Greater Peterborough: Answering the Critics (A FAQ)
I realize, of course, that in my previous piece I went out quite far on a very unusual limb, and accordingly it came as no surprise that it was greeted with a great deal of criticism (and perhaps a small measure of outright derision). I don’t take it personally. Making my case is and will continue to be an uphill battle, and I am armed with the knowledge that many axioms and states of affairs now taken for granted as obvious or even self-evident started off being dismissed as absurd.
While I certainly encourage all curious readers to examine my opening salvo in full, I will not begrudge the less ambitious a brief summary. My position is this: there is a nonzero possibility that in the medium-term future, we may see a partial breakdown of society that leads to much more limited centralization of government. This would mean that on some key areas of both survival and governance, localities will effectively be on their own. In such a scenario, the Monadnock Region is susceptible to unfriendly annexation by more powerful neighbors such as Keene - but by planning for such a scenario in advance, including making the preparations for expansion of Peterborough as the center of an independent minor power, we have a chance to retain control of our destiny.
My hope, in the coming months, is to use this column to more deeply explore specific aspects of this concept - which I refer to as “Greater Peterborough” - such as annexation prioritization, identification of likely “problem towns” and how to approach them, the nature of the most obvious threats against us and how we might thwart them, etc. But given the response I’ve received, it is clear that I must first pause to address some of the most common (and/or loudest) criticisms levied against this way of thinking. In the digital age, to which I’m afraid I’m still growing accustomed, we might call this “the Greater Peterborough FAQ.”
Criticism #1: “That would never happen.”
I acknowledge that this is both the most obvious and indeed the strongest objection to my hypothesis. It is based in the longstanding and apparently still-extant power and authority held by both the federal government and the State of New Hampshire. It is, of course, difficult to imagine the absence or even the waning of something that seems so solid and intractable, something that has been so since many generations prior to our births. It is not at all inconceivable, even to me, that something akin to the status quo will continue, with relatively modest changes over time, for the foreseeable future.
Some even take things a step further, arguing that authority in this country is growing more centralized and that our government, especially at the federal level, is growing more authoritarian. (Donald Trump is often cited as evidence for this, but not always.) Indeed, there are merits to this argument as well, and I would not in a thousand years deny the possibility of this outcome.
Note that I am careful about my words: I am positing a nonzero chance of a scenario in which Peterborough must expand, through treaty, conquest, or coercion, or be swallowed up in the absence of strong state or federal presence. In truth, of course, I believe the chances are much higher than merely nonzero, although even I am unprepared to state with confidence that I believe it to be the most likely outcome. Unbeknownst to many of us, underground data scientists and psychohistorians are actively working on this problem - not necessarily for Peterborough specifically in all cases - but conclusive proofs have yet to emerge. For the time being, the oddsmaker jury is still out.
Yet my argument is that even a small nonzero probability of this scenario demands our attention. Further, I strongly suggest that a position holding this scenario as utterly impossible is untenable in our current times. In brief:
How many events and directives and behaviors have we seen firsthand over the last two years that would, prior to March of 2020, have been unthinkable?
Confidence in government is currently at record lows; it should also be fairly noncontroversial to note that government, at all levels, has failed to demonstrate much in the way of competence during this time, and indeed for quite some time beforehand
Climate change is likely to welcome even more “unthinkable” changes than the pandemic did
If a global military conflict, which also no longer seems to be unthinkable, were to occur, the same would apply. Remember that each of the past world wars led to the reshaping of governments all over the place, and in all kinds of ways
Change is very possible - in fact, if I may be permitted to be glib, it is the only constant. Change does not always mean “progress.” Our world, and the societies within it, do not always move in a steady upward diagonal line. Empires do not always receive happy endings, whatever we Americans like to comfort ourselves in insisting.
Accordingly, if this scenario is possible - and it is - we do ourselves a disservice to fail to plan for it.
Criticism #2: New Hampshire is not a home rule state.
Yes, indeed, one oddity of the “Live Free or Die” state is that municipalities are effectively subsidiaries of the state government, permitted only to act in ways explicitly laid out in statutes.
This rule, however, is found in New Hampshire’s “RSA” - the revised statutes annotated - and not on stone tablets brought down from Mount Sinai. It can be taken out, and if we see a devolution of centralized government, we can expect wide swaths of the RSA to be gutted or thrown out altogether. This argument is just a more specific version of the more familiar “things cannot be different because this is how they are now.”
Criticism #3: Even if this scenario is possible, even if it comes to pass, we would not want to do what you are proposing.
Indeed, conquest and coercion has become very unpalatable in our present times; no one wishes to be called a colonizer in polite company. But these are not times that will lend themselves well to outdated manners, nor are they generally for the faint of heart. We will be called upon to make omelets, and we will need to break eggs.
This only need be viewed in a negative light if we lack the confidence in ourselves and in our virtues and character. If we see ourselves as mere humble wretches as likely to make things worse as to preserve freedom and decency, then of course we would not want to subject, for example, the good people of Jaffrey to our own brand of tyranny. The same is true if we adopt a mistrust or hatred of power itself, feeling it to be dirty, or, like Tolkien’s “one ring,” a tool only usable for evil.
This is child’s play. We are called upon to stand up in the days to come, and stand up we must. This requires that we believe in ourselves - and I do believe in our potential and our capabilities. I believe we are equal to these tasks in front of us, indeed uniquely equal to these tasks, uniquely positioned to take their mantle and ride them down the line. And if you think that we are dangerous, should we gain such tremendous power, try and picture what horrors the step-children of Keene will rain down upon us all. What is better for Jaffrey? A powerful fiefdom in deference to a benevolent neighbor or the oppressive swallowing up of them all by the cruelly salivating jaws of Keene?
Criticism #4: We would never have the strength to win.
In a sense, I agree. If we give up on ourselves before the battle even arrives at our door, we lose before we begin. But if you, good citizen, are not a defeatist, are not prepared to lay down and take it, then I hope in the coming months to tell you exactly how we can.
