Alaska has many, many things going for it, and I'd be tempted to support it over Wyoming if I thought that there was a chance we'd get a sufficient number of people to move there. I've posted data in the past showing how we do not need 20,000 in every state in order to achieve the same degree of saturation as we would have at 20,000 in the top three most populous states...
However...
Even though I believe we would stand a good chance of success in Alaska with less than 20,000, there are some serious federal dependency issues to be dealt with there in addition to a high rate of government employment in general. We could probably deal with all of this in time, but it might make for a tough fight in certain circles. Also, Anchorage is a very large city, and this would bring us into problems confronting its present infrastructure, although success in Anchorage would have its rewards as well: the most notable of which would be a significant presence for us in a place where over 40% of the state's population lives.
If we could get a few hundred or so of us to congregate in Juneau, then between the Anchorage and Juneau factions, we'd have the ability to control state politics. The problem with Juneau, and the panhandle in general, is that we'd have to recruit ducks as opposed to porcupines.
Lots and lots of rain there.
On the other hand, I'm intrigued by the possibility that we may find numerous and valuable allies in Alaska, potentially enough to offset the number of activists that we would lose due to Alaskaphobia:
1. The
AIP (Alaskan Independence Party) - This group, which advocates a general Alaska-first policy as opposed to just supporting outright secession, is, because of its single state focus, the largest third party in the US. In 2002, the AIP had nearly 20,000 registered members, and a thousand or so of us, working as dedicated activists, might be able to reinvigorate that group and make it a force to be reckoned with.
2. The Alaska Libertarian Party - This state LP has the equivalent of Major Party Status in Alaska, although it is smaller than the AIP. Still, we could possibly merge a number of issues under both the AIP and AKLP banners and forge a liberty coalition.
3. Alaska has a very large number of "non-partisan" and "undeclared" voters - more than 200,000 of them, which, in a state with less than 700,000 total inhabitants, is a considerable block of voters. The fact that these people have chosen to identify themselves as they have seems to indicate that they are politically homeless. If we came along and united factions of the AIP, the AKLP, libertarian-leaning GOP'ers, and pitched ourselves as something new to all of those "non-partisan" and "undeclared" voters, we could be a powerhouse in Alaskan politics.
4. Alaska has just refused to implement a state-wide sales tax in favor of substantial budget cuts, and even, in some places, user fees.
5. Alaskan politicians are just a different breed altogether. As someone said not long ago, Alaskan Democrats seem more like moderate Republicans in the lower 48, while Alaskan Republicans would probably be on an FBI surveillance list in the lower 48.
6. Alaskans are known for their rugged individualism and independent spirit. Most of them would probably accept a live-and-let-live philosophy of life rather warmly.
In my opinion, these are items that may swing Alaska in our favor in spite of a potential loss of recruits. I also think that there is absolutely no question that Alaska is in the best position for achieving the greatest degree of autonomy, if not outright independence (eventually).
As for federal dependency issues, those will take some work. However, there may be solutions. Alaska is oil and mineral rich, and the AIP's 2002 gubernatorial candidate, John Wayne Glotfelty (sp?), has suggested an in-state Alaska pipeline, which would pump and refine oil for sale solely by the State of Alaska. This could be a considerable revenue source, and could cushion the process of weaning Alaska from the government bottle.
On that note, a word or two about the Permanent Fund...
Some consider this a socialist redistributionist device, but I would caution such people to consider a few things about that:
1. The people are not taxed for this fund, the revenue from oil sales in Alaska provides the fund. This is not robbing the rich to give to the poor.
2. Fund dividends are paid to the public based on the profits from fund investment earnings, not even from the general fund itself (this is a provision in the Alaska constitution).
3. The dividend that the people receive essentially amounts to payment for their share of a commonly-held resource. In other words, Alaska's oil is considered as belonging to the people of Alaska, and they are treated almost as shareholders.
For those reasons, I don't see this as socialist redistribution.
One last item...
Alaska's oil is often seen as a disadvantage because of the idea that the federal government would not allow Alaska to become more autonomous when it holds such a valuable resource.
Think of it this way, though. The federal government can only benefit from Alaska's oil and other natural resources if it can get at them, and presently, much of Alaska's natural potential is off-limits due to environmental activism in DC. A more autonomous Alaska would off-set that issue, and would actually permit the government greater access to those valuable resources. Why? Because efforts to tap those resources would no longer have to meet the approval of the Sierra Club and Barbara Boxer. The federal government would be dealing mainly with the Alaskan government, which would be very interested in profiting from the sale of its natural resources.
Thus, what we usually perceive as a disadvantage for autonomy might actually be an advantage, if we're good salesmen.
