As a newcomer to the Vermont secession movement, I have tried to speak to a variety of people on the topic, both within the movement and on the outside.  Some say they were born into it; some came to it as the conclusion of a journey of political or economic identity, and several view it as the only solution to the problems in the United States, as well as those facing the world.  Frank Bryan, a political science professor at the University of Vermont, got involved with secession in 1991 when he was asked to take the “pro” side in a statewide debate about the topic.  This is no enthusiastic secessionist, however.  He views Vermont leaving the United States as similar to the break-up of a good marriage; with sadness, and a sense of inevitability.  He believes that secession is a privilege; this is a break-up that needs to be earned; Vermonters need to prove that we deserve the right to take care of ourselves by taking an active role in town decision making and local economic choices.  - Alyssa Jean Findlay

What is the strongest argument for Vermont secession?
Frank Bryan: We can do it better ourselves; smaller states are more efficient.

So why hasn’t Vermont seceded yet?  
FB: Nobody wants to, and I don’t think that we’ve proved that we’re ready. We ought to prove that we can grow, and sell, and live locally before we can secede.  I’m a big decentralist; that’s most of what secession is.  And there are things that we can do now to prepare for secession in the long run, and I don’t see them happening.  I also don’t think that a lot of people are very serious about it; it’s more about hating America. Hate and outrage are not going to make this movement successful; it needs to be approached like the break-up of a good long marriage – as a last resort. We don’t want America to die.

What issues need to be faced?
FB: The only way we can secede is if America lets us. This is a peaceful movement. I’d like to see some kind of policy-neutral zone where states can experiment with this [form of independence].  We also need to think about foreign policy.  People have to understand that we need protection, and we’d be a free rider on the continent, like Luxemburg.  Twenty-five percent of people’s taxes go to defense, which means [in the event of secession] that we’d have more money to spend on ourselves. But is it then ethical to be a free rider?  Because either the U.S. or Canada is going to protect us, and we need to pay for that, to recognize that the U.S. military maintains peace. Also, lots of things have happened that have destroyed Vermont’s ability to govern itself, and we need to get that democracy back.  The power and the decisions are being concentrated in Montpelier, and the towns need some of that decision-making power back.  Democracy is better the closer it is to home.

What about town meetings?   Aren’t they a fairly direct form of democracy?
FB: Town meetings are the most distinctive characteristic of Vermont, but the extent to which the state government is taking [power] away from town meetings hurts Vermont.  The towns need to have more decision–making power.  These are the values that Vermont needs to take away to secede, but I don’t think that town meetings should lead to secession.  We don’t deserve secession yet; we need to be more active in our democracy, and take some more power locally.  

Do you think you will see secession in your lifetime?
FB: I hope secession doesn’t come in my lifetime, because it would break my heart.  I think that my grandchildren will be closer to it; maybe in 50 years or so.  My worldview is that we are moving to smaller states – let Tibet be free.  But an independent Vermont is in the cards. I think we need to start acting independent, demonstrate that a small state can govern itself, and then we can suggest that others do the same.  But until we prove that, we can’t point any fingers. I come at this with a historic confidence of one thing, and that is that history isn’t linear.  We are going to see a century or two of decentralization no matter what.  

What do you think about the economic crisis?
FB: Technically I don’t know what to think, I’m not qualified. But intuition tells me it is a function of size; we have an economic empire, and we can’t pay attention to everything at once.  We have to be more efficient, and big is not efficient. Look at the Soviet Union; it wasn’t a failure of communism, it was a size thing.  Smaller states are more efficient, and once we see decentralization we can be better set up to save the environment and local economies.  

Is the result of the November election going to change anything?  
FB: We’re not going to get the change we hope for, but that’s not the point.  This election was a melodrama; it was gross.  All the journalists are saying, “Now that the election is over, what are we going to do?”  Everyone tuned in to this one event, which was good for the media. Obama brought a fresh perspective, but still, now he’s stumbling like Bush.  When you have to speak to everyone all the time – I feel sorry for him; he’s so afraid of offending someone.  And his appointments are all the same-old same-old.  He’s advised by experts, but the greatest problems in the world were caused by a room of experts.  They don’t always know the way the world works.  And he has all these problems to face – economic and environmental.  There is too much for one center to focus on, and nothing is going to get done if we rely on Washington to make all of the decisions.  

Is the United States beyond reform?

FB: Understand, I don’t come to secession because I hate America, I come to it with sadness because I love America, I still get teary-eyed when I hear the Star-Spangled Banner.  I don’t see America as an evil empire. We are an empire, but I think as far as empires go we aren’t that bad; we’ve had plenty of opportunities to take over the world and we’ve turned them down.  We do have an economic empire, but the real problem with the United States is that our democracy is dead.  We need to go back to democracy on a human scale.