This is splitting hairs. These are vocally low/anti regulation and tax states hostile to even the belief in climate change when scoped to state reps [1] [2]. Let them financially support themselves and their disaster risk costs. They voted for this (both at federal and state levels). If they would like federal support for their high risk geography [3] [4] [5], they should consider voting for an administration that will provide such policy and support and believes in the science.
California is the world's fifth largest economy. They will be fine.
My answer is to let people who want to hurt themselves politically and economically proceed after we have collectively attempted to prevent these outcomes. If they get their vote till death, and they don't want to change their vote to anything productive, there is no other choice (as mental models are rigid and tribalism pressures are strong). Good luck to them, effort is better spent on people who actually care and investment where it is valued.
> …or maybe they can just vote for the change they would like at the federal level like they just did.
This is the change they voted for. If it is harmful to them, that was their choice. As Jamie Dimon said, "Get over it." Vote better next time? If the forest votes for the axe after everyone told them not to, I have no compassion when the axe starts chopping.
It sounds like, from your comments, that you believe understanding these people is going to enable change. In my opinion, I believe this is unlikely when you cannot appeal to irrational voters (who google "who pays tariffs" after their vote and the election concludes, who don't want Obamacare but love their ACA insurance, who want immigrants deported but don't understand that directly correlates to inflation [wage pressure and labor supply]). So why are we going to waste time trying to pander and appeal to them? What will that change? Protect vulnerable people worth protecting, good luck to the rest while we wait for a bunch of folks to age out (~2M/year 55+ voting cohort).
You hope the forest accepts advice against the axe, but it doesn’t. The answer isn’t “let those dumb trees die off”. The answer should be “what about our message of peril is so easy to ignore” or “why don’t these trees respect our authority to advise them about the danger of the axes”.
You will always have an issue if you can’t communicate obvious peril in a way that is accepted or if you lack the respect and authority that prevents your advice being heard and accepted. That’s the problem, not the forest and trees.
These states and many of their citizens have been murmuring about a "cold civil war" and "peaceable secession" for decades, and a few have been flirting with secession since the actual civil war ended. They don't want to be a part of the US - or more accurately they consider only themselves to be the US, proper, and reject the authority of the Federal government as illegitimate, oppressive, and run according to cultural values which they despise.
So yeah, maybe it's better to let them go than suffer having them dragging the rest of the country down with them.
…or maybe they can just vote for the change they would like at the federal level like they just did.
Funny how that works in a republic like ours. If their direction doesn’t pan out, you have opportunities in 2026 and 2028 to right the ship. Of course that would mean that the democrats will actually have to provide a leader to two that can effectively communicate, motivate, and lead.
A republic doesn't work when half of the people simply vote to burn it down every four years to spite the other half. You can't just "right the ship" to correct policies this destructive. This isn't simple politics as usual.
You are making an assumption that only half the country votes to “burn it down” and that whatever side you are on is the correct one that should be preserved.
It’s possible that both sides seek to destroy the policies of the other and maybe, just maybe, neither side truly has a monopoly on what is right and correct.
All I hear as an independent political thinker is two sides whining that the other is dogmatic.
You're making the common "centrist" assumption that all sides are equal and all opinions derive from dogmatism and hypocrisy, yet somehow your own comments here tend only to criticize one side while justifying the other. I don't think you're as independent as you claim.
Interesting…I literally criticized both sides equally in the comment to which you just replied.
And for what it’s worth, I am pragmatic, not a centrist, which means that sometimes I might have an unbalanced view according to folks that believe “if you are not always A you must be B”
You didn't actually criticize either, you just implied both sides had the same motives, goals and methods, and that both sides were whining dogmatists. There is a difference between the two.
Also no one has claimed "if you are not always A you must be B," here. Again, you're just resorting to platitudes and stereotypes, no actual criticism or analysis. You haven't actually refuted any arguments with anything but blithe dismissals.
Suggesting that the two sides have the same motive, goal, and methods is a criticism. Suggesting that they are both full of whining dogmatists is a criticism.
Here is your argument, since apparently you didn’t get it from the much more brief sarcasm that started this little chain: “it’s shortsighted and frankly ignorant to suggest that destroying the most powerful country ever to exist via secession is a reasonable idea just because someone is butthurt that their ‘side’ didn’t win an election this time around and we had some hurricanes and fires this year that required significant federal disaster assistance”
By the way, my argument doesn’t change if it’s republicans talking secession or if the democrats are doing it. It’s a stupid idea.
While I am normally in team "hey scale it by capita", this case makes me hesitate. (Would we also need to factor in statewide cost-of-living values?)
If $X is exported from residents of my state out to support another state, that's the same local impact regardless of how populous the destination is or how finely that $X gets split after it arrives.
In any case, I think it's enough to support the idea that there's a tension (if not contradiction) where the states that receive the most absolute benefit are also the ones electing politicians who pretend the exact opposite.
