Instead of a Greater Idaho, Let’s Make a Greater Oregon

Sofia El-Shammaa copy editor

A mere fifteen minutes from Sheldon, the rural areas beyond Coburg paint a very different political picture from Eugene, a liberal stronghold. Gone are ‘Coexist’ signs, replaced by blue signs declaring ‘We Support the Local Police.’ These signs started popping up after the violent and senseless murder of George Floyd, indicating that they weren’t so much a declaration of endorsement for the police, but a response to the growing popularity of the Black Lives Matter movement. It took months (and toxic, smoky, orange skies) for similar signs to pop up dedicated to firefighters.

The appearance of these signs are a small part that illustrates a bigger movement. Rural areas across the nation are moving further to the right and people from both sides of the aisle are displaying little patience for their political dissidents. Still, Oregon is a special case: the rural areas of southern and eastern Oregon are considering being absorbed by Idaho. Those who support the initiative call it the ‘Greater Idaho Movement.’

There are many roadblocks that will either stop or seriously delay the movement. First, talks must be approved by local voters. Then, secession will need to be approved by Idaho and Oregon state legislatures. Salem will be incredibly unlikely to agree. Even if all these conditions are met, then Congress must agree as well; if even one chamber is controlled by Democrats, the movement will struggle again. Why would they agree to split up a blue state, giving more pull to republican Idaho in presidential elections? And, finally, there could be a presidential veto.

Beyond that, logistical issues plague the Greater Idaho Movement: what would happen to the weed farmers who fall on Idaho’s side of the border, where weed isn’t legalized? Could those largely libertarian Oregonian communities cope with a sales tax? What would happen to rural communities sandwiched between big cities, like those who put up ‘We Support the Local Police’ signs, when they lose most of their right-wing allies in Salem? As a countermovement group, Rural Oregonians for Oregon, said in a statement: “They [the Greater Idaho Movement] have not conducted an economic analysis on how they would acquire, let alone manage, 63% of Oregon.” Logically, there is no way that this movement makes sense or is in any way actionable, especially when support isn’t even widespread; Wallowa county rejected the measure to approve talks in 2020, and Josephine and Douglas counties voted against talks, but will vote again this month.

So, if the movement is seemingly destined to fail, why does it matter? And why are some so persistent on sticking to this Sisyphean secession?

It’s easy to chalk up everything up to polarization and partisan politics. After all, Greater Idaho Movement spokesman Matt McCaw himself claimed, “Our movement is about self-determination and matching people to government that they want and that matches their values. In Oregon, we’ve had this urban-rural divide for a very long time.” I won’t try to deny that rural Oregon is red as blood, like most rural places in Oregon, and probably does have more in common politically with Idaho than Oregon. Other than D.C., no city is a state on its own. New York City is not an autonomous state, and the rest of New York state (which is largely republican) is not begging to cut itself off (at least, not in a serious way). I say this to illustrate that the rural/urban divide described by McCaw is not unique to Oregon, but a large disconnect that only seems to grow.

And, again, it’s easy to blame polarizing politics, but I instead want to talk about the lack of infrastructure that is provided to rural areas. When comparing counties with the highest poverty rate to their population, most of them are those who’d be included by the Greater Idaho Movement. The disconnect becomes much easier to understand when you look at it through the lens of poorer areas being left behind by areas with infinitely more political power. In the end, that is what fuels polarization; when people in areas with little resources are largely ignored, it’s no wonder that so many are enticed by the idea of having more influence over political decisions.

When rural communities are only being catered to by fringe political groups and untrustworthy news sources, it becomes an issue for everyone. If Oregon is truly liberal as everyone thinks it is, wouldn’t it make sense to prop up rural, poorer communities so its citizens have equitable access to opportunities and services?

What bothers me about this is not the fear that Idaho would adopt eastern Oregon. It’s the lack of care from the rest of the state. It’s, and forgive me for my oversimplifying analogy, like someone who isn’t satisfied with the relationship with their partner pretending to flirt with someone else, then that partner not even noticing. It’s not the issue, it’s a symptom of a greater problem.

I’ll leave you with a poem that I love written by Joyce Baker of Roseburg (printed in the News-Review) before Douglas County rejected a measure for the Greater Idaho Movement: “If you like Idaho/Move to Idaho/I like Oregon/I’ll stay in Oregon.”