Calexit petition a reactionary, poorly thought-out temper tantrum


Photo illustration by Aiden Prehatny

by Aulani Capuchin, Staff Columnist

This has been one of the most abrasive first few weeks of a presidency after a particularly contentious election. From the executive order banning immigration and travel from seven majority Muslim countries, to one giving advisor and white nationalist Steve Bannon a seat on the National Security Council, Trump’s immediate actions as president have left many questioning the future of the United States.

Some in California are suggesting that the Golden State not stick around to find out. Coined as “Calexit,” the proposed measure, which organizers recently received approval to begin collecting signatures on, proposes that California secede from the U.S.

Despite popular resistance to Trump, the state has much to lose from succession.

First, secession of California would be a huge loss in liberal partisanship on the national level, resulting in an even more ensconced conservative majority.

Additionally, fiscal matters are a bundle of unknowns and difficult to project. Trump has floated the idea of increased tariffs, meaning there could be increased taxes on good imported in from a sovereign California. The U.S. would enjoy an advantage in any potential trade deal as well.

If the California legislature sticks to its progressive agenda, citizens can expect tax increases as well, a result of implementing universal healthcare and accessible education. There is also the time bomb of unfunded pension debt upward of $300 billion. The effect on rural, conservative agricultural areas is also of note, especially considering these voters might not be in support of funding a progressive agenda.

California would also need to adopt a currency, a tedious process in itself. Without our own military, it will have to figure out how to provide for its national security.

Most importantly, California would need to form a new government while attempting to not make the same mistakes that led to its leaving the U.S. in the first place.

Sorting these issues would take much longer than eight years, the longest Trump can constitutionally hold office.

It is a misguided, reactionary idea — one that is not worth it.