Okay, “Calexit” is strange phrasing by itself. But that’s not what I’m talking about.
The New York Times ran a story on a fringy California secession movement given newfound momentum by the election result. California secession, whatever, terrible stupid immoral idea. And predictable bloviation, considering the election outcome. No cause for a blog post.
But what I noticed was the way the Times discussed the secession process. They actually laid out how it would work. “California cannot, of course, just pick up and leave. Even if the state wanted to, an exit would require two-thirds approval of both the House and Senate in Washington, along with the blessing of 38 state legislatures — a feat analysts say is implausible.”
Something seemed ominous in actually laying that process out. Not about the prospect of a divorce, but about the state of mind of the people interviewed by the author.