It happened once before. So, can it happen again? Let's examine the arguments.
After the 2000 elections, some folks on the extreme left talked about moving to Canada or Europe to get away from the illegitimate (in their eyes) and draconian Bush administration. Other than being a fringe thought, no such event took place. Why? Despite MSM repeated claims, America is still a center-right country.
If the elections of 2000 did not cause such a scenario, why would the election of 2008 have such an effect? It was not a landslide victory for Barak - just 52% voted for him. But it was a landslide victory for Democrats in the House and a very tenuous hold for Republicans in the Senate. But Americans in general feel good about this election.
Are there any similarities to 1860?
Back then, the slave-holding southerners misread the election of Abraham Lincoln as a radical abolitionist and seceded from the Union. They incorrectly (at first, Lincoln had no such policy position, but as war wore on, he was convinced) assumed that he would abolish slavery. And that would directly violate their way of life (albeit morally wrong).
No such situation exists today. Bush administration had been the most spend-thrift even by Democratic standards. And this infuriates Conservatives. And Obama proposes to spend even more - much to the thrill of the Democrats. This could galvanize Conservatives. But the American conservative movement is in a disarray. This precludes any popular appeal to large sections of the population - like Reagan once did.
Mr. Panarin argues that rich states will stop paying their dues to the federal government. It is an interesting argument on 2 counts - the definition of rich states and the flow of money. Back in 1787, states certainly did not like 'Assumption' - i.e., the assumption of state debt by the Federal government as proposed by Alexander Hamilton. Because states liked their independence and were fearful of tyrannical federal government with the power of the purse. But with Jefferson's help, the Assumption was adopted and the union survived its first crisis. However, in 2009, most states would love the federal government to come to their rescue. And especially the 'rich' ones as Mr. Panarin would define - Calfornia and New York. Today, states eagerly lobby for and spend federal dollars. California and New York both have a combined $25B dollar budget shortfall for fiscal 2010.
Question of states dues: For nearly 150 years, the federal government survived with states dues. But everything changed with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment initiating Income tax. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Today, federal government taps right into a paycheck. While it is theoretically possible for say California to instruct employers in its state not to forward federal income tax withholdings to IRS and instead send it to state treasury, it is practically not feasible in this globalized economy. Many employers cross state and country boundaries.
Collapse of the dollar: How low should dollar have to go to trigger such a run? It is said that if America sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold. Right now, American economy is in trouble. It is pretty sick. But due to the global nature of the economy, rest of the world economy is awfully sick too. And this alone has lately strengthened dollar. While there could still be a run on the dollar, there isn't a reserve currency to run to. And yes, they can demand gold in return. And the current price of gold certainly indicates a trend. But even Gold has come off its peak lately. While this is the most plausible scenario, none of the market indicators point to that. And June 2010 is not that far away.
Let's see if anything that threatens our way of life (similar to 1860) that would lead to dis-union. Massive budget cuts required by the states would threaten the spend thrift way of life of most of the states. Environmental regulations (or lack there of) threatens Californian thought (not their way of life - which is inversely proportional to their environmental rhetoric). California is frustrated at Bush EPA for a lax environmental regulation. But that is all going to change with the incoming Obama administration. That leaves the Judicial gauntlet. Recent appointees to Federal bench has been skeptical about the environment claims. And Roberts court has not been that consistent in its approach to environmental issues. And Mr. Obama is likely to get one or two Supreme court nominations that would swing the balance, not to mention several nominations to the lower courts. So, I do not see much there.
And of course the timing is suspect. It is almost a year and half into the new administration. And the congressional mid-term elections are not due for another 5 months - not withstanding the fact that GOP might not make much headway in that election either.
That leaves us with the only 'unknown' in this election. Is this the change the 'Change' candidate have in mind? It sounds too cynical. But we never know. None of us ever questioned him what 'change' he has in mind.
The other possibility, the left has talked about, is for Mr. Bush (or Mr. Cheney) to declare himself President for life and suspend the constitution. Either men are too principled for such a thing.
Of course, Mr. Panarin has classified intelligence to back up his prediction. I am just an average Joe analyzing the hypothesis with the most logical thought.
What do you think?
