Redrawing Oregon Border (Portland, Salem, Bend: public schools, utilities, high income)

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

So, you are basically saying that this separatist movement is just a spinoff of the same group to make more political noise.

I'm saying that their basic argument and justification for secession is that Oregon isn't Republican enough. That is the whole argument in a nutshell. They want to join Idaho because it is more Republican.

So it is perfectly acceptable to take a peek at what Oregon Republicans actually want. They lay it out there for all to see on their platform. And actually the Oregon Republican platform is the sane version. The truly unhinged one is the Idaho GOP platform. In addition to all the things in the Oregon platform, they add in a bunch of additional stuff like abolishing the Federal Reserve, going back to the gold standard, nullification of Federal laws (John Calhoun says hello), censorship of a long list of topics in higher education, and so forth.

These are all the things that they want to bring to the people of central and eastern Oregon through secession.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

For those who have been around a long time, can you imagine former Republican leaders like Tom McCall, Mark Hatfield, or Vic Atiyeh supporting a party platform like that? I cannot.

They would have condemned it.

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

For those who have been around a long time, can you imagine former Republican leaders like Tom McCall, Mark Hatfield, or Vic Atiyeh supporting a party platform like that? I cannot.

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

They would have condemned it.

Geesh, you are going back to the 60s-80s. Those were also the Ronald Reagan years in CA along with good ole Gerry Brown. Though there were many differences between both parties back then including battles, there was also greater civility and less extremism on both sides. Common decency and respect along with the ability to negotiate has been replaced by a legacy of toxicity like a bad divorce.

From my POV, both sides go too far in an attempt to counter balance the other. The left feels like the right is attempting to legislate 'their' morale code upon them. Well, guess what? The right feels the same way. Both sides are pushing their moral extreme agendas/beliefs (too the other side) hard within every sphere of society includes the schools. Honestly, its one of the reasons we initially decided to homeschool. I have no allegiance to either side as I disagree with both strongly on certain issues based upon my own moral code.

Both sides are to blame for their role in this similar to a bad relationship or even a war. Who fired the first shot or which side is more to blame? That's mostly irrelevant at this point. To deny both played a role is to live in denial of the real situation. The problem is, its hard to walk back some of these policies which most offend one side and some are absolutely committed to not giving up an inch. In fact, they are fighting for more ground... hard. So, here we are. I don't know if one side would be willing to 'exchange a political prisoner' with the other. I think it really depends on the issue at hand. Many may give up 'the Wall,' for example, for something valuable in return. However, the Right will go to the grave before they give up an inch on the fight over abortion. You cannot expect them to stand down on this one ever since its apart of one's strong moral code to protect the life of an unborn child. No speech about a women's right to her own body will ever negate that other life has rights of its own (similar to child abuse). So, that one is non-negotiable (not talking about life threatening situations or other edge case exceptions). I have many friends and family who will vote for a candidate solely upon that one issue alone regardless of how terrible the candidate is otherwise in every other way. They may be somewhat flexible or willing to negotiate on every other issue, but not that one. When it comes to the gun folks, guess where they're not willing to negotiate?

I wind up many times having to pick the best of two evils. But I have to consider all the issues, not just one. I never buy the party line and wish we had other options than a vote for someone else who doesn't stand a chance. In the end it, will be one extreme or the other - same as the next presidential election. May cooler heads prevail who are willing to negotiate even with their political enemies if we are to ever represent our better selves to those we may not see eye to eye with. We need charity to all first. How we get there will be the real challenge.

Derek

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

Geesh, you are going back to the 60s-80s. Those were also the Ronald Reagan years in CA along with good ole Gerry Brown. Though there were many differences between both parties back then including battles, there was also greater civility and less extremism on both sides. Common decency and respect along with the ability to negotiate has been replaced by a legacy of toxicity like a bad divorce.

Tom McCall was kind of a cultural hero among Oregonians, even Democrats like my parents. They hated Nixon, on the other hand. I was just a kid and didn't get the finer points of politics, but I think it was more about the person than the party back then.

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Tom McCall was kind of a cultural hero among Oregonians, even Democrats like my parents. They hated Nixon, on the other hand. I was just a kid and didn't get the finer points of politics, but I think it was more about the person than the party back then.

Tom McCall was beloved by my somewhat liberal parents as well.

As was Mark Hatfield who was the Republican governor before him and then a long-term Oregon senator. Mark Hatfield was the first politician I ever voted for when I turned 18. He was something of a hero among my fairly liberal group of friends at that time because he was one of the lone opponents to President Carter's decision to reinstate draft registration in the wake of the USSR invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. None of us wanted to get drafted to go sit in a tank in the Fulda Gap to face Warsaw Pact armies.

Different times I guess. But Oregon does have a long history of iconoclastic independent-minded politicians who did not fit the national mold. Wayne Morse before them, for example. Who was elected as a Republican Senator in 1944 and tortured the Republican party before becoming an independent in 1952 and then eventually Democratic party in 1954 which he tortured as much as he had previously annoyed the Republicans. Notably by opposing his party leadership and president's Kennedy and Johnson on the Vietnam War.

I don't know if we will ever recover that sense of independence from national politics. But I think politicians would be successful in Oregon if they could figure out how. There is an appetite for it I think. But they would have to navigate the local parties which tightly control the nomination process. Perhaps switching to a "jungle" primary as we have in Washington would help. That benefits more centrist candidates who can appeal across party boundaries and to independents.

[pnwguy2]

At the risk of repeating myself, both Washington and Oregon benefit from their east sides. Plus, a population of different mixes actually is healthy for States to thrive. It helps keep States mostly in check and supports moderation. And nobody should argue that isn't what keeps States overall healthy. Which both WA and OR are.

Scenerio if WA split up...Eastern would crash, Western whould just keep churning. This has been studied over and over again. It is nonsensical. But again, this type of split would need congressional approval. And again, not very likely. I hope I can add some common sense to this thread, but true hypotheticals are always fun to play with.

[texasdiver]

well, the New York Times decided to cover this topic this weekend. Here's a gift link to the article that should avoid the paywall" https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/u...smid=url-share

Funny, no one in the entire article mentioned any oppressive laws out of Salem except for gun laws. It's all culture war grievance. For example:

COVE, Ore. — Corey Cook still holds a fondness for her days living in Portland, where the downtown pubs and riverfront cherry blossoms made her proud to call the Rose City home during her 20s.

But as she started growing wary of the metro area’s congestion and liberal politics, she moved to the suburbs, then the exurbs, before heading east, eventually escaping Portland’s sphere of influence on the other side of the Cascade Mountains in 2017. But even here, where she now runs a Christian camp amid the foothill pines overlooking the Grande Ronde Valley, she cannot help but notice how the values of western Oregon are held over the eastern part of the state by way of laws making guns less accessible and abortions more accessible.

Unwilling to move east into Idaho, farther from her family, Corey Cook of eastern Oregon now wonders if redrawing the state maps could instead bring Idaho’s values to her.

Unwilling to move east into Idaho, farther from her family, Ms. Cook, 52, now wonders if redrawing the state maps could instead bring Idaho’s values to her.

I hate to break it to Ms. Cook, but guns are still pretty dang accessible in eastern Oregon. Gun shops are everywhere. Google maps tells me there are 11 gun shops in nearby LaGrande. If she can't find guns she isn't trying very hard.

And as for abortion? It was made a constitutional right in Oregon in 1983 when [checks notes] Oregon had a Republican governor by the name of Vic Atiyeh, who signed abortion rights into state statute.

And, of course there is the "minority rule for me but not for thee" aspect to all of this. The tiny minority of Oregonians who actually support secession want their minority views and ideas implemented as law. While at the same time they show no concern whatsoever for the views of the much larger (percentage-wise) number of eastern Oregonians who do not want to secede and join Idaho.

[pathrunner]

People can always make an argument for their case or viewpoint. In the professional world it's called "lawyering."

I myself would not support Eastern Oregon becoming part of Idaho. I've read the comparisons and the likely outcome of such a thing actually happening. Both states would lose for various reasons. There are articles online and on here that show why.

A lot of people have to make decisions that aren't easy. It sounds like she just needs to move to Idaho. It isn't that much further.

[karlsch]

Rather than depending on hearsay, Portland's KGW8 sent a reporter to Eastern Oregon to learn about the Greater Idaho Movement. Good, old-fashioned reporting. Not much talk about money, mostly values:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMrX...hannel=KGWNews

3 stories so far:

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/loc...e-eb1470204634

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/loc...4-86e85ad377c3

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/loc...0-2acc22a0692c

[EasyBeezy]

This whole thing seems like just so much entitlement. A minority group, (Eastern Oregonians) can't handle what it means to be a minority, because they are not used to not getting their way. As a minority myself, I have little sympathy. You just have to accept the fact that the world isn't set up to cater to your desires, or your culture. Also, they act like Western Oregon is one endless city. There are plenty of people on the west side of Oregon that live in small towns, are conservative, and lead basically the same lifestyle (actually, there are more people on the west side with a similar culture to the east side than there are people on the east side.) But somehow they get through life without feeling like they need to secede.