From Cascadia PDX:

“The corporate state is not science fiction. Corporate agribusiness is
taking over what, how, and who grows food in my community. It has become
obvious that the government isn’t going to lift a finger to stop them.
It’s clear that the people, in the places where we live, must break the
chokehold of a system of law favoring corporations to one that
recognizes community rights.”

Dana Allen of Corvallis, Oregon

Dana is not expressing an unpopular sentiment around certain parts of Cascadia. Even outside what most would consider liberal urban enclaves, most people would express at least latent mistrust of big companies.

But, like a lot of things that make up modern Cascadia, this isn’t a new thing. Early settlers to Oregon and Washington brought with them a mistrust of the new corporate model. In the creation of both major American Cascadian states, delegates from Appalachia clashed with more corporate friendly New Englanders in how corporations should be handled.

In Oregon in the 1850s:

Many of the delegates entered the convention with a strong mistrust of
corporations. They had seen abuses in the Midwest and elsewhere in which
unscrupulous corporate operators had left innocent stockholders deep in
debt and workers unpaid. Other delegates saw no way for Oregon to move
forward without easy access to “the genius of our age to incorporate.”
Some of the debate would revolve around stereotypes of corporations as
large and uncaring machines of the economy that routinely chewed up
farmers and workers.

Eventually, they landed on  a sort of homegrown middle ground for corporations:

They looked to the benefits provided by corporations that would enhance
rather than threaten the rural character of the agrarian ideal. An
example could be viewed only a short walk from the convention where the
final work was being completed on the Willamette Woolen Mills the
territory’s first large factory. This corporate endeavor was home-grown
in origin, scope, and benefit. This was proof that, within the proper
framework and regulation, corporations could benefit Oregon and free it
from the need to import expensive products from far-off factories.
Otherwise, Williams warned, “We must pay tribute to Massachusetts and
New England all our lives, unless we can devise some way here for the
erection of manufacturing establishments in this state.”

When Washington got around to drafting a constitution in 1878, a lot of these same discussions went into crafting the document. Washington Territory didn’t end up getting statehood in the 1870s (an 1889 constitution was eventually approved by Congress). What was theoretical in Oregon in the 1850s was a practical discussion in Washington during their drafting.

Some of the provisions adopted by the Walla Walla Convention reflected distrust of corporations and railroad. All charter and special privileges that had not been fulfilled in good faith were to be invalidated at the time of the adoption of this constitutions. This provision was apparently directed against the Northern Pacific Railroad whose land policy was unpopular in Washington Territory because it made no real effort to build a line in accordance with its Washington charter until after 1880.

Other provisions including making stockholders individually liable for actions of their company and outlawing banks.

It seems like we might be in the habit of doing this every decade or so in Washington State, bringing back the legislature to make sure Boeing doesn’t leave Puget Sound high and dry. The risk of losing Boeing to some other state is an interesting case of regional tension, especially in how Colin Woodard describes regions in American Nations. 

Right now, at least on their commercial airline business, Boeing is company with deep  Left Coast roots. But, in recent years, Boeing merged with another aerospace company from Great Appalachia (McDonnell Douglas). Since then, they have begun using the political and economic culture of the Deep South to gain concessions from their Left Coast home.

This contrast between their Left Coast origin and Deep South destiny is interesting.

On the surface, the Left Coast (home of Portlandia, hippies and Starbucks) seems like the perfect anti-corporate foil to the open-for-business Deep South. But, as Woodard points out (and the Boeing legislative package illustrates) there is a deep vein of pro-business sentiment in the Left Coast.

The Left Coast was founded in part by New England capitalists, who built the region on large timber empires. This timber baron sentiment led directly to the founding of companies like Boeing. It was also based on a close understanding with civic leaders to do what was needed to keep people at work and business growing.

The other founding group along the Left Coast is the Great Appalachians. They could also be described as pro-business, but as expressed in the founding of Oregon, not exactly pro-big business. So, while companies like Boeing stayed home grown they were happy enough to stay out of their way.

That particular brand of pro-business from the Appalachians of the Left Coast might be turning against Boeing in their post McDonnell Douglas, Chicago headquarters period. The recent legislative session in Olympia was cast in a “David vs. Goliath” light by at least one Republican lawmaker:

“Boeing is vital to our state’s economy,” said Holmquist Newbry, R-Moses
Lake. “The thousands of jobs produced by the 777X program will have a
positive economic ripple effect throughout our state. The Legislature,
however, is being asked to provide special incentives for Boeing. My
response is this: If these policies are good for Boeing, then they
should be good for all of our employers. Unfortunately, expanding these
incentives to help other, smaller businesses survive and thrive is not
even on the table right now.”

…

“If a Goliath multi-billion dollar company and its team of lawyers have
difficulty navigating our state’s permitting process, and need the
certainty of a four-week permitting timeline, what chance do our
Mom-and-Pop businesses have in navigating the same permitting process?
If it’s good for Goliath, it’s good for David.”

 But, along with these various pro-business strains in the region, the Left Coast also developed a strong sense of civic mission (at least in urban areas) and environmental protection.

So, where in the country can Boeing get a better deal to build planes than its home region? Well, the Deep South. Remember, if Boeing does end up expanding more in the Deep South, it will be near Charleston, SC (from Business Week):

Beginning from its Charleston beachhead, the Deep South spread apartheid and authoritarianism across the Southern lowlands, eventually encompassing most of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and Louisiana; western Tennessee; and the southeastern parts of North Carolina, Arkansas and Texas. With its territorial ambitions in Latin America frustrated, it dragged the U.S. into a horrific war in the 1860s in order to form its own nation state, backed by reluctant allies in Tidewater and some corners of Appalachia.

After successfully resisting a Yankee-led occupation, it became the center of the states-rights movement and racial segregation, as well as labor and environmental deregulation. It
is also the wellspring of African-American culture in America
and, 40 years after it was forced to allow blacks to vote, it
remains politically polarized on racial grounds.

For all our pro-business culture (we built Microsoft, Weyerhauser and Boeing), we Left Coasters also have a strong sense of unionism and environmentalism. This is the New England sense of community values expressing themselves in our culture. We also have an Appalachian sense of fair play that is questioning special deals for few large companies.

So, where is a company supposed to go to get away from all Left Coastiness? Well, Charleston, the birthplace of the Deep South!