For all of the fun we have pointing out the lunacy of the Left, and I'll grant that after losing the election they have the emotional fuel to fire their rants, let's not neglect the idiocy that inhabits the Right. I'm sure we've all seen the Jesusland and RedStateistan maps that were created by liberals who simply couldn't comprehend the mindset of the majority of Red State voters and how they pondered seceding from the US and joining up with Canada.

I've read many of those diatribes and they all seemed to be a venting of emotion but none were serious proposals. Leave it to Mike Thompson in his essay in Human Events Online: The National Conservative Weekly to be the first such serious proposal to point "out the cancer that continues to threaten our body politic", and his unique contribution to our political discourse is that he plans on kicking the Blue States out of the Union.

He points out that the venting we've been seeing on the Left about seceding will stumble on Constitutional grounds but he offers us a blueprint for expelling the Cancerous States:

Having been amended only 17 times since 10 vital amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added at the republic's inception, the U.S. Constitution is not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50) must agree. Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt, let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," that is, a specific constitutional amendment to kick out the systemically troublesome states and those trending rapidly toward anti-American, if not outright subversive, behavior. The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. Only the remaining 38 states would retain the name, "United States of America." The 12 expelled mobs could call themselves the "Dirty Dozen," or individually keep their identity and go their separate ways, probably straight to Hell.

A difficult-to-pass constitutional amendment, however, is not necessary. There is an equally lawful route that mercifully would be both easier and faster. Inasmuch as Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union," it is reasonable that the same congressional majority may expel a state from the Union. Is there, after all, any human organization in existence (including a family or law firm) that may not disown, disinherit, ostracize, alienate or expel diabolical members? Whether the nation is purged of these 12 states via the Constitution or statute, the process of elimination must begin now, for the need of societal detoxification has waxed so overwhelmingly clear.

Phew! Where to start? Well, I'm reminded of an item I blogged on in February. So I thought I'd take a minute to explore the consequences and blinding hypocrisy of Mr. Thompson's suggestion.

Using the Bureau of Economic Analysis 2001 figures for Gross State Product, we see that the Red States of 2004 had a combined GSP of $4.614 Trillion and the remaining Blue States had a combined GSP of $5.522 Trillion. So right there Mr. Thompson has thrown away 54.5% of the economy.

Secondly, between 1992 and 2002, the Red States suckled on the public teat to a scandalous degree. I'll summarize the data to highlight the outliers.

All of the Red States received more in Federal Government Transfers than they contributed except for 3 states and all except 6 states increased their economic dependence on the Federal Government.

Changes in Red States Fiscal Relationship to the Federal Government:

Net Contributor: - Colorado, Nevada, Texas
Increase: -
Decrease: - Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah

All of the Blue States contributed more in Federal Government Transfers than they received except for 5 states and all except 9 states decreased their economic dependence on the Federal Government and 2, while still beneficiaries, reduced their dependence.

Changes in Blue States Fiscal Relationship to the Federal Government:

Net Beneficiary: - Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Vermont, DC
Increase: - Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Imbler, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, DC
Decrease: Maine, Maryland

Further, Mr. Thompson suffers from the illusion that the Red States are some sort of unified block as seen in this map. When the map is corrected for state population disparities the cartogram will look like this. In his essay Mr. Thonpson makes reference to county level analysis, which is best depicted by this map. However, the population disparities between the counties would create a cartogram that looks like this. What Mr. Thompson neglects to do is to gauge the degree to which the vote is either Red or Blue. This map does make that data correction and a tree Red or true Blue country must have over 70% of the vote totherwise it is depicted as a degree of purple. Lastly, when population differences are incorporated into the analysis the cartogram will look like this.

What's clear to me is that the Republican victories in this election weren't landslides as some analysts are proclaiming and the Red and Blue states aren't cultural monoliths. The diffusion of different values throughout the states is quite pronounced and there are only a few places where 70% of the voters are either Red or Blue.

So if Mr. Thompson is so keen on expelling Blue States from the Union he should be prepared to look in the mirror and see before him a taxpayer in a welfare dependent state and figure out how he and his fellow citizens will do without the involutnary gifts that Blue State taxpayers have been sending their way.

Lastly, as I wrote from my post in February, I'm still puzzled by how people can so easily delude themselves. To espouse independence, fiscal conservatism, small government and other traditional conservative values and yet be the biggest hogs at the federal trough is beyond me. What defines a person's political ideology: the slogans they shout or how they conduct themselves. For those Leftist Liberals, all I can say is at least they are consistent for they believe in big government and are willing to pay for it even though it doesn't benefit them. I can't find the line through the hypocrisy of mooching conservatives that will allow me to see their ideological consistency.

So, Mr. Thompson, continue with your proposal at your own peril and be prepared to accept higher taxes and a lower standard of living in order to free yourself from association with the cancerous Blue Staters. What's the definition of cancer again?