Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Hawks, Clowns and Leaders

Hawks, Clowns and Leaders
by Michael Lujan Bevacqua
The Guam Daily Post
August 10, 2016

I have to echo so many writers, pundits and voters this past year, who cannot help but marvel at the strange world we live in today, as a result of the Republican nomination of Donald Trump for the presidency of the United States. Donald Trump, has in so many ways pushed this election to the limits of imagination and at times common decency. His determination to attack and hit back against anyone who he perceives as wronging him has led him down the path of childishness and bullying. Trump’s behavior and his ideological inconsistency has come to the point where the terrain of ideas and allies, has shifted so drastically that those I might normally consider my foes are suddenly unexpected friends. I say this because in the current national election cycle, I myself who is a long time anti-war, demilitarization and decolonial activist find myself regularly agreeing with neoconservatives from the Bush and Reagan eras, hawkish Democrats and former heads of the CIA. More than 100 noted foreign policy experts, representing both political parties have come out publicly stating that Donald Trump doesn’t have the character or knowledge base in order to be in charge of the network of global American military and diplomatic power.

This is what is so strange about the current ideological debate out there, is that there is much in the absurdity of Trump’s constantly changing positions that I can agree with, but still find him and his rhetoric so repulsive. His general lack of knowledge about the structure of American power in the world, creates so many opportunities for him to occasionally take up a position that is more in line with a Bernie Sanders or Ralph Nader supporter than his own base. In his ignorant and reactionary comments he routinely and casually talks about upending longtime alliances such as NATO, using nuclear weapons in any context, and abandoning US allies around the world. In his childish temperament he insists that the rest of the world is taking advantage of the United States and the US shouldn’t help them until they are willing to pay their fair share or start respecting the United States. In his incoherent comments he is, far more than any other mainstream candidate in recent history, describing the reduction of the imperial bootprint of the United States across the world. This bootprint consists of more than a 1000 facilities in other countries and in colonies, who have been forced to shoulder the burden of these bases for sometimes close to a century. That is why is so hysterical about Trump’s comments, is that he is echoing what the majority of people in countries across the globe feel about hosting US bases, but their governments enjoy having a cozy military relationship with the United States. It is so strange, because as someone who is opposed to military increases to Guam, under Trump, for both rational and irrational reasons, he may be aligned with our critique.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand will no doubt maintain, albeit with reasonable imperial justifications, the vast and ridiculously expensive global network of American power. She is after all, the voice that reaffirmed the US commitment to move its troops from Okinawa to Guam, after opposition both locally and in Washington D.C. ground the Pentagon's monstrously under-planned buildup programs to a halt.

But Trump, while sometimes, almost instinctively taking positions that I can agree with, also makes those shallow arguments with such a thick layer of nationalistic and jingoistic venom, it is hard to stomach it, even when he might be accidentally advocating something I would strongly support. One reason why I find myself supporting Hillary more and more, despite the fact that so many people that I find odious for their role in maintaining and building up American imperial projects are also supporting her, is because part of me detests simply the idea that Donald Trump has gotten this far in the democratic process, while being so utterly ignorant, intellectually weak and brazenly small-minded.

For me, I don't agree with the mainstream consensus on US foreign policy, which is a mixture of various levels of military project and intoxicating doses of American exceptionalism. But that doesn't mean that I don't take knowledge about it seriously. That doesn't mean that my disdain for things, gives me license to disdain the idea of truth, accuracy, seriousness of purpose in general. But that is exactly what we see in Donald Trump. A spoiled brat of a man, who shows no interest in knowing and learning more, even after a year of media coverage and analysis has come to show that he has knowledge of world affairs equal to your average internet troll.

Attempts by some to argue that both Clinton and Trump are liars, doesn’t do justice to the difference in their lying. Political fact-checking websites have had to come up with new ways of conceptualizing political lying or ignorance because Trump’s impressive ability to make up facts, ignore reality and say the most inane things and somehow feel that if he keeps saying it to sympathetic crowds, it’ll eventually become true. In his recent article in the New York Times titled “Clinton’s Fibs v. Trump’s Big Lies,” Nicholas Kristof discusses the difference between them in terms of amount of misstatements and their willingness to perpetuate them. As he writes, “In March, Politico chronicled a week of Trump remarks and found on average one misstatement every five minutes. The Huffington Post once chronicled 71 inaccuracies in an hour-long town hall session – more than one a minute.”

As CIA directors and members of the foreign policy elite rally around Hillary, I am repulsed by their particular positions, but have to at least acknowledge a feeling of simple solidarity with the fact that they at least know what they stand for, even if it is violent, cruel and leads to the further exploitation of much of the world. Serious people on different sides of an issue can at least see eye to eye on the need for seriousness, and therefore feel united against a clown or someone whose presence seems to challenge the notion that knowing things and having a hunger to improve through learning is central to an effective leader.

Call for Papers: Convergence in Oceania

Science and Art: Convergence in Oceania
38th Annual UOG CLASS Research Conference
March 10, 2017


The theme for the 38th Annual Research Conference is Science and Art: Convergence in Oceania.  The conference will convene on Friday, March 10, 2017 on the campus of the University of Guam-Unibetsedåt Guahan.

The organizing committee welcomes proposals related to the multidisciplinary intersections of the Sciences and Arts that converge in Oceania.  Local, regional, and global scholars, scientists, visual and theatrical artists, and students can propose traditional session formats such as the conventional presentation of an academic paper or the informative poster session.  Presenters can also propose innovative sessions to share their research and experiences such as illustrated talks, interactive panels and demonstrations, engaging performances, and Skype presentations.

Regardless of the proposed session format, the objective of the conference is to provide a forum for intellectual engagement and discussions on issues related to the conference theme and relevant or unique to Oceania, an area endowed with significant ecological and cultural diversity.  Local, regional, and global practitioners and scholars who interrogate how those issues manifest in Oceania and/or examine the changing role of Oceania as it grapples with the social forces of globalization are especially encouraged to submit proposals.

Proposals should address any of the following topics:
  • Environmental Science
  • Energy and Environment
  • Biology and Ecology of Oceans
  • Education
  • Employment and Poverty Reduction
  • Health and Health Issues
  • Gender and Women’s Empowerment
  • Politics and Governance
  • Context, Change and Continuity in Language
  • Pacific History and Development
  • Sustainable Art Practices
  • Environmental Arts
  • Ecologically Engaged Art
  • Contemporary Art in Pacific
  • Traditional Pacific Arts
  • Geography
  • Pacific Architecture and Urban Planning
  • Tourism
Proposals beyond the range of these topics will be considered if relevant to Oceania. 
Proposals (title, abstract, presenters/institutions) can be submitted here.
You may send questions and inquiries to


The Call for Proposals is open to faculty and graduate and undergraduate students in any discipline.  Other professionals or artists not affiliated with an academic institution but interested in sharing their relevant professional work through this research conference platform are also encouraged to submit proposals.
Proposals must include a presentation title, an abstract of no more than 150 words, and a list of author(s) and institutional affiliation(s).  If proposing a Skype presentation, please indicate it in the proposal’s Abstract.
Presentations will be limited to 20 minutes with an additional 5 minutes for discussion.
Presenters will have access to rooms equipped with projectors, but must provide their own laptop.

Presenters applying for the TRAVEL GRANT must submit complete proposals by NOVEMBER 1, 2016.  Refer to the “About” page for more information regarding the 

Conference Organizing Committee
  • Dr. Irena Keckes (Chair), Division of Communications and Fine Arts
  • Prof. Lewis Rifkowitz, Division of Communications and Fine Arts
  • Dr. Chris Garcia, Division of English and Applied Linguistics
  • Dr. Yoshito Kawabata, Division of Social and Behavioral Sciences
  • Dr. Michael Bevacqua, Division of Humanities 
  • Dr. Sharleen Santos-Bamba, CLASS Associate Dean (Acting)
  • Ms. Jessica Urbano, CLASS Dean's Office

The University of Guam is committed to equal opportunity and full participation for persons with disabilities by providing access to its services and facilities through the ADA Office. Call 671-735-2995 or TDD 671-735-2243.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Spirit of Activism

As I and so many others have stated, social movements work in cycles. There are moments of ascendancy and then declines. Their are moments of incredible cohesion and then disruption and atomization. When I look back at my own life, I can see, in the movement for decolonization various ruptures in this sense. Some of which I have simply witnessed, others I was actively involved in. This letter to the editor of The Pacific Daily News by Kin Perez is an important reminder of the movements and moments that have come before, the ways in which we might build upon their actions, but the ways we might also be stuck with the same problems and similar dynamics. I would like to think that this year, we are seeing a type of resurgence and the foundation is being built for something larger. We shall see how long it lasts, but it is the first time in centuries that the momentum is towards autonomy and independence as opposed to further integration with the colonizer.


Spirit of activism waning
by Joaquin P. Perez
Letter to the Editor
Pacific Daily News
December 23, 2015

Apathy has diminished enthusiasm towards pursuing changes in Guam’s political relationship and its rightful place in the international community. The infectious apathy is seen in all sectors of the community, in all age groups, economic levels and among the political leadership.

In today’s world, political status efforts are mundane and boring while glamorous and profitable careers in medicine, business and financial management, the travel and visitor industry, and even military service careers offer excitement, travel, longevity and instant gratification.

One-upmanship, politicians bickering on issues of seemingly immediate importance — especially when linked directly to fast and furious media generation — is creating indifference among the people toward all things government. This is exacerbated when elected leaders get busy finding ways to spend money generated by mortgaging, and remortgaging, the lives of those who must eventually pay the debt — Guam’s future generations. With existing debt in excess of $1 billion and growing, elected leaders whose political lives will soon expire race to spend as much as possible, claiming credit for payment of delinquent tax refunds, increases in public sector salaries, increased visitor arrivals, as well as increased military activity, personnel and dependents.

There is little time, or interest, to indulge in futile exercises thinking that Washington will ever consent or acquiesce to any status changes. Delegates to Congress, intoxicated with the rarified air of the Potomac, claim to be anxiously awaiting the decision of a nonbinding plebiscite. No matter what the people choose, Congress is not bound to accept it.

Expounding on the generosity of Congress, the White House, DOD and Japan in approving millions of dollars which will increase Guam’s population, increase the island’s nightmarish traffic congestion and increase demands on the island’s infrastructure to unpredictable levels, generates more favorable media. Telling the truth that Congress doesn’t have to recognize or honor the results of any plebiscite is unpleasant and doesn’t generate good press.

With the excitement of turning Guam into a stationary aircraft carrier, only precursory thought is given to the impact on the island and no thought given to deferred treaty promises and commitments to end colonial subjugation.

As the Potomac hordes are busy building defenses for the homeland, which Guam is not a part of, young politicos managing government of Guam agencies are also busy playing their one-upmanship games. They dwell on visions of two-million-plus visitors, increasing tourist accommodations, doubling of hotel occupancy tax dollars and increases in visitor industry jobs.

Their philosophy: Accentuate the positives only and pray that little thought is given potential adversities or negative impacts.

With these delusions of grandeur and abundance, who will take the time to think hard about joining a political journey, tenuous at best, because the decision-makers, on the Potomac, are ignorant about Guam, don’t care one way or another and don’t want to risk raising the ire of the military-industrial behemoth.

Guam’s Organic Act, as flawed as it is, happened because of the enthusiasm and obstinacy of the leaders in the postwar Guam Congress. Tired of 50 years of abuse by the naval government and no longer unafraid to voice their opinions, they refused to obey a naval governor and walked out. Their obstinacy was heard 10,000 miles away. Today, who among our elected leaders would have the courage to emulate the tenacity of the 1949 Guam Congress?

Para Pada defeated the ratification of the Guam Constitution of 1977, noting that establishing a constitution before determining a final and permanent political status was putting the cart before the horse. Para Pada activists included the likes of Robert Underwood, Benjamin Cruz, Ron Rivera, former Sens. Hope Cristobal and Marilyn Manibusan, and the late Sinajana Mayor Frank Lizama. All passionately believed in the dignity of Guam’s self-determination efforts. Like Carlos Taitano, B.J. Bordallo, F.B. Leon Guerrero, Ricardo Bordallo, Paul Bordallo, (they were) all leaders and all activists.

They questioned the wisdom of governance from the shores of the Potomac River. They challenged the morality of colonialist rule over a people who, before Magellan, were free and sovereign. Sadly, that spirit is waning, or perhaps simply gone, because to be an activist takes hard thought, hard work and passionate commitment — rare characteristics in this age of immediate indulgence and instant gratification.

Joaquin P. Perez is a resident of Santa Rita.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Rachel Maddow Interview with Playboy

Gof ya-hu si Rachel Maddow. 

Gof malåte' gui'. Gof maolek gui' kumuentos yan maneksplika. 

Guaha taotao ni' gof sinimai i hinasson-ñiha ni' patida.

Ya gi este na botasion gi sanlagu, nai si Donald Trump muna'fafamta' meggai na chatminalate, gof presisu nu Guahu i kuentos-ña yan tiningo'-ña si Maddow.

Estague i transcript annai ininterview gui' ni Playboy Magazine annai ma na'huyong i primet na tåya' kesnuda na issue gi Febrero gi på'go na såkkan.


Rachel Maddow Talks Hillary, Hate Mail and More in Our First Non-Nude Issue
By David Hochman
February 4, 2016

Upstairs in MSNBC’s studios at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in Manhattan, Rachel Maddow is practically mainlining the news of the day. Her staff of 20 (women outnumber men and diversity of skin color, gender expression and age is clearly valued) calls out headlines as Maddow scribbles in micro-script on a whiteboard: bombs in Kandahar, pollution in Beijing, idiocy on the campaign trail, a two-star Navy admiral reprimanded for public drunkenness and nudity. “Oh, I love when government and nakedness collide,” Maddow says to big laughs.

Of 50-odd story possibilities, roughly six make The Rachel Maddow Show, the nightly news and opinion program with a strong lefty bent that debuted two months before Barack Obama was elected in 2008. With nearly a million viewers each night, it is MSNBC’s highest-rated prime-time series and will inevitably boom bigger as November’s presidential election draws nearer.

At 42, Maddow isn’t like other TV talking heads. She was the first openly gay anchor to host a major news program in the U.S. and has never pretended to be a golden girl. “I once had long, straight blonde hair but then cut it short and came back looking like Rick Santorum,” she says. Maddow does not mask her liberalism, but even right-wingers respect how sharp, well-informed and sane she is. Her 2012 best-seller, Drift, on America’s slide into perpetual war, includes a blurb from Fox News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes.

Maddow grew up in conservative Castro Valley, California, where her former Air Force captain father was a lawyer and her mother a school administrator. By the age of seven she was reading the newspaper; in her teens, she was a standout athlete turned AIDS activist. She went to Stanford University and then to the University of Oxford as America’s first openly gay Rhodes Scholar. She holds an Oxford Ph.D. in political science.

Academia could not contain Maddow’s enthusiasm for talk, and she broke into radio in 1999 after an open call at WRNX in Amherst, Massachusetts. (That same year she met her partner, Susan Mikula, an artist; the Berkshires remain their primary residence.) Obsessive about research and with a gift for crystallizing even the wonkiest white papers, Maddow helped launch Air America in 2004 before landing her nine P.M. spot on MSNBC in New York, where Playboy Contributing Editor David Hochman recently met with her for a couple of days. Hochman has interviewed many pundits for Playboy —Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill Maher, Chris Wallace—but had never met an anchor who works as diligently as Maddow. He reports: “She’s like the girl in high school who reads every assignment, aces every test, does all the extra credits and still manages to run the yearbook, win the swim meet and get the president of the United States to write her back.”


After almost eight years of President Obama, we are once again talking about change. As a liberal, are you still feeling hope?
Theoretically. But historically speaking, after Democrats hold two terms in the White House, the public picks a Republican to replace them. There are a lot of determining factors in who wins. People say it’s the price of gas and the growth in the economy, but sometimes it’s the we’re-ready-for-something-new thing. There’s a reason that, almost without fail, in every midterm election the president’s party loses seats. There are psychological cycles in American politics that are pretty easy to read, and in 2016 Democrats are facing one of those cycles in which they are structurally disadvantaged. It’s a matter of civic and international interest whom the Republicans pick, because even if they pick a fascist, structurally speaking that fascist or that con man, let’s say, will have a 50 percent chance of becoming president of the United States. 

I’m a liberal, but the thing that interests me most in American politics is center-right to far-right politics, because (a) it’s a laugh a minute and (b) there’s no stasis. There’s no solid core moving forward. You never know who’s going to come along. 

Donald Trump’s strong come-on was certainly a stunner. What conditions gave rise to his popularity?
First of all, anybody in day-to-day political coverage who says they saw it coming you can write off for the rest of their life. Trump’s explosion was not just improbable, it was laugh-out-loud funny. But it’s not like there’s no precedent for this. Silvio Berlusconi, the longest-serving Italian leader after World War II, was a zillionaire media guy with bunga-bunga sex parties who had no political pedigree whatsoever and just got in there and did a terrible job and embarrassed the nation. But they picked him. Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota and then didn’t really do anything. Arnold Schwarzenegger became a non-consequential governor of California purely on the basis of having had a tough-sounding tagline in one of his movie franchises. People make decisions like this all the time, even enlightened persons. 

Some celebrity candidates turn out okay. Ronald Reagan did well for himself.
Ronald Reagan was a consequential guy. Al Franken is a very serious and effective Minnesota senator. Former child star Sheila Kuehl does meaningful work for California. That said, to go from being a race-baiting nativist buffoon reality-star professional sexist to being the distant front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, even for a while, says almost less about Trump than about the Republican Party. 

It’s fascinating how Republicans pick their candidates. Honestly, I think the Republican Party’s voters are drunk. I’m sure they’re having a great time and they feel euphoric, but you can’t eat a ton of greasy food and not feel terrible in the morning. I mean, Ben Carson!

What’s amazing is that the conservative movement since the Reagan era has been telling conservatives that government is the problem, which makes experience running government a mark on your record. Having constructive ideas about what government could do makes you a suspicious character. Honestly, the very idea that you would thirst to hold high government office in Washington, D.C. almost inherently disqualifies you as a Republican. So everybody is unqualified, and therefore you pick the person who most entertains you. It’s a weird thing. 

Weren’t we supposed to be in the middle of another Bush vs. Clinton battle right now?
That was the assumption ever since Obama became the clear nominee in 2008—Hillary vs. Jeb. Now, eight years later we’re in a campaign where we’ve watched Jeb Bush set fire to tens of millions of dollars and get in trouble every time he opens his mouth. At one point he actually said, “You are looking at the nominee and I am going to face Hillary Clinton and I am going to whoop her.” Come on, Jeb. You actually have to drop a g somewhere if you’re gonna talk like an everyday person. You have to use a contraction.

Regardless of which candidates are still in the running when this publishes, which Republicans have the most to offer?
The general election is so hard to talk about in the abstract this year, because all the Republican prospects have been so freaky-making. Look at Ted Cruz, who always appears to me as if he’s portraying a character rather than being an actual politician. It’s impossible to know what he truly believes. Marco Rubio, on the other hand, hasn’t really done anything in his life other than be a politician. I just can’t figure out how he spends his time. He made this interesting and dramatic commitment at the outset of his presidential campaign that he would not run for reelection to the Senate because he’s so confident he’ll be president. But then it became an issue that he doesn’t show up to vote. He has the worst voting record in the Senate, yet he clearly takes meetings every time a hedge fund billionaire calls. It’s hard to see Marco Rubio supporting anything other than Marco Rubio.

Now or in the future, what about Chris Christie?
My Spidey sense tells me he’s going to do well in New Hampshire. We’ll know by the time people read this. He’s a good campaigner. He has charisma. He has the right tough-guy persona he can turn on and off when he wants. Okay, so he has been like Godzilla stomping on New Jersey as governor. A true disaster. Republicans don’t care about that. But if Christie makes it to March and April, the problem is the Bridgegate trials will be starting, people will be pleading not guilty, and fingers will be pointing at him. 

Moving on to the Democrats, what does Hillary Clinton need to do to win?
She has to avoid unforced errors. The political track we’ve seen a few times with Hillary is that when she’s ahead she gets a little loosey-goosey. When people start talking about her as inevitable, she believes she’s inevitable and sort of moves on to the next thing. You can’t do that. Hillary stops paying attention to the fundamentals of being a good candidate when she’s ahead. 

Carly Fiorina quipped last year that if you want to stump a Democrat, ask him or her to name something Hillary Clinton has accomplished. What has Clinton accomplished?
She has a pretty good legislative record as a senator. Her time as secretary of state was accomplished. Most of what we did in Libya, whether or not you like it, was orchestrated by her. I think getting China onboard with the climate deal had a lot to do with her. Getting to Osama bin Laden. Improving America’s status abroad. But that question is bullshit. Let’s talk about Carly Fiorina’s accomplishments at HP when she left versus when she got there.

Presuming Clinton is the nominee, whom should she pick as a running mate?
Sadly, I feel her running mate definitely has to be a dude, even though there are so many women coming ripe in their political careers who would be amazing. Missouri senator Claire McCaskill would be amazing. Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar would be amazing. Obviously Elizabeth Warren if you have a more conservative candidate like Hillary Clinton. 

Everybody says Clinton is going to pick Julian Castro, the HUD secretary, but I’ve been trying to start another rumor. Maybe saying it in Playboy will finally make it take hold. It makes total sense to me that she’ll pick Stanley McChrystal, the Army general who had a bad ending because of a Rolling Stone interview in which he ripped into Joe Biden. There’s a sort of realpolitik gender issue around Clinton getting the nomination that requires she pick a Grizzly Adams as her vice president. But it can’t be somebody who might overshadow her to the extent that people see the man in charge and the woman in a supporting role. It can’t be somebody who feels he ought to be at the top of the ticket.
McChrystal doesn’t come from a traditional political background, which I think makes a lot of sense. Also, this election may come down to who has the best national security message. The one Hillary has is really different from President Obama’s. She told me to my face that she’s not as hawkish as people think she is and she won’t be a more aggressive commander-in-chief, but I don’t believe her. 

What difference would it make to have a woman as president?
It breaks the glass ceiling, which means the next woman to do it will be the second woman. Not that it always works that way. Britain had just the one; Israel had just the one. You do see when other countries get a female leader, particularly an iconic female leader, it doesn’t necessarily open the floodgates. It is unusual that we’re this old, robust democracy and pluralistic society, and we haven’t gotten ours yet. The gender achievement at the top in every single political representation really sucks. I mean, we’re super-psyched that we have 20 women senators. Yay, 20! Um, there are 100. I can do that math. 

It’s worse in the Republican Party, but in the Democratic Party women aren’t hitting the top tiers as fast and as frequently as statistically they ought to be, even when you compare us with other countries. I can’t help but think that electing a woman president might speed that pace a bit. Still, if Clinton gets elected, that’s about her, and her legacy will be determined by how good a president she is. Just being a woman gets you only so far. 

You’ve spent time knee-to-knee with Clinton and Bernie Sanders. What are they like off camera?
It’s fascinating. I did an hour-long interview with Hillary in the studio last fall, right before the televised forum I did with the candidates in South Carolina. We had no ground rules. She had no idea what I was going to ask. When she came in, she listened to me so hard it felt like she was prying my thoughts out of my brain through my eyeballs. Hillary’s got tractor beams. She was so intently focused and had a ton to say about every issue. It’s the same way Bill Clinton would give press conferences when he was president and wouldn’t want them to end. He’d just be like, “Bring it on.” She kind of has that going on. She’s not that guarded. She has something to say about everything. She’s policy-minded—that to me is a nice form of seriousness in a politician—and has an ability to handle a wide range of subject matter. Very impressive. 

But then, a couple of weeks later, at the forum in South Carolina, it wasn’t just us and the camera guy in the room. There were 3,000 people, and it was as if I wasn’t there. I would ask her a question and she would physically turn to the audience and answer. I was like, “Yoo-hoo, over here!”

Was Sanders like that too?
The thing that’s interesting about Bernie is that he is a freaking good politician, and he’s aggressive. We had a commercial break in the middle of our discussion because I wanted to have a reset. During that break, Martin O’Malley was hyperventilating. Hillary started playing to the audience again and waving to people like she was campaigning. Bernie was working me to ask the questions he wanted for the second half. He was like, “When we come back, are you going to ask me about…?” I was like, “Whoa, whoa, whoa. You’re supposed to be Mr. Socialist.”

Can you picture him being president?
Bernie Sanders is running this fascinating campaign where he’s all about people being angry and dissatisfied and frustrated. He wants you to be disaffected and frustrated about an economic system that keeps you from ever ascending the ladder. That is a great emotion to tap into for a politician but a hard lesson to sell in terms of where people should channel it. If that message works for you, it’s cathartic. People love him. They really do feel the Bern. He gets tens of thousands of people to turn out, but that sort of economic populism is a tough sell. The diagnosis is right; the cure isn’t easy. My prediction for Bernie: populist hero forever but hard to imagine him still being there at the convention. 

Let’s talk about your MSNBC show. What do you say to people on the right who see the lion’s share of your segments going after corruption and extreme views among Republicans at a time when we’ve had a Democratic president for seven years and a Congress in which Democrats have held at least equal power? Is your outrage selective?
I don’t think so. I defy anybody to have shown more glee or spent more minutes of airtime enjoying the spectacularly corrupt and profane downfall of Rod Blagojevich in Illinois. I don’t know of any other national news coverage for a story like that of Kathleen Kane, the first elected Democratic attorney general in Pennsylvania, who leaked embarrassing racist and pornographic work e-mails of government officials and police officers that were part of a secret grand jury document. I mean, hello! California state senator Leland Yee, who went down for your standard corruption plus selling shoulder-fired missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. That stuff is gold. I don’t want to go so far as to say I enjoy it, but I am enthusiastic about covering profane corruption and extremism when anybody brings it to the fore. But certainly I love covering Republican politics in general more than I like anything else in American politics. It’s just my area of interest. 

Do you think emotions and opinions have overtaken analysis and facts in the American media? Or is it just some collective fantasy that news used to be more objective?
I don’t have any animus toward the old news model, but I do think it’s facile and reductive to claim news was once unbiased and is now biased. Every time you choose which stories are important that day, you’re using news judgment and your subjective perspective on things. I lived through a lot of news cycles as an American citizen before I was ever in the media. Much of the news I cared about was designated as unimportant, frivolous or not worthy of mainstream attention, and that was someone’s political decision. 

Which stories are you talking about?
Well, I’m thinking about the AIDS movement. Growing up as a gay kid in the 1980s and 1990s in the San Francisco Bay Area when that devastating epidemic hit, and it being literally laughed at in the White House briefing room and never treated by mainstream media as anything other than a sidebar medical issue or a human interest story about fags. That was someone’s subjective decision. I make subjective decisions too. I just own it.

You were an activist before you were an anchor. Do you still feel like one?
There are some connections. As a teenager and well into my 20s, being an activist was what I did full-time. I wanted to be good at it, and in order to be good and to get stuff done, I needed to make great arguments. That’s different from being good at being bossy, which I’ve always been. As I got into AIDS activism in particular, I consciously sought to build the skills to make persuasive arguments so I could help effect change. 

The media side of me is different from the activist side. As a media person, I like explaining things. Most of what I do is take the universe of known information and explain what’s important about it, what’s new about it and what to watch for next. I find that explanatory work very satisfying. We have this little mantra on the show: Increase the amount of useful information in the world. Explain what’s going on in a way that resonates with people and helps them understand what’s truly important about it. That’s what I try to do. Some people like it. Others can’t stand it. 

What is your hate mail like?
It’s interesting. I get a lot of it, but it has always been the same percentage of negative to positive. The first media job I ever had was in 1999 and 2000. I was on the radio, on The Dave in the Morning Show on WRNX in western Massachusetts. I was the lesbian newsgirl sidekick, and part of the shtick was that I was gay and looked like a dyke. That offended some people. Typical hate mail was the same then as it is now: all caps, misspelled, saying that I’m a man or I’m going to hell for being gay or that I’m a socialist. Or “I’m going to kill you.” That was 10 to 15 percent. Then I moved to my own show in Northampton, Massachusetts. That was Big Breakfast. It was the same thing. Then I got to Air America and had a national platform, and again it was the exact same proportion. Then I get a show on MSNBC, and again 10 to 15 percent hate me, think I’m a man or a socialist and want me dead. Fortunately NBC security is really good. If you look out that window, you’ll see snipers. 

Speaking of which, have you heard any interesting solutions for gun violence?
Yes, there are good ideas out there, like the micro-stamping of ammunition so you can trace every bullet. Most gun deaths in America are not mass shootings; most are small-scale crimes. Being able to solve gun crimes by connecting bullets to the people using them could really help. We did that with Tasers. A Taser shoots this confetti that helps you identify it. Why can’t we do that with guns? Also, smart guns, which they have in other countries, as well as in the most recent James Bond movie. Nobody other than you can fire the weapon. That won’t solve everything, but it will help with the day-to-day violence and accidents. 

What would it take to get the National Rifle Association on board with changes like those?
Raw political force. The power of the NRA used to be that it held sway over Democrats in a way that was unusual for a right-leaning interest group. More and more, the NRA is just a Republican interest group. As recently as the Bill Clinton era and even after, in the George W. Bush era, a considerable number of Democrats used to compete on the basis of their good standing with the NRA. Democrats now compete on the basis of who is the most aggressive against the NRA. That hasn’t leaked over into Republican politics yet, but Democrats have really changed. When Democrats win, the NRA loses. It was a brilliant strategy for decades to be able to keep its hold on Democrats, but it just pushed it too hard. I think Wayne LaPierre made them into an embarrassing organization that no Democrat wants to be a part of now. That’s really going to hurt them, but it will require raw Democratic political power. If the Democrats use their political might in the 2016 election, within four years the NRA could be effectively dead in terms of strangle-holding those federal issues. 

We keep seeing videos of police-related shootings, whether captured on smartphones and shared through social media or released by police departments amid public pressure. Much of the furor is fueled by race. Is the situation as dire as it looks?
I think so. Policing in our country is something in which authority is dispersed in a way that doesn’t always lend itself to the kind of stuff you want to see on the news. Obviously I think choosing to be a police officer is an incredibly patriotic and honorable thing to do. But running a good police organization in this country is something for which we don’t have high expectations. We expect police departments to have trouble, and we don’t give them much help in terms of running themselves in a way that avoids that. It’s a management problem and a government-accountability problem that are long-standing. You should expect things to go wrong when you give people guns and the authority to physically control others. But cameras are the beginning of the solution. The more cameras out there, the more incidents come to light. It helps you see the different fault lines, and there are many fault lines in America. 

The country feels as divided as ever.
We’re a raucous, fight-it-out kind of country, and we always have been. America had a civil war. People used to beat each other to death with canes on the floor of the Senate. We had race riots.
You get a lot of happy talk about healing and unity. That can be inspirational, but when fault lines ease, new ones always form. You can see the split by race. You can see it by class. Urban-rural, red state–blue state. Insurrectionist versus statist. The naysayers versus whatever Obama tried to get done. 

Give us your report card on the president’s two terms.
Obama will go down as one of the more consequential and good presidents in American history, mostly because of what he did with what he was handed. Recovering from the Great Recession alone made me glad Paul Ryan wasn’t in the vice president’s office trying to make economic policy and going, “Hey, we’ve got to cut taxes for the rich!” In many ways, Obama held the tiller firm and got us through a terrible time.

Major disappointments?
The amount of war-making he’s done. I’m shocked we’re still in Afghanistan. We’ve restarted the war in Iraq, and now we have a new war in Syria to go with it, and in the interim we had a war in Libya, plus Somalia, plus Yemen. It felt like circumstances drove him more than he drove circumstances. That said, could you do differently? 

There isn’t an Obama doctrine. The closest we got to an Obama doctrine was what Secretary Clinton articulated in the first term, which was that we’re going to remake the world diplomatically. We’re going to up our soft-power capability and reshape circumstances that way. That didn’t work. Partly it’s because Obama wasn’t a progressive. He was a centrist. We need an aggressive progressive national security agenda. Guys like Chris Murphy and Tim Kaine in the Senate have been really good about that. Congressman Adam Schiff and Hillary Clinton are both redefining national security. That’s where the vacuum is. The Republicans have nothing to offer on this at all. Nothing. Lindsey Graham is the only one with any sort of foreign policy idea, and it’s weird how much the Republicans hate him. He’s got so much going on as far as what they supposedly care about. He’s like John McCain on steroids in terms of how many wars he wants. He’s adorable. But his name is Lindsey and he’s not married. Is that the worry? You’d think he’d have the angry Republican hordes rallying around him. 

Why is the right so much better than the left at channeling fury? There’s really no book industry or talk radio industry for liberals as there is for conservatives.
That’s true. The commentary industry on the right makes zillionaires out of these people. That gives them tons of incentive to be outrageous and provocative. Watch Rush Limbaugh, who is really washed up at this point as a radio host. He’s been around too long and he says too many of the same things. But every once in a while he makes a calculated decision to say something to get himself in trouble. It’s his little cry for attention. He trolls everybody, everybody’s outraged, and people pay attention to him for another week. Then he disappears again.

It’s a survival strategy.
It’s marketing. If you tell people, “Don’t listen to anybody else. You can trust only me. Everybody else is out to get you,” not only do you get them to listen to you, but you get them to listen to you exclusively. That’s how Fox News is so dominant in cable news. It’s not that a majority of the country watches it. It’s just that it has locked up all the conservative audience. Frankly, that creates real problems for conservative politicians in that their feedback loop is closed in terms of outside information and which stories are relevant, including understanding how their rhetoric is going to be heard. If they only hear themselves reflected back by people who agree with them, they have a hard time dealing with a general-election audience. I think we’ve seen that with everybody from Mitt Romney on down. We on the left have never made that case: Don’t watch anybody else, or everybody else is terrible and part of a conspiracy and lying to you and against you. Maybe we should have.

How much money would you need to go head-to-head in a debate with Ann Coulter on your show?
[Sighs] The one rule I have about my show is that, by virtue of being invited, I’m telling my viewers that this person has something to say that you ought to listen to. That’s the rule. Ann Coulter would not meet that requirement. 

Do you see Fox News as an evil empire?
There are people on Fox I respect a lot. I’m friends with Greta Van Susteren. Real friends. She’s a good social drinker, she’s funny, her husband’s hilarious, and she always has great stories about, like, just coming back from Burundi. She’s a warhorse. Shepard Smith is awesome. The same way I want to hear Bill Maher talk about his interesting life, I want to hear Shep talk about his. He’s a fun-loving guy who’s got the tiger by the tail. Because he’s on Fox, he’s Mr. Gravitas, but he’s such a crazed football fan that at some point he will cast a bet on a game that results in a face tattoo. I used to love Glenn Beck on the radio before he went into Fox. He was approaching my hero Howard Stern in terms of how good he was with the medium. But then he went into messianic territory. He thinks of himself in religious terms now, which is no fun for anybody. 

Did you ever hang with Bill O’Reilly?
I met him once. He’s very tall and he has a very soft handshake. When some guys shake hands with a woman, they turn their hands at the last second. You think you’re going to get a normal handshake, and then all of a sudden it’s like a little garden spade. It’s like holding a sock puppet. I don’t know if that’s a chivalrous thing, but I wouldn’t think he’d turn his hand like that with a man. Maybe he thought I was a dude and then realized I was a woman and quick-changed it.
Just in terms of appearance and charisma, who’s the hottest anchor on TV news?
It is weird to be in an industry where everybody is so good-looking. I do not think of myself as a physically attractive person. I think of myself as a goober. I dress like an eight-year-old with a credit card, and I eat like that too—burritos or pizza or s’mores. That’s it. But these ostentatiously attractive people! Thomas Roberts on MSNBC is a golden god.

All those blondes on Fox. I mean, if I worked at a place where they did not allow you to wear sleeves, could you imagine? Or where all desks had Lucite bottoms so you could show your shins. Jesus, I feel very lucky that at MSNBC they’re like, “You’re fine in the $19 blazer.”

By the way, is it true you came out as gay by posting it on a bathroom wall at Stanford?
I put up a public letter in the stalls in my dorm. I was a freshman and very cocky and had incredible self-regard, as all good 17-year-olds do. I hadn’t known I was gay for a long time. I was just figuring it out. There were very few openly lesbian students. Once I was sure, I quickly realized that I did not want to be a closeted person—that that was a weak place to be. 

Had you dated guys?
Oh yeah, I had high school boyfriends and stuff. But there was an inchoate sense of confusion and brokenness. Boys weren’t as thrilling to me as they were for my girlfriends, and I definitely found myself drawn more to the charming young women in my life than to the men. 

Did you have sex with guys?
Oh right, this is Playboy [laughs] It’s none of your business! The point is, I stopped thinking of myself as broken when it occurred to me that I might actually not be just a failed heterosexual. I might be this other thing. It was sort of an abstract concept. The first time I consciously thought I might be a lesbian I remember thinking: But I hate softball. Then I went to college and started sleeping with girls and was like, Ah, that’s what my body’s for!

Is it easier to be gay in America in 2016?
It’s definitely different. The biggest change is that gay culture is more normative. It was really important to me as a kid coming out that there was a gay community with physical gay places in the world. People coming out today don’t feel they have a specific spot. They don’t have to go to a bar. They don’t have to belong to gay associations or use gay travel pathways. Kids are coming out on Facebook now. 

How has marriage equality changed things?
It’s strange. Gay cultural expectations around monogamy and long-term relationships and even around what you call each other are following the straight model of marriage. That’s fine if you think the straight model of marriage is awesome. [Editor’s note: Maddow and Mikula are not married.] Ultimately, I think you’ll see the same patterns in married gay couples that you see in married straight couples. As gay people get more integrated into society and are less ghettoized, our lives will be just like everybody else’s, and that’s sad to me. Sometimes it fits to be mainstream and sometimes it doesn’t. I don’t want to give up everything that made my community awesome before we were accepted.

What’s your take on Caitlyn Jenner?
I’m so pop culture illiterate that I did not know there was a connection between Bruce Jenner and the Kardashians. It also took me a long time to figure out that the Kardashians don’t have jobs. But the nice thing about Caitlyn Jenner is that America gets to hear from a transgender person talking about transgender issues. The idea of transgender-equality issues being litigated by the gay community always rubbed me the wrong way. People should be able to speak for themselves on their own terms. If what the media needs to actually talk to a transgender person is for that person to be famous, then let that be step one. 

Do you feel the same way about Charlie Sheen and the fight against HIV?
Oh my God. The universal through line for AIDS, civil rights, refugees, anti-Semitism, people who are maligned and excluded and denounced as dangerous and insidious—the universal through line for making that better, for curing it and for fighting back is people speaking on their own terms. So it’s one thing for Charlie Sheen to come out and do a PSA saying “Be nice to HIV-positive people.” Charlie Sheen coming out and saying “I am HIV positive” is abundantly more powerful.
Coming out matters. Coming out is powerful. It doesn’t work only when saints come out. It’s about seeing people as fully human entities and having to reckon with whatever it is you don’t like about them in nonreductive human terms. That’s the magic. That’s how the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice. 

Let’s switch gears. What do you do on your rare days off?
I’m a music fan. I’m kind of obsessed with Frank Morgan and jazz guys like that. I’ve got a Thelonious Monk problem. I also love all country music. I want to be an evangelist for this guy from Oklahoma named John Moreland, who is literally the Bruce Springsteen of our era, though nobody knows who he is. There’s a band called Lucero that turned me into a major fangirl recently. So music, a little fly-fishing, and I’m a good drinker. I like my beer, and I can mix a pretty impressive cocktail. 

What’s your go-to?
An aviation is kind of a martini, in that it starts with two ounces of Plymouth gin. I keep the cocktail glass in the freezer while I mix the gin in a shaker with three quarters of an ounce of fresh lemon juice, two teaspoons of Luxardo maraschino liqueur and a bar spoon of crème de violette. Add a lot of ice. Stir very quietly. Take the glass out of the freezer, strain drink into glass, marvel at the sky-like color, drink too fast, make another one. 

Otherwise, I work 12-ish hours a day, five days a week, 50 weeks a year, and I don’t take vacations and I don’t have lunch. I eat two meals a day at my desk. I live what I think of as my own life between two A.M. Saturday morning and seven A.M. Monday morning. On weekends, I have a place behind our house in western Massachusetts where I watch football, and there’s a hot tub in it. I get to see Susan, who is patient enough to put up with me. Without her, I might not be able to get out of bed on Monday morning. 

You’ve spoken about struggling with depression. Is that something you still deal with?
Depression is a very real, very present part of my entire adult life. It doesn’t cure itself and it’s not sadness. It’s a different thing. I’ve experienced the full range of emotions from happy to sad, just like everybody else, but for me the way depression manifests is a sort of suppressing of everything, good and bad, and I kind of disconnect. It’s like somebody hits the mute button. It’s very lonely, and it can be alienating. 

How do you get through it?
Well, that’s the thing I need to be most deliberate about in my life. I can’t make the depression go away, but I can be cognizant of it. It helps to be able to talk about it. It’s lifesaving to me that Susan both knows about it and understands it and pays attention to me on those grounds. As I’ve gotten older, the exact cyclical experience of it in terms of how long it lasts and how frequently it comes changes a little, and I just try to be patient with myself. If it ever becomes permanent, I’ll need to treat it medically, but right now I don’t. 

You appear quite chipper on TV.
It’s adrenaline. Doing the show is like jumping out of an airplane. Here it comes. It’s nine o’clock. This is going to happen no matter what I do. 

What’s the future of news? Will the era of the talking-head anchor go on forever?
Five years ago, if you’d told me we would still be doing news this way, I would have called you crazy. Everybody always predicts we’re going away, and yet here we are. Even network news is doing as great as it ever has. I think there’s one very simple reason we persist, which is that there are some things you want to watch live. Yeah, you may want to watch on your phone or your tablet instead of your TV, but you need a person who gets information and explains to you what’s going on in a way you can visually connect with. Showing you the pictures, telling you what they are. That’s what keeps me in business. 

Do you ever think about getting into politics? What would a Maddow administration look like?
At the White House? Jesus, no! It would look like me getting sworn in and handing it over to my vice president, Amy Klobuchar, before immediately resigning. No pundit should have anything to do with the practice of politics ever, ever, ever. It would be like taking the average caller into an ESPN show and letting him go, “Snap the ball to Brady.” You just don’t do it. 

Humor us a little. What would you most like to fix about this country?
Well, we have some foundational challenges. The fact that we don’t have a middle class and haven’t for a generation now is foundational to whether or not our government can ever work again. I think the threat of climate change, and what that’s doing already, is sobering. I think the apathy and disdain for our own political processes is a real problem, not just because I like our political processes but because that’s the mechanism we have to fix whatever issues come up. 

Government works. That’s the most liberal thing about me. If we continue to treat government as the problem instead of the solution, we’ll never be able to harness the power to fix whatever’s broken. We need to restore American enthusiasm for our civic processes, because it’s the only government we’ve got. Whether or not you like the people who are running it, we have to believe in the system of government. It sucks, but it’s better than all the others. I’d fix that. Also, pleated khakis and people putting blue cheese in their olives. Those are disgusting.

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Mensåhi Ginen i Gehilo' #17: Tearing Up the Maps

A 2014 study by The Guardian/UK shows that in 50 different colonies/territories since 1860, 88% of the time they chose independence as their option. Very very few chose to become integrated into their colonizer, it was almost natural to seek their own fortune and destiny, even if it might lead to a time of difficulty. The study looked at places such as Samoa, East Timor, Mongolia, Iceland and Iraq. Given the way in which independence is often imagined in places such as Guam that remain colonies today, it is intrigued to see how normal seeking independence was in the past, but how today it feels so fearful.

Most people would argue that the resistance that people in Guam feel today is tied to the island being too political immature or the island being too small or too far away from the centers of power. All of these points make some sense, but not enough to really build up the type of fear that people experience when discussing the notion of Guam becoming independent. As the United Nations has long argued, so-called "political immaturity" is never an excuse for a place remaining colonized. There is always work to be done and things to improve, but that excuse was used for centuries by every shade of colonizer and while it may feel so terrifyingly real, it truly isn't. The other two points are tied to preconceived notions that independent countries are huge and massive like the United States and if you aren't as large or imposing as they are, then you should just shut up and be grateful that someone wants your island for military bases and is willing to give you food stamps and student loans in the process. But if we look at the world today, there are many countries that are small just like Guam is, some of them are poor, some of them are rich. There is no set calculus by which the size of a colony indicates how intrinsically prosperous it will be. Independence just means that hopefully, the people and the newly established nation will be able to leverage whatever geographic or resource advantages they have into something that best benefits themselves, rather than being siphoned off and improving the bottom line of a faraway ruler. This is of course the tragic trap of neocolonialism. Is that many former colonizer discovered that they could still extract the resources from faraway lands that they desired, even without colonizing them. All they would need to do is enslave them in crippling debt or support tough and terrible leaders who could ensure that industries and natural resources remain open to support foreign interests.

As mentioned, these points feel powerful, but only take us so far in terms of understanding things. The resistance to independence isn't logical, isn't rational. It is tied to feelings and fears that if the colonizer is crossed, all that which he has provided will disappear. It is tied to feelings that the very future and whether it is livable or prosperous has more to do with your loyalty and devotion to the colonizer and his rule, than your ability as a people and the level of sovereignty you have over your lands and resources.

For me, and this is something that I wrote an entire masters thesis over, at the University of Guam, the great feelings of resistance have to do with the simple, yet massive feeling that those questions are over with and there is no more room left in the world or the future for them to be addressed. In this mindset decolonization is done. History, as Francis Fukuyama famously argued is over and done with. As a result those who missed that train, those who still languish in the waiting room of History, are truly left behind politically. Those who were not caught up in the bloody or heady revolutions of the past, esta mantaisuete. They are not subjects, but just irritants. Therefore, when we who remain colonized, continue to pray for self-determination, think about what might be possible for ourselves, we feel the weight of that global consensus, which is sometimes referred to as the capitalist liberal-democratic deadlock, and we shrink away, never imagining that we might be capable of breaking it or more importantly, that we would be worthy of breaking it. If you imagine the maps of the world, people feel like the maps are all finished, there is nothing left to explore, nothing left to change. To seek decolonization and independence today, especially for those in small islands or small territories, seems akin to defying the maps that everyone has framed on their walls or currently use to hunt Pokemon. How could, we ever think of ourselves worthy or capable of redrawing the lines of the world?

It is here, where it is important to remind ourselves that movements for self-determination and independence persist, even if they are not recognized formally by the United Nations or by the countries that claim them as their own. There are hundreds of millions of others in the world, mainly indigenous people, who see themselves as not quite fitting in with the global arrangements. As they wait behind the Fourth World Wall, seeking restitution, redress, decolonization after so many of the nation-states of today were built upon their displacement and destruction. In every corner of the globe we find these movements, even within the United State itself in places such as Hawai'i, Alaska and Texas, although each movements has its own character, history and politics. A case in point is the one discussed below, that of Westralia or Western Australia, which is a place that voted for its independence in 1933 and included in The Guardian/UK study. As you'll read below, their efforts came to little in the previous century, although there remains rumblings up until today.


Secession is still on our mind
The West Australian
April 7, 2013

"Westralia shall be free" they sang on the streets and in the town halls in 1933 as the people of WA prepared for a referendum that had been on the simmer since Federation in 1901.

Exactly 80 years ago come Monday, the issue came to the boil at the ballot box.

Australia and the world watched and waited, the word "secession" on everyone's lips, as WA voters pondered the question on the compulsory voting card: "Are you in favour of the State of Western Australia withdrawing from the Federal Commonwealth?"

Two-thirds of West Australians marked the box that said "yes", and the vote in favour of breaking away from the rest of the nation passed resoundingly.

Eight decades on, WA remains a State of Australia but, according to some, the undercurrent of discontent has never fully disappeared.

The chairman of the WA Parliament's history advisory committee, Professor David Black, said WA was from the outset a reluctant participant in federalism.

At the turn of the century, having only recently been granted self- governance, many in WA were wary of handing over power to a Federal government.

Professor Black said the belated referendum on whether West Australians would join the Commonwealth - held in 1900 after all the other States had decided to sign up - only passed because a high number of people from the Eastern States, working and living in places such as the Goldfields, tipped the balance with their votes.

But by 1902, the matter of secession was being discussed in the WA Parliament, and in 1906 a resolution for a referendum on secession was passed but never acted on.

World War I suppressed the breakaway movement for a time, and while it was back on the agenda in the 1920s, it took the economic strife of the early 1930s to bring it to the fore. "It probably wouldn't have got any further than that if it wasn't for the Great Depression," Professor Black said.

In the 1930s, the main agitators for secession, the Dominion League, enjoyed a groundswell of support from struggling West Australians whose economic woes were exacerbated by Federal tariffs that benefited Eastern States businesses to the detriment of WA.

The advent of continental free trade, which left WA's primary industries unprotected, was another strong motivator.

In 1930, Liberal premier James Mitchell declared his support for the secession movement, and the stage was set for the 1933 vote.

Locked away in the State Records Office of WA, correspondence to and from Sir Mitchell paints a picture of support for WA to strike out on its own.

Senior archivist Gerard Foley said the volume of records relating to secession had not been "examined in detail for some time".

Notes of support from regional towns inquiring what they could do to aid the movement are sandwiched between letters from the Perth Chamber of Commerce, which wanted the premier to form a working committee to investigate "the State's capacity to pay its way if it separated from the Federation".

While the people of WA voted for secession in 1933, in a strange contradiction on the same day, they also voted out Sir Mitchell's pro-secession government.

Professor Black said this was proof that people in WA were not really serious about seceding, but were merely lashing out in protest at both the Federal and State governments which had failed to improve the dire economic situation.

The issue of the 1933 secession referendum was put to bed in 1935, when a British Parliament joint select committee told a WA delegation it would not amend the Commonwealth Constitution without Canberra's consent.

Professor Black conceded secession had continued to rear its head, "whenever Western Australia thinks it's being pushed around".

Unlike in the 30s, when WA was struggling, modern flare-ups for independence have largely been based on the reasoning that the economic boom State gives much to the rest of Australia and receives too little in return.

Secessionist rumblings in the 1970s, backed by mining magnate Lang Hancock, were in this vein.
The Barnett Government's stoush with Canberra over the share of GST distributions has revived secessionist comments.

Liberal MP Norman Moore, one of the most outspoken supporters of secession in recent times, said he was concerned about the centralisation of power in the Eastern States and decisions being made there that were not in the best interests of WA.

"I personally want to get us back into a Federation which gives the States meaningful authority, and lets the States get on with doing the job they can do better than anybody else," he said.
But Mr Moore believed that was "never going to be achieved".

"The only ultimate solution is secession if we want to be serious about managing our own affairs," he said.

Wally Morris, 70, is the former secretary of the now defunct Western Australia Secession Association.

Formed in 1993, the association had about 3000 members and supporters at its peak but wound up in 2011 after attempts to gain a foothold in political office were unsuccessful.
Mr Morris said the 1933 referendum "still stands".

"It still remains in force, it hasn't been resolved; it needs to be taken to a conclusion," he said.
Premier Colin Barnett disagrees.

"It's been a topic everyone likes to talk about but at the end of the day, we are Australians first and proud Western Australians second," he said.


Related Posts with Thumbnails