I support Calexit
I think the United States is too big and too politically divided to run itself anymore. While there are many ways to imagine splitting up the United States into smaller countries, Calexit is the most politically feasible because the movement is already underway.
It would solve a lot of problems. Liberals say Trump is an illegitimate president because more people voted for Clinton, but outside of California more people voted for Trump.
Minus the California congressional delegation, Republicans would solidly control the House, and get rid of two Democratic Senators.
The coming demographic disaster would be reversed. Outside of California, the United States is a lot whiter, and in the reshuffling of populations some whites would flee California while minorities, especially illegal immigrant minorities, would relocate to California.
Without the protection of red-state congressmen, California would succumb to its liberalism, destroying itself with an open-borders immigration with generous welfare benefits for every new arrival. The collapse of California would serve as a lesson for what not do in the rest of the United States.
Lion of the Blogosphere 
It can never happen.
1) How would the national debt be partitioned?
2) The Bureau of Land Management owns 35% of California.
3) We have numerous military bases there including Top Gun flight school (which is bigger than Rhode Island).
4) What about social security, citizenship issues? Would those born in California be US citizens? What would emigration between Calif and the other 49 be?
5) There are a lot of major corporations in the state. Not just tech companies.
GMR
October 2, 2018 at 12:13 PM
I am sure all of that stuff can be figured out.
Probably, everything that’s in Calfornia gets to stay in California, debt apportioned based on population, same with military assets (unless California is so peacenick they don’t want a nuclear powered aircraft carrier).
Lion of the Blogosphere
October 2, 2018 at 12:27 PM
> debt apportioned based on population
The only way this possibly works is if California and RumpAmerica keep a currency union. All that debt is based off the US dollar being a global reserve currency. Having the ability to print USD, for which global demand is nearly infinite, makes high levels of debt much less risky. The CalDollar would not share the same status, because the financial system’s based out of New York.
Without a currency union, California would refuse the debt. Since RumpAmerica would most definitely be the successor state, California would be under no legal obligation to accept its division of the debt. With a currency union, things might work initially.
But eventually the two countries would diverge in the business cycle. California has a much different economic makeup than the rest of the US. And as a separate country policy differences would push things even further. Federal transfer payments and spending keeps US states relatively synchronized economically. But that mechanism would no longer be present. Then you have the Euro issue, where one country in the currency union is booming and one is busting, and monetary policy can only favor one side.
Doug
October 2, 2018 at 12:43 PM
I don’t see the US breaking up anytime soon. The only realistic way at this point is to actually follow the Constitution which has each state practically a separate country except for defense and trade between the states. There would be no national laws. Of course, social security would still have to be paid. Maybe eventually we could be weaned off of that, but that would take a while.
The feds would handle immigration but that was left out of the Constitution, which is crazy, I guess they didn’t even think about it then. There could be an amendment stating the federal govt would handle immigration. Plus each locality would decide if a foreigner would get citizenship like the Swiss do.
Laws would be very localized instead of having national laws like the Civil Rights Act etc.
The founders originally referred to this country as the united States of America. United was not capitalized.
ttgy1
October 2, 2018 at 7:29 PM
“The only realistic way at this point is to actually follow the Constitution which has each state practically a separate country except for defense and trade between the states.”
If we had just stuck to the constitutional delegation of power, we wouldn’t be in this sort of situation. At the current moment, we’re cracking up over the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice because they really function as a judicial oligarchy. Issues like abortion, gay marriage, or whatever shouldn’t even be federal issues. The states should be handling that. Maybe a solidly conservative court might convince the Democrats to work on some bi-partisan legislation to limit the scope of the court. Or Civil War, one of the other.
Mike Street Station
October 3, 2018 at 6:12 AM
The big obvious problem is that California gets all its water from out of state, from places that would rather keep it. It’s not really a viable country on its own, without the feds sending them water and electricity and food stamps. So despite all the bluster they’d never actually go for it.
bobbybobbob
October 2, 2018 at 12:45 PM
This is false. Desalination is extremely cheap now. And the central valley has enough water in aquifers to last for a very long time. It’s Arizona and Nevada that need to be more worried.
Borat
October 2, 2018 at 1:30 PM
According to this site, most of the water comes from inside the state.
https://www.watereducation.org/all-california-water-sources
ttgy1
October 2, 2018 at 7:34 PM
How would California be partitioned? The red parts would probably go to war to remain part of the U.S. The red parts are also where California’s food, water and energy come from. A lot of corporations would flee to the U.S. (most silicon valley companies have large operations out of state, primarily inTexas). What you’d have left was a strip of land along the west coast utterly dependent on the U.S. for everything they need to survive. Also, they’d need military protection to keep from becoming a colony of China. So you’d have a country effectively owned by the U.S., but with little or no political influence.
J1
October 3, 2018 at 12:21 AM
Let California be a seccessionable commonwealth like Puerto Rico. I would let all these blue states do so. Vermont has gone seriously wacky in recent years. Congress should set a procedure where the states can vote the others off the island by Senate vote.
Robert
October 3, 2018 at 8:57 AM
From an HBD perspective, California has a very good demographic pyramid for a strong capitalist economy.
At the top you have a lot of high IQ whites, Asians, and Jews. And at the bottom end of the IQ distribution you have hard working mexicans and very few “lazy groups”.
So if this potential country was run with a capitalist economy it could work well….
DataExplorer
October 2, 2018 at 12:28 PM
It can’t happen. Looks at the example of Catalonia in Spain.
The only way this country could split, I think, is if democracy sincerely broke down, if there was an honest-to-God coup, for example. Much as Mexico fractured when Santa Ana overthrew their republic. Democracy and the Constitution are still Schelling Points, especially for the military, which swears allegiance to the Constitution. If the President suspended the Constitution, I could see parts of the military backing the President and parts backing the Constitution.
One other possibility is if the government went after Christians in a hard way. Banning the Bible as hate speech, for example.
Wency
October 2, 2018 at 12:41 PM
The Left has already been stealth repealing the Constitution as it is. Forced integration has been the biggest violation of Constitutionally protected rights for many generations now.
Panther of the Blogocube
October 3, 2018 at 1:04 AM
Sure, there’s a certain rate of change of the Constitution that is now baked into our “unwritten constitution”, particularly concerning the addition of dubious new rights. But certain things are still not acceptable, such as blatant changes to the form of government. Suppose the President and the House both support a bill but the Senate blocks it, and the President orders the Executive Branch to implement it anyway. Or the President chooses to ignore the Supreme Court. Or, as has been discussed recently, an obviously capable President is deemed unfit for office and a coup launched against him.
Any of these (and some other scenarios) would produce a Constitutional crisis, and at some point, if no compromise can be reached, either the military becomes involved, or the Federal government stops functioning entirely and the states start assuming its powers.
You have to think though that a President (or a cabal looking to seize the Presidency) wouldn’t grossly test the Constitution unless they had the backing of the JCS. So what more likely happens, if the military ever intervenes to defend the Constitution, is division within the ranks as patriotic elements revolt against the careerist JCS.
All of this seems unlikely to me though, at least in the next few decades. The U.S. most likely holds together, becoming ever-more-dysfunctional but still able to keep the lights on.
Wency
October 3, 2018 at 11:26 AM
I think that the most plausible outcome of a Calexit would be that California would become a political if not military outpost for China, using Mexico as a proxy or not.
In no future reality would the US give up the West Coast / California. Stating that the land and coastline is crucial to national security doesn’t quite adequately emphasize the point.
That being said, I’m still for Calexit because it would destroy California if the Feds needed to come in and intervene. I doubt the military would be required short of mob control. With what army would California fight? They have none. Thus, they really have no winnable exit option. Still, I hope that they do it so that improved law and order can spring from the chaos.
Sam
October 2, 2018 at 12:44 PM
We’d also have to try extra hard from then on to hang on to Washington State, since we need a Pacific port to buy all our cheap Chinese-made Walmart crap.
Hermes
October 2, 2018 at 1:02 PM
When these blue states go bankrupt, as they surely will, maybe we can think of some legislation to return bankrupt states to territorial status until they can get fixed enough to be a state again.
Mike Street Station
October 3, 2018 at 6:16 AM
“military colony of China”
There’s already Canada and Mexico if they want military colonies. Why haven’t they colonised them already?
Blue Tribe Dissident
October 3, 2018 at 9:51 AM
This
Jack Cade
October 2, 2018 at 1:11 PM
Still way too many liberal whites and illegal aliens in the other 49 states to make it worthwhile. And if Texas goes purple, game over. Plus, anything that weakens the US would please Russia and China greatly.
Brendan
October 2, 2018 at 1:11 PM
Who cares what Russia and China like? Maybe Taiwan becomes Chinese and Ukraine becomes Russian. That makes about a trillionth of a difference compared to whether my neighborhood becomes Somali.
Wency
October 2, 2018 at 1:44 PM
My prediction is that Texas will be purple leaning towards blue in a decade. It’s demographics old chap.
Mike Street Station
October 3, 2018 at 6:17 AM
Wouldn’t this apply to NYC and the Northeast as well?
Tom
October 2, 2018 at 1:17 PM
Yeah, where are we ice people supposed to go? Elsewhere on this post we’ve got a commenter advocating that the Upper Midwest be turned into an Islamic theocracy, the Southwest is undergoing Mexican reconquista, the deep south/southeast has too many blacks… what’s left, the desert/upper Rocky Mountain States? No one wants to live in a desert, and having a landlocked country would have major disadvantages.
Hermes
October 2, 2018 at 4:14 PM
Utah? As far as I can tell, no hurricanes, no severe blizzards, no tornadoes, no earthquakes, no volcanoes. My friend from Traverse City Michigan tells me that it is an ideal climate also. And the Great Lakes have lots of fresh water.
amused observer
October 2, 2018 at 6:09 PM
Utah is a desert. And our friend galileo1439 (is he for real?) plans to include Michigan in his Islamic theocracy.
Hermes
October 2, 2018 at 9:33 PM
I reluctantly support this given your stated reasons, but it’s a real shame. I was in California once. Silicon Valley is something out of a futuristic world, the scenery is gorgeous, Napa Valley is a treat by itself and the drive along the Big Sur is something you should do on your bucket list.
Red pill aspie
October 2, 2018 at 1:21 PM
Yes, looking at anything other than demographics, California would be a huge loss. In terms of geography and climate, there’s nothing else like it. I get the impression that when all those white middle Americans moved there in the 60s, before it became a multicultural cesspool, it was really an idyllic place.
Hermes
October 2, 2018 at 3:01 PM
Yes California was founded by Louis J. Marinelli. It started a signature gathering campaign for a proposition proposing CalExit in November 2016. If enough signatures had been gathered this would have been on the November 2018 ballot. Yes California opened offices all over the state for signature gathering but then ran into trouble when it was reported that Marinelli was from New York and actually lived in Russia. There were reports that the Russian government had funneled money through Marinelli to Yes California. In April 2017 Yes California halted its signature gathering and sought to separate itself from Marinelli. Marinelli has since applied for permanent residence in Russia.
In April 2018 Yes California (without Marinelli) started a signature gathering campaign for another proposition, but then apparently abandoned it in July 2018. Yes California unveiled yet another CalExit plan in July 2018. This one would create an “autonomous native nation” within the independent California. A map provided by Yes California suggests that about half of California would be this autonomous native nation. I have not heard anything more about these plans.
MikeCA
October 2, 2018 at 1:55 PM
One Russian conspiracy I can subscribe to.
“I am sure all of that stuff can be figured out.”
Yeah, right. Lion wrong here.
gothamette
October 2, 2018 at 2:36 PM
I agree that Leon is wrong about this. First, as someone already pointed out, it would be a massive national security issue. And, second, the idea of letting a bunch of foreigners immigrate and then declare independence sticks in my craw.
A better solution is mass deportations. I’m sure someone will say, “But you can’t! You just can’t!” But what they really mean is that they personally find it unacceptable. I can assure that it’s just as feasible to deport them as it was to let them in. Just make it illegal to hire or rent to people with a recent immigrant background and confiscate the property of anyone who does. They’ll leave on their own. All it takes is the political will.
destructure
October 2, 2018 at 5:20 PM
“But what they really mean is that they personally find it unacceptable.”
We’re more likely to have the political will for mass deportations if we rid Congress of California liberals.
Lion of the Blogosphere
October 2, 2018 at 6:04 PM
Leftism doesn’t stop at national borders even now. That’s the problem with it — They can’t stand the thought of anyone else having different beliefs, culture, and practices. The cancer analogy is apt.
There is no way America should give up California territory. If anything, just cut out SF and LA metropolitan areas. They would quickly collapse economically as these regions are not self-sufficient. While we’re building a wall on the southern border we can spare a few miles around the most Leftist metros too. Charge the F out of them anytime they want to exit using US ports, airspace, or roads.
Panther of the Blogocube
October 3, 2018 at 1:36 AM
I’d rather end California’s de-facto secession by having its sanctuary laws overturned.
Beliavsky
October 2, 2018 at 2:18 PM
The day after California seceded, the newly Trumpian remaining United States of America could annex it, expel all non-native born Americans, and impose martial law to end their liberalism.
Hermes
October 2, 2018 at 2:58 PM
I would support the Great Lakes region becoming an independent Islamic theocracy. Michigan, Minnesota and North Dakota could happily exist under Islamic rule by Somali and Middle Eastern immigrants. As a devout Muslim I would move there.
galileo1439
October 2, 2018 at 2:22 PM
And I would get four wives, who could be as young as 9.
galileo1439
October 2, 2018 at 2:25 PM
Wow, the benefits of being Muslim!
Lion of the Blogosphere
October 2, 2018 at 2:48 PM
Marrying four 9 year olds sounds like hell. Mohammed can keep the kiddies.
Panther of the Blogocube
October 3, 2018 at 1:40 AM
Without the protection of red-state congressmen …
I don’t follow. What kind of protections are red-state congressman providing to California?
Marty
October 2, 2018 at 3:00 PM
Protecting them from open borders.
Lion of the Blogosphere
October 2, 2018 at 5:55 PM
Dumbest idea ever. So you’d give up a big chunk of the US economy, including its main driver of economic growth (Silicon Valley) and a major percentage of its agricultural outlook, among much else, just to have fewer Mexicans? That’s the equivalent of a fat man having a limb amputated so he can weigh less.
Peter
ironrailsironweights
October 2, 2018 at 3:28 PM
The economies could still be tightly linked, just like the auto manufacturing business straddles the U.S. and Canada now. I’m pretty sure America ex-California would still have access to Central Valley produce and Silicon Valley websites.
Dave Pinsen
October 2, 2018 at 6:35 PM
I agree. And if it happened, California would move to the right. Not as far as the national GOP. Right now the Cal GOP is weighed down by the party’s cultural southernness and leadership.
Net third world migration to California is currently about zero because it is expensive here.
Pop
October 2, 2018 at 3:45 PM
Quebec which has long threatened leaving the rest of Canada, yesterday had a provincial election resulting in a significant reduction in the separatist vote and the heralding into power of a right wing government, which has not been shy about its distaste for refugees, Islam or multiculturalism generally. Combined with the recent election right turn in Ontario, and you find that about two-thirds of Canada has now turned conservative at the provincial level. As recently as six months ago, liberals in the US media used to trumpet Canada’s support for all things progressive, well I think you’ll see a lot less of that now. Trudeau’s federal Liberal Party is now also starting to look a lot more embattled, and in the next election they too may be gone. BTW haven’t heard anything from JS lately, hope he’s okay.
Roli
October 2, 2018 at 4:01 PM
The elites would never allow it because separatism is considered nationalistic and evil, even if it’s peaceably done through a referendum. This was how Catalonian independence was shut down. The media painted them as “undemocratic” for not wanting to live together in a more diverse, communal Spain and sharing their wealth with less developed provinces.
Leftism chains countries together under an ideological collective, so that no one country can challenge leftist orthodoxy without being outnumbered and defeated by the other members. They want an expanding collective where everyone submits to their values, and outliers are dangerous simply because they fall outside their control. This oppressive, schoolmarmish ethos is what underlies the EU, and probably America as well.
Jason Liu
October 2, 2018 at 4:02 PM
> United States is too big and too politically divided to run itself anymore
I don’t know how true this really is. The main problem seems to be paralysis in the newly entrenched political caste. Nothing some constitutional amendments couldn’t fix.
I favor term limits. All federal elected office in total should be limited to eight years. It should typically be a thing you do for a few years, not a career. Career politicians are the fundamental problem.
I also favor more direct democracy. The polls indicate the bulk of people are surprisingly sane on the important issues, like immigration, for example. It’s just that every issue gets hijacked by fringe activists and cash laden lobbyists. Uncapping the size of the house would help here. Neutralize the lobbyists and campaign finance issue. There should be a congressman for about every fifteen thousand people. The current situation is ridiculous, with 700,000 per congressman. Your congressman is supposed to be a guy you very realistically can get a meeting with, and it’s supposed to be more of a part time job. With modern technology there is no reason the house couldn’t have a huge number of seats. Hold house votes in RFK stadium, or something.
The Seventeenth Amendment also needs to be repealed and we go back to the state legislators appointing senators. The whole point of the senate is obviated by directly electing them. It’s supposed to be a way for the state governments to have a handle on the feds.
bobbybobbob
October 2, 2018 at 4:14 PM
I agree about the 17th amendment, but remember that state legislators didn’t want to deal with selecting Senators.
Lion of the Blogosphere
October 2, 2018 at 6:01 PM
Without the protection of red-state congressmen, California would succumb to its liberalism, destroying itself with an open-borders immigration with generous welfare benefits for every new arrival.
Probably the opposite would happen. An independent California would fairly quickly discover the importance of protecting its borders. Currently California is dominated by transplants who have no particular loyalty to “California” and can move to Oregon, Texas or Maine whenever they feel like it. Citizens of the nation of California would feel far stronger ties. It would also need a strong military to protect its access to water. California might become the strongest nation in North America within a few decades, but would be much less liberal than today.
Peter Akuleyev
October 2, 2018 at 4:27 PM
I wouldn’t give up all of California. I’d at least keep a corridor to the sea near San Diego.
Dave Pinsen
October 2, 2018 at 4:33 PM
what about HBD exit?
HBDers form their own country on henderson island?
rotten banana syndrome
October 2, 2018 at 4:57 PM
…so you think that only colored people would move to California and only white Californians would leave?
Plenty of New York SWPLs would also move to California.
SC
October 2, 2018 at 5:09 PM
A quarter of a million people move out of California each year. If they seceded, that number would skyrocket. The number of blue immigrants moving in to be part of the great socialist experiment would be minuscule.
Mike Street Station
October 3, 2018 at 6:28 AM
So basically, giving it back to Mexico.
NEVER!
rivelino
October 2, 2018 at 7:18 PM
it’s already happened dear heart.
to err is human, to boof divine
October 2, 2018 at 7:24 PM
Report from the major media.
Blasey Ford won’t shut up – she is pestering the FBI to interview her. Who on earth does that?
Jeff Flake and Chris Coons have covered themselves in disgrace. I have never seen anything remotely like this.
Coons is now on TV literally directing the FBI to interview “dozens of people” – what is his story? He’s worse than Flake if that can be imagined.
gothamette
October 2, 2018 at 7:28 PM
Oops – Coons is a libDem. So it’s to be expected he’s terrible. Flake goes back to being worse.
gothamette
October 2, 2018 at 7:33 PM
Military coup and a dictator with unlimited power tor 4 years after which he retires is the only way to save this poor country. I’m willing to lead a death squad during these 4 years. After that I may also retire. USA needs to conquer Canada, not leave California.
Yakov
October 2, 2018 at 8:26 PM
It’s a nice fantasy to think that we can just get rid of the looney Left by physical separation, but in reality, the line between red and blue cuts through each and every human heart. We all have the instinct to virtue-signal; to pretend to support noble causes in order to advance our self-interests; to be cynical hypocrites.
Besides, it’s not like Leftism is a live and let live philosophy. For Leftists, the mere existence of conservative whites is an intolerable act of aggression.
Metaphorically, Calexit is like removing a cancerous tumour that’s already metastacized. It may buy a little time but ultimately it won’t stop the disease.
fortaleza84
October 2, 2018 at 9:27 PM
Yes, the point has been made, when conservatives suggest seceding and forming our own conservative nation, that the rest of the West would treat such a nation the way we treated apartheid-era South Africa. The liberal world would refuse to tolerate its existence
Hermes
October 2, 2018 at 10:55 PM
Yeah Lawrence Auster kicked these ideas around here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016158.html
I think the key point is to focus on the underlying principles of liberalism. What’s interesting is every last one of their stated principles is not an actual principle at all and is quickly thrown away if convenient to do so. This is extremely obvious with principles like equality, free speech, or due process. But even ideas like “don’t mistreat women” are casually discarded if it is convenient to suck up to actual rape cultures.
Leftism is not so much a set of ideas but a process by which individuals pursue naked self-interest — power, status, and money — with a fig leaf for their greed and hypocrisy. Which is why the Left will never ever be appeased and will never ever tolerate the existence of a conservative state which is prosperous and free.
fortaleza84
October 3, 2018 at 2:30 PM
Supposedly there’s some esoteric masonic symbolism behind there being “50” states (5+0=5, 5= 5 pointed star, pentagon, five points of fellowship etc). So they can’t get rid of one state without replacing it with another.
toomanymice
October 3, 2018 at 1:57 PM
One of the biggest advantages of us citizenship is having low hassle travel using US passport. I did not work hard for 9 years to get my US passport to give it up so soon.
wt
October 3, 2018 at 3:46 PM