Cascadia (independence Movement) - Criticism

Criticism

Critics cite American nationalism, Canadian nationalism, and the opinion that Cascadia is a pipe dream, and is unlikely to happen because of the supposed stability of the United States and Canada.

Critics who cite the stability of the United States in particular as making Cascadia unlikely as a reality note that the Civil War showed that states had no right and/or power to leave the Union and thus all present states will always be part of the US. Because of this, proponents of Cascadian Independence focus on building regional identity and awareness, highlighting distinct social, economic, environmental and cultural features that make Cascadia unique. Because of the historical context of secession within the United States, as well as a general anti-militaristic sentiment embodied within the movement, organizers envision a peaceful democratic process towards independence through the use of popular vote or a referendum by the people.

Another point of contention within the Cascadia movement is the perceived ideological difference between the western portion, often viewed as progressive liberal, and east of the Cascades and Coast Mountains, which tends to hold viewpoints more in line with libertarian conservatism. As Cascadia incorporates many green principles, it could be difficult to obtain local consent for inclusion of eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and the BC Interior, and inclusion against the popular will would compromise social values emphasized by supporters of the movement, unless the politics in those regions shifted. Other Cascadian ideas such as a decentralized government, increased transparency, and local representation may find more support, and polling data suggests there are distinct cultural values within the Pacific Northwest commonly found on both sides of the Cascade mountains.