The 51st State of Mind

AIR DATE: Monday, May 19th 2008
What does the latest secessionist threat tell us about Oregon's cohesiveness?

What could be more American than deciding that a faraway government is oppressive, or unresponsive, or unrepresentative... and then breaking off to form a new one: of, by, and for your people?

That's precisely what a few folks from Hood River are talking about -- or talking about talking about. It's all very preliminary, and there are plenty of practical reasons to think that a 51st state of East Oregon or Jefferson -- or perhaps keeping the same nice round number of 50 but moving Idaho's border west -- isn't going to happen any time soon. But it would be a mistake to dismiss the frustrations behind such talk as simply idle chatter.

The frustrations are real. They revolve around questions of individual freedom and governmental regulation, of services and taxes, of a real (or perceived) cultural divide, of growth in the Willamette Valley and economic stagnation in much of the rest of the state, and above all, through it all, land use policy.

Secessionist tendencies, real or fictional, are nothing new in this part of the world, but what does the latest flare-up tell us about the Oregon's cohesiveness? Do the tensions map easily along political lines of Democrat and Republican? East and West? Rich and poor? Valley vs. everything else? How are we divided? And how are we in this together?

GUESTS:

  • Paul Koch: Consultant based in Hood River
  • Pat Caldwell: Editor of the Argus Observer
  • Lynne Peterson: Chair of the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners

Tagged as: cascadia · clackamas · eastern oregon · ecotopia · rural-urban divide

I have lived in Salem, Oregon my whole life, and it is easy for me to see why people in eastern Oregon are frustrated. It seems like if you're not in the portland/salem/eugene/medford areas, you are largely ignored. I think that the tensions are intensified when you consider just how different politically the valley is verse other parts of the state. In my program at Western Oregon, anyone from east of the Cascades is staunchly Republican, while people in the valley are very much Democrat, with very few exceptions. I think it is absolutely impossible to get a fifty first state or even moving Idaho's border west, but I can see why a minority of Oregonians would want to.
textchampion —
The political divide is certainly geographic in origin -- and furthermore, that divide is far wider in Oregon than any other state.

There was a fabulous post over the weekend on FiveThirtyEight.com about that:
[url]http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/oregon-swing-state-or-latte-drinking.html[/url]

Executive summary: Oregon has the most liberal AND most conservative voters in the country -- there's just no one left in the middle!

On the following graph, the most liberal voters are on the top, the most conservative voters are on the right. Check out Oregon:
[img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2060/2499940349_f95a26550e_o.png[/img]
dotyoureyes —
I wish I could stay for the discussion, but I'm off to teach U.S. History at Eastern Oregon University. I have lived in eastern Oregon for 4 years (came here from NJ!) and yes, people are frustrated. Jesse 43's comment helps explain that frustration. While tax dollars come here from the west side as Pat Caldwell pointed out, and we are a numberical minority as Jesse 43 noted, I would point out to Jesse 43 that minority populations are still entitled to reasonable access to education, medical care, and a political voice in the state. I believe the divide is very much a rural/urban one, and this is a historic process that many other areas in the US have gone through.

But I don't believe the divide can be discussed productively and bridged if we don't acknowledge the cultural bias involved. There is a sense that eastern Oregonians are 'hicks' and I'm not sure the separatist movement helps with that perception. Here is a personal anecdote. I served as a parent chaperone for my daughter's middle school band competition. The other chaperone was a father. He was dressed in a 'rural' fashion--cowboy hat, jeans, belt buckle. The band ajudicator at the end of the competition patiently explained to us (he thought we were a couple) what a scholarship was and how are children might compete for one. He remarked upon how great it was that our school was from a rural area. Then he turned to me and said, "And I bet you're a good cook!" My fellow chaperone, who *is* a life-long rural Oregonian, replied, "Actually, she's a university professor with a Ph.D. in History. We actually have a university in our town." It struck me then how eastern Oregonians do indeed deal with cultural condescension. I think these cultural attitudes are central to the political and economic issues being discussed here today.
rhartman —
Yikes! I am one of the few (but strong) Democrats in Idaho. The last thing we need is a surge of even more Republicans! Where's the balance?
mariah —
Mariah,

Glad to have some Idahoans in the conversation. I'm curious what you mean by "Where's the balance?" Is it that you don't want the political balance to tip even further into the Republican majority camp? Or something else?

Thanks,
Dave
David Miller —
+ The residents in rural-ish areas of Oregon should feel underrepresented. Because they are the minority of the population. Its estimated (2006) that 2,126,732 live in the Portland-MSA area alone, which is clearly a huge portion of the Oregon population. The rural-ish residents are already inherently different based on their choice of location. This is not a case of under-representation because the facts and statistics don't support it. What this is a case of: "folks" wanting things their way. Unfortunately when you are statistically a minority of a population that doesn't and shouldn't happen!

+ Statistically people in rural areas of Oregon are conservative and republican, by definition these people are more intolerant and exclusive then the residents of urban areas. So, it is absurdly ironic, that they ask for tolerance and inclusiveness, from the very people whose values, morals and politics they dislike. They are asking for impossible and foolish things!

- Portland, Oregon
scottmil —
Timely subject. There's an article in today's NY Times on the geographical political differences in Oregon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/us/politics/19oregon.html?em&ex=1211342400&en=b65d05236883101b&ei=5087%0A
regular-listener —
I was born in Ontario (on the Idaho border for those of you who don't know) - moved to Tigard when I was 4 - moved back to Ontario at 14 and returned to Tigard at 20. Having lived in both areas, I feel very strongly that Eastern Oregon is the red headed step child to the West. Ontario is a short distance from Boise and Boise area includes Eastern Oregon thankfully, because other than OPB, the Willamette Valley doesn't recognize their existance! Many in the Valley trivialize very important issues in Central and Eastern Oregon... until it directly effects them. There is also the generalization that those who live in Western Oregon are somehow more intelligent and their needs are greater than those east of the Cascades. Central (other than Bend) & Eastern Oregon doesn't have much of a voice in Salem. When I lived in Ontario, I felt Idaho embraced the area - thankfully!
mroake —
I can understand the frustration of not feeling that one's way of life is valued politically. But the east side population is not the majority. They also rely heavily on my tax dollars to keep their schools open while we in the Willamette valley subsidize their very (political) existence. We need to maintain a union, east and west, for our mutual benefit. If taxes feel onerous to the East now, what would they be able to support without Willamette subsidies?
Christian —
I think we have not as a state come to a fair agreement about an equitable balance of responsibility. In Eastern Oregon, services are difficult to provide (usually because of distance and population) However, we are charged with much of the resource managment. Often the laws passed in Salem don't adequately addresss an appropriate rural division.........We are charged with the management of, in many cases, Oregon's Ethos, yet are not adequately compensated for it.
Maui Meyer —
This talk of secession sounds like it is coming from a few grumpy individuals who are bitter about having lost certain legislative battles. What they are really objecting to is the essential democratic principle of the majority rule.
Jesse42 —
The idea of a new state or changing Oregon's borders is absurd. I have lived in Bend my whole life and watched it change from a rural community into a thriving and developing city. It supports the surrounding communities in our tri county area and when there are issues that are city, county, and state wide it takes the whole community to lobby for decisions. I also feel that there is major resistance from many of the smaller communities in Eastern Oregon to modernize and update their communities to be unified and self sufficient. If these small communities want to prosper they must take action all the time not just when it is beneficial to them.
bowerman61028 —
I think the alientation that the people of Eastern Oregon and Washington feel from the governments of both states, which are primarily concerned with the Pacific Northwest proper (and should be, based on population dispersion), is a microcosm of the alienation that the Pacific Northwest feels from the Federal government. If it makes sense for Eastern Oregon and Washington to form their own state, or merge with Idaho, due to their extreme differences with the western halves of their states, does it not then also make sense for the Pacific Northwest to break off (completely) from the U.S., due to our extreme differences with the rest of the country? Let's not forget that our country began with secession from the British Empire due to under-representation.
celticwarlord —
I feel more in common with poeple in western Washington than that of easten Oregon. To expand on that, I feel more in common with poeple in British Columbia than that of the rest of the U.S. I agree that if the people of eastern Oregon want to seceed than they have the right to, I also agree with celticwarlord and think that we (people west of the cascades) should brake off from the U.S. The movement already has a name the Republic of Cascadia, we would be better off on our own.
Nicholas —
Portland alone sends 295 million every year to eastern oregon in equalized school payments through out local taxes. How can they hope to replace this money when they cant even cope with the loss of federal timber money?
Keith, Portland
tolfan —
My understanding is that there is a net outflow of state revenues from eastern to western Oregon. How would these be replaced? Wouldn't it be more expensive to completely duplicate state government? Why would other states allow eastern OR to have 2 U.S. senators of its own?
davidclay100 —
I'm delighted to hear that others are discussing secession as I think it allows issues to brought into more dramatic focus. For myself and my friends, we have been spearheading an "Oregon for EU Membership" campaign, complete with bumper stickers showing the EU's flag of a circle of stars with the words "Oregon 2012" standing inside the circle. It's obviously far-fetched, but this offers us the opportunity to speak about universal health care, higher standards for organic foods, and, of course, a more representative form of government.
Barb T —
I haven't heard, on this show or in your written introduction, a specific thing that urban people are not understanding about rural people or areas. Is there something concrete? If there isn't, then perhaps this is a cultural, social or moral gripe, rather then an authentic case of oppression or under-representation. Most of your rural guests seems to be speaking in the abstract. It sounds more like xenophobia on their side; or not wishing to be lumped together with the urban liberals rather then a specific slight.
scottmil —
While at OSU last summer I participated in an Ethnographic Field School in Lakeview, Oregon (which I consider to be a fairly isolated rural community). We had homestays and lots of discussions about cultural divides and "ways of life". There were a lot of differences when discussing environmental issues, but what I realized is that we wanted to same thing (a sustainable way of life) but we used different language. They didn't like to use the word "environmentalist", but instead used "a good steward" of the land.
Colleen Johnson —
I don't understand what it's like to live in some place like Fossil and I'm sure a lot of people who grew up in Fossil don't understand what it's like to live in Portland. How about we all drop this imaginary need to "understand" and just accept there's different issues and get to working on making the state work for all it's residents?
FredPDX —
As a transplanted Southerner with Confederate ancestry, I hear the word "secessionist," and it stirs up some obvious parallels. It's the same old Industrial vs Agrarian rift. Look at what happened to the state of Virginia during the Civil War: It split up precisely into what could be mined (industry) and what could be farmed (agriculture), not along some axis of longitude like the rest of the country. As long as we city dwellers continue to imagine that wood comes from the lumber store and meat and milk and vegetables are made at the grocery store, there will always be this kind of rift.
PDXGoneGator —
The boarder between Oregon and Washington should be moved. Rather than running east-west on the Columbia, it should run north-south on the crest of the Cascades.
There would still be 50 states and the rural/urban issue both states share would be resolved.
pdxpaul —
The west side could be called Cascadia and the east side could be called Washegon or Oregton ;)
mtl97219 —
The focus of society on the majority of the population ignores rural areas. The people in western Oregon often focus on their own needs. They ignore the majority of the land area of the state which is inhabited. The people who live on and care for the land are being ignored.

Oregon has 5 representatives in the US House, and 1 (OR-2) represents 2/3 of the land area. On the federal level only 1 person represents eastern Oregon, since Oregon Senators tend to be from the valley. This representative is charged with a great responsibility, since the land area they represent is so large.

I believe that all people in the state must keep their fellow Oregonians in mind when making decisions. We must provide for the base needs of everyone before providing luxuries to certain groups of people.

Tristin Mock
Candidate for OR-2
Tristin —
Sending the taxes to Rural Oregon IS your community! That's the point! When you put up a picture of Oregon, your don't put up a picture of Portland, you put up a picture of Rural Oregon!
Maui Meyer —
Thank you! This is the exact reason why people in eastern Oregon are disenfranchised, many people in the west think that they shouldn't help care for their fellow Oregonians. They seems to think its okay for the east to pay for things in the west though...
Tristin —
There will never be a uniting of the intolerant with the tolerant. It is simply impossible. It will not happen. That's what the underlying problem is; and this show is thoroughly sugar-coating or not addressing it.

This is asked over and over again in modern America. Tolerance. Even among liberals. We are all asked to be tolerant. How can you or why should you be tolerant of intolerant people? This local issue strangely represents an issue-at-large occurring not only in Oregon, but in America and the rest of the world. Does it make sense to be tolerant of people, cultures or religions who are intolerant of you?
scottmil —
We must work to understand the reasons why people have views that are different from your own. Understanding the why allows you to become tolerant of other people. It doesn't mean that you agree with their position, you tolerate it.
Tristin —
I am coherent enough to understand different views. It's beside the point, which is---it's potential suicide to become tolerant of intolerance. It is a simple concept, few seem to grasp. Blind tolerance of everyone and everything is philosophical ignorance. This is a much deeper issue then what you are describing.
scottmil —
One of the reasons I moved here from Nevada last year was because, in statewide politics, Nevada had the opposite problem of Oregon ?ﾠthe old, rural areas maintained political control and the new urban area couldn't get what it needed to offer decent education, health care and transportation. Las Vegas had 70 percent of the population but 50 percent of the political power.

The problem, in Nevada and in Oregon, is that the West has simply changed too drastically without our state power structures keeping up. This costs us dearly ? urban areas are always saddled with sending tax dollars to the rurals, and the "Cow Counties" are always tied to the liberal leanings of the cities.

Additionally, it costs us in D.C. Eastern Oregon is lucky in that it is a rural area that has its own U.S. Senator ?ﾠthat's more than the Palouse, the San Joaquin Valley, the Great Basin, even Greater Los Angeles can say for itself. As for the presidential election ?ﾠwhy should a Republican in Burns or Yakima or Fresno even show up to vote?

In a recent discussion on this at my work, we came up with 16 states in the west instead of the 11 that it presently has. Our new map includes a state of Columbia that includes eastern Washington, northeast Oregon, northern Idaho and northwest Montana; Jefferson, with the traditional definition of southern Oregon and northern California; a state for the Bay Area, another for the Central Valley and another for Southern California; and the Mojave, an area including southern Nevada, southwest Utah, northwest Arizona and eastern California. Other changes are made to add parts of states to other states (I'm attempting to attach a map.)

The population and congressional district vote breaks down as follows:

S. CALIF. ? 21,514,103 ? 31 (+2 sens., Dem/Gore in '00, Dem/Kerry in '04)
W. CALIF. ?ﾠ7,823,461 ? 11 (-1 rep., DD)
C. CALIF. ? 6,304,820 ? 9 (+2 sens., +1 rep., DR)
ARIZONA ?ﾠ6,131,518 ? 9 (+1 rep., RR)
WASHINGTON ?ﾠ5,046,396 ?ﾠ7 (No change, RR)
OREGON ?ﾠ3,026,992 ?ﾠ4 (+1 sen., -1 rep., DD)
UTAH ?ﾠ2,562,731 ?ﾠ4 (+1 rep., RR)
THE MOJAVE ?ﾠ2,295,481 ?ﾠ3 (+1 rep., RR)
COLUMBIA ?ﾠ2,077,430 ?ﾠ3 (+1 rep., RR)
IDAHO ?ﾠ1,277,482 ?ﾠ2 (No change, RR)
JEFFERSON ?ﾠ1,256,518 ?ﾠ2 (+2 sens., +1 rep., RR)
MONTANA ?ﾠ701,311 ?ﾠ1 (+1 sen., RR)
NEVADA ?ﾠ757,581 ?ﾠ1 (+2 sens., RR)
Nick Christensen —
Barbara's comments about her local tax dollars being spent in Eastern Oregon is
incorrect. Barbara's local taxes are spent locally. The income tax, collected all over Oregon are the taxes that are dispersed for the common good of all Oregonians. As a second generation Oregonian living in the valley but with historical ties to both Eastern and Central Oregon I am proud of helping all for the common good.
FeistyLady —
Her response was a good one though. It does cost alot to send that bus out to pick up that kid. My view of it is that (to some measure, not in all cases) That's part of the social compact for them moving out on a farm, growing food. If we choose to be an Ag State, that's part of the deal that goes with it, more or less.....
Maui Meyer —
Maui Meyer,

I'm interested in pushing this a bit further. In your understanding of the social compact, should it also be in effect if someone moves to a rural area not to live on a farm and grow food, but simply to get away from urban density?
David Miller —
That's a luxury/necessity type of thing. I think the larger point is the lopsided nature of the rural/urban understanding. If we view the system as one large whole, and properly ascribe value to the parts, I posit that we should (as a whole) be paying more to the people who grow our food and shelter, generate our electricity, store our waste, and manage for us, on a daily basis the visual identity that is known as "Oregon." Rural doesn't have the place it should have at the table, and it's high time it did. Some of the best environmentalists I know are conservative republican farmers, and they have been doing it for four generations. You should see how tweaked they get when someone drives out from Portland to call them enviromentally insensitive......(They have a name for it. it's "did you drive here in your SUV to tell me that?") Out here, it's not environmentalism, it's stewardship. Shoot me an e-mail and we can take this offline....
Maui Meyer —
What a load of absolute nonsense. It's large corporations that produce the majority of our food and lumber. There wouldn't be a need for the food or lumber if it wasn't for an economy based on corporations generally located in urban areas.
scottmil —
Is this idea not a silly one? Secession from the state or the union is not legal, by virtue of the constitution, Supreme Court Decisions and executive action.

The perception of rural Oregonians that they are not listened to is misplaced. Until recently the state legislature was dominated by rural interests. Conservative voter concerns define the political paradigm of the state. Progressive urbanites may be pushing the limits toward a more "liberal" understanding, but populist conservatives have controlled the agenda for thirty years.

So far none of the "Easterners" have presented a cogent, much less convincing argument that there is any reason from them to feel under represented, except the reactionary conservatism typical of groups who are being by-passed by time. The world, in its entirety is moving away from resource extraction and agriculture to tech manufacturing or services. The economics of living wage jobs, at least from the perspective of corporations only works if the wage we are talking about is in Mexico: Pendleton Woolen Mills for instance. There is really nothing the West side has done that leads to this, it is in fact the direct result of a national political leadership dedicated to free-trade.

Some of the other issues: limitations on logging, irrigation etc. are similarly not the result of urban west side voters, it the result of federal intervention which the state has at times worked with and against.

The children of the east side will migrate to the cities, not because rural living is backward or stupid, but because the jobs are located on the west side. Not because the west voted to keep those jobs on this side, but because the quality of life issues employers consider when locating a facility find that the east side simply does not meet their needs. We are however expanding outward, Hood River is as much an extension of Portland as Tualitan. Bend and Roseburg are changing in the same way; less resource extration jobs that require minimal education to manufacturing and services that require specialized work force training.
tsanford —
If the 13 colonies hadn't seceded from the British Empire, which was an illegal and treasonous act, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
celticwarlord —
Tsanford,

You make think this idea is silly, but it's certainly not illegal "by virtue of the constitution, Supreme Court Decisions and executive action." On the contrary, secession from a state -- ie forming a new state, not seceding from the U.S. -- is built into the language of the constitution:

Article IV, Section 3:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
David Miller —

Comments are now closed.



Become a sponsor