I spoke yesterday with Bill Meyer, who hosts the Bill Meyer Show in Oregon. We talked, among other things, about the explosive fact that in states like VA and CA, a geographically tiny canker sore of urban density has achieved almost unassailable political control over the entire state.
For example, in my state – Virginia – 85 percent of the state, by geography, voted for the Orange Man but because of Northern Va and Richmond, which are hives of government workers (which means government-lovers) the state fell to the Hair Plugged Man.
The majority of the state is controlled politically by a minority of the state. It's the same in CA and a number of other states, too.
The people no longer have a voice.
Because some people control the state.
What happens when the people of a state are disfranchised? When they come to know that their vote doesn't matter? Is it equitable that a geographically and proportionately tiny part of a state dictates to the rest of the state?
By what right does a Beltway bureaucrat autocratically govern the lives of farmers who live hundreds of miles away? The Coonman is the governor of Northern Virginia. He is loathed in most of Virginia. But the people of the rest of the state cannot vote him out of their lives because their votes don't matter. Northern Virginia decides the politics of Virginia.
Do we not adhere to the idea of the consent of the governed? How can there be consent when there is no choice? This is not about red vs. blue. It is about right vs. wrong.
It is time for a parting of the ways.
Before it comes to blows.
The people of Northern Virginia have the right to govern themselves – and so do the people of the rest of the state. The state should be recognized in law what it is in fact, which is two states. The same applies to the people of other states, who have the right to govern themselves but not the right to lord it over everyone else in the state.