. (Never mind that a lot of that oil that Texans are so proud of us dragging out of the ground has to go on pipelines that cross the U.S.) b) It promotes an "us vs. them" philosophy that's not healthy. Texas tries to hold itself out as separate and, to some extent, "above" the rest of the United States. Yet we get the same two Senators and elect representatives to the same federal House as everybody else. Our way of doing things is not necessarily the right way simply because it's the Texan way. (Our legislature, proudly to some people's way of thinking, only meets once every other year and only for a couple of months. That's a terrible way to govern a state of several million people, especially with a phenomenally weak executive.) c) When do we move on from trying to live history to remembering it? In order to graduate from college, I had to take courses in both federal and state history (3 credit hours of "HIS 1024 History of Texas I" is on my transcript), just because we're so wrapped up in our own mythology. Yes, Texas was its own country. So was California, and Alaska, and Hawaii. Those are things for the textbooks and to explain weird language on deeds and why so many flags fly over the state capitol. It's not the basis for some inexplicable "independent" streak. Texas needs to get off its predisposition with its past and look towards its future, preferably being one that doesn't embrace fossil fuels--good job on the wind production, thanks T. Boone Pickens--and a car-focused, sprawling development culture. I hope it does, though I'm watching from afar, having decamped to Washington State many years ago.

rgrieselhuber 7y ago
Fair enough, sounds mostly like a matter of opinion, with the exception of point #1, which sounds more like a matter of fiscal priorities that aren't necessarily set in stone. I'm not a Texan but I do see the rationale behind freedom to associate or not associate with people based on shared values or a lack thereof.
BurningFrog 7y ago
This seems to assume the US would close its borders to an independent Texas. I would expect there to be a free trade agreement at least as good as for Canada and Mexico. Canada has similar population as Texas and does very well outside the US. I don't see why Texas couldn't do the same.
SllX 7y ago
As a non-Texan, I would like to ask more about point B. I myself am increasingly of the opinion that while government, national and State (I’m a Californian) has a role, it has unfortunately carved out too big of a chunk and allocated itself too many roles, often on the most specious of arguments. The idea of a legislature that meets infrequently, and where politician is a hat, not a job title, actually looks pretty ideal from where I’m standing. Why should I be disabused from this notion?
- techsupporter 7y ago
  Given our respective points of origin, I don't know if I'll be able to give you an explanation that will be satisfactory, but I'll try. First, the Texas government was designed, post-Reconstruction, to give as little authority as possible to the state government and to move government as close to the citizens as possible. That's all well and good. Had we stuck with that model, I would have few complaints, but we didn't. The Legislature has, over the intervening hundred years or so, routinely chipped away at the ability for cities and counties to run themselves as their citizens see fit. To pick on a popular thing to get riled up about, as soon as Austin and Dallas tried to regulate plastic bags and Uber-style taxi services, the Legislature fell all over itself to prohibit cities from enacting ordinances of such a type. When Denton wanted to regulate (but not prohibit) fracking, the Legislature yanked that, too. I take the view that there must be some government and that, in a state with as varied of interests and as many moving parts as Texas has, a rural-style, infrequent central government with a weak executive (the Texas Governor has some of the most limited authority out of all 46 states and 4 commonwealths in the United States), and limited home-rule city authority is not a desirable state. Running such a large entity should be a full-time job, both for the executive and the legislative, because a government should be able to react to changing conditions and the needs of its citizens. That stands separate from the scope of authority that a government should or should not have. If the government is not even present most of the time, how does it serve the oversight and governance functions? And if we wish to have limited central government, why should cities not be able to do what their citizenry wants with limited exceptions? Why can Dallas voters not tax themselves for all of the light rail they want (DART can only exercise the tax authority granted it by the state)? Another example of "we've always done it like this" is the sunset bill. Most Texas agencies sunset after a specified time, usually 10 years. There's always a scramble in the legislative session to reauthorize some minor agency like the Texas Department of Prisons or, my personal favorite, the Railroad Commission (which, despite its name, has not regulated railroads for generations; it is the oil and gas regulator for the state). Yet, somehow this mad dash to get the work done before the Legislature goes sine die is seen as a useful exercise. I don't understand the thinking that makes the word "politician" a pejorative, nor that it should be something that someone does in his or her spare time. Running a system that directly impacts the lives of almost thirty million people should be the singular focus of the people we send to do it. Maybe not their entire lives, but for sure while they're in office.
technobum 7y ago
Let me get this "Texit" referendum started
skissane 7y ago
I doubt Texas is going to secede from the US any time soon. And I honestly wouldn't care either way if it did or didn't. But, I don't know if some of your arguments necessarily work. > Pragmatically, separating from the rest of the United States would be devastating to our economy. Much like the United Kingdom from the EU, but on a much larger scale, because the vast majority of our trade, people, and connectedness come from being part of the U.S. If Texas seceeded from the United States, it could always do so as part of a customs union, or even single market, with the United States. That assumes the US of course that agreed to that (but it would be in the economic best interests of the US to agree). It would take away Texas' ability to run an independent trade policy, and Texas would basically have to accept various policies being dictated to it by the much more powerful and bigger US. But, there is nothing in principle impossible about such an arrangement. Indeed, the UK could end up with such an arrangement with the EU ("Norway plus customs union") – the latest Brexit deal doesn't have such an arrangement, but that is not because the EU is opposed, it is because the Johnson government is opposed. (If Corbyn was PM, it might actually happen.) Likewise, freedom of movement of people and absence of border controls could be maintained if Texas and the US agreed. See the Schengen agreement, or the British-Irish Common Travel Area, for existing examples. > Metro areas like Killeen and a good chunk of San Antonio would simply cease to exist if the military left. If Texas seceeded from the US, it would need its own military. Given it has roughly 8% of US population, why could it not claim roughly 8% of the US military's assets and personnel? Obviously, the US would have to agree to that; but, it seems plausible to me that in a peaceful and legal secession, the US and Texas governments would sit down and negotiate a transfer of some US federal assets and personnel to Texas, including sections of the US military. Probably, any individual service member who had personal connections with Texas would be given the choice between transferring to Texas or remaining in the US. It wouldn't necessarily be exactly 8%, but it probably wouldn't be 0%. (Obviously certain capabilities, such as nuclear weapons, would be entirely excluded.) > (Never mind that a lot of that oil that Texans are so proud of us dragging out of the ground has to go on pipelines that cross the U.S.) International oil and gas pipelines are not unheard of.
- techsupporter 7y ago
  It could, but the thing I think you and the others who are replying to say "but what about..." are not fully considering is just how tight the entanglements are even though Texans don't seem to want to acknowledge them. 174 years of trade, legal, cultural, financial, and infrastructure policy would be astoundingly difficult to untangle. Given that any business of any size currently operating in Texas would have 51 (including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) other jurisdictions from which to immediately operate with virtually no change in legal or financial policy, I predict that a staggeringly high number of them would do just that. (Just as several businesses have relocated away from the UK to remain wholly within the EU.) To continue the analogy, the United Kingdom has "only" been a member of the EU and its predecessors for 47 years and it retained direct, non-delegated control over far more areas even after joining the EEC. Texas has been completely subservient to United States policy for four times as long and even if such a split were amicable, it would still be very messy. The United States military has such a large presence in Texas because the United States Military is such a large organization, generally. There would be no reason for Texas to have such a comparatively large military, nor, I think, would an independent Texas be able to afford one. Killeen, for example, would probably still be an incorporated city but its population would be cut by two-thirds at best. But the point of the thought exercise isn't to say whether or not it could happen; it's that Texans take an outsized view of whether it should happen and hold them/ourselves up on a false pedestal propped up by the idea of Texas being above/different/better-than the rest of the country when we're one of "the several States which may be included within this Union."
kortilla 7y ago
Alaska was not a country.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  His point was that it used to not be owned by the US.
einpoklum 7y ago
a. That depends on the relations with the US afterwards. For the UK example - think of their relations with Europe after 1945, before they'd entered the EU. It was fine. I mean, after 500 years or wars, but, you know, bygones. b. Isn't it more that the supremacist attitude fuels the secessionism, rather than the other way around? c. Secession from the US empire of some of these states might not be such a bad idea for those states.
52-6F-62 7y ago
Sounds a lot like Alberta right now, except it was never it’s own country and the federal government, Crown, and native treaties own much of that land.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

rgrieselhuber 7y ago

Fair enough, sounds mostly like a matter of opinion, with the exception of point #1, which sounds more like a matter of fiscal priorities that aren't necessarily set in stone. I'm not a Texan but I do see the rationale behind freedom to associate or not associate with people based on shared values or a lack thereof.

BurningFrog 7y ago

This seems to assume the US would close its borders to an independent Texas. I would expect there to be a free trade agreement at least as good as for Canada and Mexico. Canada has similar population as Texas and does very well outside the US. I don't see why Texas couldn't do the same.

SllX 7y ago

As a non-Texan, I would like to ask more about point B. I myself am increasingly of the opinion that while government, national and State (I’m a Californian) has a role, it has unfortunately carved out too big of a chunk and allocated itself too many roles, often on the most specious of arguments. The idea of a legislature that meets infrequently, and where politician is a hat, not a job title, actually looks pretty ideal from where I’m standing. Why should I be disabused from this notion?

techsupporter 7y ago
Given our respective points of origin, I don't know if I'll be able to give you an explanation that will be satisfactory, but I'll try. First, the Texas government was designed, post-Reconstruction, to give as little authority as possible to the state government and to move government as close to the citizens as possible. That's all well and good. Had we stuck with that model, I would have few complaints, but we didn't. The Legislature has, over the intervening hundred years or so, routinely chipped away at the ability for cities and counties to run themselves as their citizens see fit. To pick on a popular thing to get riled up about, as soon as Austin and Dallas tried to regulate plastic bags and Uber-style taxi services, the Legislature fell all over itself to prohibit cities from enacting ordinances of such a type. When Denton wanted to regulate (but not prohibit) fracking, the Legislature yanked that, too. I take the view that there must be some government and that, in a state with as varied of interests and as many moving parts as Texas has, a rural-style, infrequent central government with a weak executive (the Texas Governor has some of the most limited authority out of all 46 states and 4 commonwealths in the United States), and limited home-rule city authority is not a desirable state. Running such a large entity should be a full-time job, both for the executive and the legislative, because a government should be able to react to changing conditions and the needs of its citizens. That stands separate from the scope of authority that a government should or should not have. If the government is not even present most of the time, how does it serve the oversight and governance functions? And if we wish to have limited central government, why should cities not be able to do what their citizenry wants with limited exceptions? Why can Dallas voters not tax themselves for all of the light rail they want (DART can only exercise the tax authority granted it by the state)? Another example of "we've always done it like this" is the sunset bill. Most Texas agencies sunset after a specified time, usually 10 years. There's always a scramble in the legislative session to reauthorize some minor agency like the Texas Department of Prisons or, my personal favorite, the Railroad Commission (which, despite its name, has not regulated railroads for generations; it is the oil and gas regulator for the state). Yet, somehow this mad dash to get the work done before the Legislature goes sine die is seen as a useful exercise. I don't understand the thinking that makes the word "politician" a pejorative, nor that it should be something that someone does in his or her spare time. Running a system that directly impacts the lives of almost thirty million people should be the singular focus of the people we send to do it. Maybe not their entire lives, but for sure while they're in office.

technobum 7y ago

Let me get this "Texit" referendum started

skissane 7y ago

I doubt Texas is going to secede from the US any time soon. And I honestly wouldn't care either way if it did or didn't. But, I don't know if some of your arguments necessarily work. > Pragmatically, separating from the rest of the United States would be devastating to our economy. Much like the United Kingdom from the EU, but on a much larger scale, because the vast majority of our trade, people, and connectedness come from being part of the U.S. If Texas seceeded from the United States, it could always do so as part of a customs union, or even single market, with the United States. That assumes the US of course that agreed to that (but it would be in the economic best interests of the US to agree). It would take away Texas' ability to run an independent trade policy, and Texas would basically have to accept various policies being dictated to it by the much more powerful and bigger US. But, there is nothing in principle impossible about such an arrangement. Indeed, the UK could end up with such an arrangement with the EU ("Norway plus customs union") – the latest Brexit deal doesn't have such an arrangement, but that is not because the EU is opposed, it is because the Johnson government is opposed. (If Corbyn was PM, it might actually happen.) Likewise, freedom of movement of people and absence of border controls could be maintained if Texas and the US agreed. See the Schengen agreement, or the British-Irish Common Travel Area, for existing examples. > Metro areas like Killeen and a good chunk of San Antonio would simply cease to exist if the military left. If Texas seceeded from the US, it would need its own military. Given it has roughly 8% of US population, why could it not claim roughly 8% of the US military's assets and personnel? Obviously, the US would have to agree to that; but, it seems plausible to me that in a peaceful and legal secession, the US and Texas governments would sit down and negotiate a transfer of some US federal assets and personnel to Texas, including sections of the US military. Probably, any individual service member who had personal connections with Texas would be given the choice between transferring to Texas or remaining in the US. It wouldn't necessarily be exactly 8%, but it probably wouldn't be 0%. (Obviously certain capabilities, such as nuclear weapons, would be entirely excluded.) > (Never mind that a lot of that oil that Texans are so proud of us dragging out of the ground has to go on pipelines that cross the U.S.) International oil and gas pipelines are not unheard of.

techsupporter 7y ago
It could, but the thing I think you and the others who are replying to say "but what about..." are not fully considering is just how tight the entanglements are even though Texans don't seem to want to acknowledge them. 174 years of trade, legal, cultural, financial, and infrastructure policy would be astoundingly difficult to untangle. Given that any business of any size currently operating in Texas would have 51 (including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) other jurisdictions from which to immediately operate with virtually no change in legal or financial policy, I predict that a staggeringly high number of them would do just that. (Just as several businesses have relocated away from the UK to remain wholly within the EU.) To continue the analogy, the United Kingdom has "only" been a member of the EU and its predecessors for 47 years and it retained direct, non-delegated control over far more areas even after joining the EEC. Texas has been completely subservient to United States policy for four times as long and even if such a split were amicable, it would still be very messy. The United States military has such a large presence in Texas because the United States Military is such a large organization, generally. There would be no reason for Texas to have such a comparatively large military, nor, I think, would an independent Texas be able to afford one. Killeen, for example, would probably still be an incorporated city but its population would be cut by two-thirds at best. But the point of the thought exercise isn't to say whether or not it could happen; it's that Texans take an outsized view of whether it should happen and hold them/ourselves up on a false pedestal propped up by the idea of Texas being above/different/better-than the rest of the country when we're one of "the several States which may be included within this Union."

kortilla 7y ago

Alaska was not a country.

colejohnson66 7y ago
His point was that it used to not be owned by the US.

einpoklum 7y ago

a. That depends on the relations with the US afterwards. For the UK example - think of their relations with Europe after 1945, before they'd entered the EU. It was fine. I mean, after 500 years or wars, but, you know, bygones. b. Isn't it more that the supremacist attitude fuels the secessionism, rather than the other way around? c. Secession from the US empire of some of these states might not be such a bad idea for those states.

52-6F-62 7y ago

Sounds a lot like Alberta right now, except it was never it’s own country and the federal government, Crown, and native treaties own much of that land.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]