Let's debate DC statehood

[Patty_O_Furniture]

That’s really hard to say. I wouldn’t want half of the people on the current city council as part of a state legislature. And I’ve been dismayed at the ease with which Marion Barry has been able to get himself elected to a public office (twice as a convicted felon). We’ve got the tax base to more than support ourselves but I’m not sure fully confident that elected officials would manage it wisely. Chalk it up to general distrust of government, I suppose.

I’ve not thought about it a great deal because (1) I don’t see it happening within my lifetime and (2) I’ve always been a proponent of redrawing the borders to give all but federal land back to Maryland.

[Horatio_Hellpop]

I don’t think I stated my case very well on this earlier, so I’ll give it another crack.

The DC Statehood Party’s mantra is “We’re America’s last colony.” They successfully lobbied to get “Taxation Without Representation” embossed on DC’s license plates (which is ironic, since no proposal for the Commuter Tax involves a vote for the commuters) and even (as a tongue-in-cheek publicity stunt) lobbied the British Embassy to intercede on their behalf to Congress for representation.

When I say “Nobody needs to live in DC,” I mean it in this sense:

If you live in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa or any of the other overseas territories and yearn to breathe freer, you have the option of moving to the mainland. It’s expensive, though; airline tickets alone can range from a hundred to over a thousand bucks, plus the cost of moving your stuff, changing jobs, and obtaining housing in what’s essentially a foreign country to you. It’s an uphill climb, but it’s doable.

If you live in DC, you can rent a U-Haul and cart all your worldly belongings a few miles up Wisconsin or Rhode Island Avenue, and get a new apartment with exactly the same level of difficulty as finding a new one in DC.

It takes effort to leave the overseas territories, and virtually none to leave DC. Nobody has to stay in DC; it’s very easy to leave. But who cries the loudest about being “oppressed” and “disenfranchised?”

I don’t buy it for a moment. And life with congressional representation isn’t that much better.

In the blizzard of '96, Anacostia got plowed twice (courtesy of Mayor Barry) before my neighborhood (Rock Creek East) ever saw a plow. And Hizzoner didn’t send that one up my way; Sen. Jay Rockefeller paid for it out of pocket. So yeah, you could say I’m more impressed with Congressional oversight than with the Mayor’s.

Patty, where in DC does it take three hours to commute to from Arlington or Takoma Park?

[Patty_O_Furniture]

@Krokodil

I don’t think I stated my case very well on this earlier, so I’ll give it another crack.

Patty, where in DC does it take three hours to commute to from Arlington or Takoma Park?

I see your location as Alexandria, so I used two of my coworkers as an example because I know they live in that area. They both tell me that it’s not unusual for them to spend as much as 90 minutes inching up US1 from Alexandria to get to downtown DC. I’ve never done it so I can’t say if that’s accurate or not. I have no reason to doubt them, it doesn’t seem like the sort of thing one brags about. I doubled that to get my earlier estimate of a 3 hour daily commute.

But nevermind that. We’ve got this great system set up whereby our elected representatives decide how to spend the money we give them to run the country. If we don’t like what they do, we’re told to write to them, or vote the fuckers out of office. Since over a half million people in DC don’t have that recourse, is it your recommendation that every single one of us just up and move out of the city?

Plainly stated, do you think the current situation is fair?

[Horatio_Hellpop]

@Patty O'Furniture

I see your location as Alexandria, so I used two of my coworkers as an example because I know they live in that area. They both tell me that it’s not unusual for them to spend as much as 90 minutes inching up US1 from Alexandria to get to downtown DC. I’ve never done it so I can’t say if that’s accurate or not. I have no reason to doubt them, it doesn’t seem like the sort of thing one brags about. I doubled that to get my earlier estimate of a 3 hour daily commute.

You also ruled out buying a car. I’m assuming your workplace is Metro-accessible, and that you’d select a suburban locale that also is. That would tend to cut down the commute time a bit.

But nevermind that. We’ve got this great system set up whereby our elected representatives decide how to spend the money we give them to run the country. If we don’t like what they do, we’re told to write to them, or vote the fuckers out of office. Since over a half million people in DC don’t have that recourse, is it your recommendation that every single one of us just up and move out of the city?

No, just the ones who find the present arrangement intolerable.

Plainly stated, do you think the current situation is fair?

I’d agree to give DC’s delegate (singular) a vote and leave it at that… provided that DC didn’t give the job to Barry (which, for pure devilment, you might).

Aside from that, DC’s reason for being is it’s a federal enclave. People who don’t work directly for the federal government invariably work at something that services it indirectly, the way Raleigh-Durham directly or indirectly works for tobacco, or Seattle does for Boeing or Microsoft. If you moved there, it was because it was the capital; if you were born there, your parents (or grandparents; not a lot of fourth-generation DC residents) moved there for some kind of government-fueled career. The disenfranchisement you lament is part and parcel of its nature as a federal enclave.

Another part of being a federal enclave is that DC receives far more in federal money than it pays in federal taxes. The rest of the country very much wants to avoid rewarding that situation with statehood. And, not to belabor a point, many congressmen have said that the two words they and their constituents never, ever want to hear together are “Governor Barry.” Putting that freak in office over and over isn’t aberrant behavior for District voters; it’s the rule. Conferring statehood on the modern District would be a reward for incredible mismanagement.

It’s not fair that LA is so smoggy or Fairbanks so cold, but the people there knew that on the way in, and if you were born there, you either lump it or leave. DC’s burden is much less. And nothing about DC warrants full statehood.

[BrainGlutton]

@Krokodil

Aside from that, DC’s reason for being is it’s a federal enclave. People who don’t work directly for the federal government invariably work at something that services it indirectly, the way Raleigh-Durham directly or indirectly works for tobacco, or Seattle does for Boeing or Microsoft. If you moved there, it was because it was the capital; if you were born there, your parents (or grandparents; not a lot of fourth-generation DC residents) moved there for some kind of government-fueled career. The disenfranchisement you lament is part and parcel of its nature as a federal enclave.

Would you raise the same objections to making Washington part of Maryland?

[Horatio_Hellpop]

@BrainGlutton

Would you raise the same objections to making Washington part of Maryland?

No. My understanding is that Maryland has its own objections to that idea. As I noted on another thread, when Newt Gingrich made this suggestion some years back, several Maryland pundits suggested that DC be ceded to Gingrich’s district in Georgia.

If I’m mistaken, then go for it.

[Ravenman]

Thank you for the quibble. I think I was quite clear in prefacing my discussion of rights with the caveat that those who do not believe in God-given rights might not agree with the conclusion. So, your objection to my proviso is well-taken. But the fundamental thrust of my conlcusion remains unchanged: It is bizarre, undemocratic, arbitrary, and unfair to deny citizens of the US a voting representative in Congress simply because of where they choose to live.

@Bricker

THERE IS NO RIGHT WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING LEGAL REMEDY.

The Constitution does not give residents of DC the right to voting representation in Congress. There is a valid historical reason for the situation, and you may well argue that wisdom dictates we now change this rule, but you cannot argue that “rights” are being denied, because those rights DO NOT EXIST.

If they do – take them. Exercise them. Go ahead. I dare ya.

• Rick

[Steve_MB]

@Belowjob2.0

Eventually, DC will be white majority again, and at that point, DC will get statehood.

Now you’re the one veering off into tinfoil hat territory. The Republican objections to DC statehood isn’t based on racism, and won’t soften because the place is full of white leftists instead of black leftists.

[Steve_MB]

@Blalron

Since the Constitution gave Congress the authority to designate an area to be the seat of government (they settled on its current location, obviously) I always thought that Congress should work out a deal to cede all the residential and commercial areas of D.C to Maryland and redraw the lines of the District to include only the Capitol Building, the White House, and the Supreme Court.

The main political difficulty with retrocession down to a rump District is that it would have to be accompanied by a new Constitutional amendment (repealing Amendment XXIII), unless you want to give the incumbent President’s family three electoral votes.

[Steve_MB]

@BrainGlutton

BTW: I once heard that when pro-statehood Jesse Jackson was presented with the alternative solution of retrocession of Washington to Maryland, he called the proposal “apartheid.” Which always perplexed me. What the fuck was he talking about? Can anyone here shed light on his thinking?

Sure. Retrocession would deprive him of an issue and the chance to become Senator-for-Life.

[Ravenman]

@Krokodil

If you live in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa or any of the other overseas territories and yearn to breathe freer, you have the option of moving to the mainland.

There’s a key difference. Puerto Ricans have consistently rejected statehood. I am not aware that a statehood debate is even on the radar screen in Guam, Samoa, or the VI. The vote for representation in DC would be overwhelming, but unfortunately, the Constitutional deck is stacked against us. Again, you may be right in a practical sense (I’m thinking of a Bricker-like OP: “There is no right without a corresponding U-Haul remedy!”), but on a fairness sense, the fundamental inequity isn’t addressed by people moving to VA or MD. It just means that the people who stay, or move in to replace the exiles, are still denied representation for a silly reason.

By the way, in case others haven’t seen it, check out the motto on DC’s license plate. I love it.

[Cliffy]

@Fiver

It could, theoretically, use such legislation to jerk the Capitol around and extort preferential treatment from the federal government.

Nah. McCullough v. Maryland makes clear that the federal government has supreme countrol over federal holdings and can prevent the surrounding states from impeding them.

Of course, when D.C. is a state it should get preferential treatment from the federal government because so much of the state’s useful property is/will be immune from taxation or eminent domain.

–Cliffy

[Cliffy]

@BrainGlutton

Suppose the statehood activists got their way. What kind of state government would New Columbia have? Would it be any better or worse than the city government they’ve got now?

Better, because the new state would have the power to tax carpet-baggers like me who draw outrageous salaries for work in the District which we then spend at home in Maryland. (Or Virginia, in Krokodil’s case.)

–Cliffy

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

Look, Bricker, we’re debating the merits of a political change here. An appeal to things-as-they-are is irrelevant.

Sure. But the language we use in discussing that claim is relevant. If you wish to say, “It is a wise move to extend Congressional voting rights to DC residents,” then I’m all ears. If you say, “All DC residents have a right to vote,” then I must disagree.

@Blalron

Wrong.

Right can refer to “a legally, morally, or traditionally just claim: “I’m a champion for the Rights of Woman” (Maria Edgeworth).” cite

If the right to vote is a morally just claim, then you can claim that you have the right to vote.

What’s this? Are you forcing your moral system on me? Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!

What if I deny that there is any such moral imperative? What source of moral authority can you point to that we both will accept as binding? And if the answer is, “None,” then of what relevance is asserting that you have advancing a “morally just” claim?

• Rick

[Belowjob2.0]

Now you’re the one veering off into tinfoil hat territory. The Republican objections to DC statehood isn’t based on racism, and won’t soften because the place is full of white leftists instead of black leftists.

Not at all. The opposition to DC statehood is largely based on resistance to sharing wealth and power with people who are seen as unworthy, and incapable of managing their own affairs. A significant amount of research suggests that white Americans specifically, and people in general, are more willing to share wealth and power with people like themselves. For example, whites in states with low nonwhite populations support more spending on social welfare and education than whites in states where such spending benefits blacks and Latinos.

When the DC becomes white majority again, white Americans will become much more favorably inclined to give DC statehood. Particularly when you consider that the whites who settle in DC are likely to be college educated managerial and professional types drawn from all over the US. They will have ties of family, friendship, and common association with influential whites throughout the country. Their lack of voting rights will be seen as a problem affecting real people, not the absurd protests of people who, as I observed earlier, don’t really count.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Belowjob2.0

Not at all. The opposition to DC statehood is largely based on resistance to sharing wealth and power with people who are seen as unworthy, and incapable of managing their own affairs.

I think that it’s more resistance, by Republicans, to create a state that’s guaranteed to send two Democratic senators and a Democratic representative to Congress.

[Ravenman]

There is certainly truth to that, but the latest proposal that’s been shot down by Republicans would give Utah a new House seat AND give the DC delegate voting rights in the House. One new Dem, one new R. But the Republicans won’t go for it.

[Steve_MB]

@Ravenman

There is certainly truth to that, but the latest proposal that’s been shot down by Republicans would give Utah a new House seat AND give the DC delegate voting rights in the House. One new Dem, one new R. But the Republicans won’t go for it.

Well, duh – the reapportionment shift in favor of Utah goes away in 2010; the DC delegate vote doesn’t.

[SpartanDC]

I live in the District, and I don’t believe we should be a state. We’re too small geographically and the federal government is physically and legally too intertwined with the rest of the city to create a traditional federal/state government relationship. The two governments would both be able to tie up eachother, and the city itself, in knots if for some reason they were peeved at eachother.

That said, there are people in DC. More than there are in Wyoming. While DC was given an elaborate layout when it was planned by L’Enfant, it was not seen a real city until at least 1877 (The Washington Post magazine had a great story on this about a year or so ago), or perhaps even until the New Deal era, when the increase in the size of the government combined with the migration of Blacks northward and Congress staying in session almost year-round gave DC a substantial permanent population.

Now, before then, when the city really was just seasonally populated by people who worked directly with the government, there was, in fact, little argument for giving DC representation. That excuse no longer exists. Anyone arguing “if you don’t like it, then move” is making a purely undemocratic, un-American argument. The ideas this country were founded upon to not take into account one’s motives when determining how much power you have. The only determinant is that you are, in fact, a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of the United States.

The House represents the people. Period. There are people in DC, so therefore they should rightfully be represented in the House. Since the population of DC is only a little over 500,000, just give them one vote. It’s all they should get and puts them on equal footing with everyone else. Should the city’s population every balloon to a level requiring two representatives, then give them another one. Treat them like everyone else.

But the Senate is where the states do their thing, and I don’t think DC can function like a state. Sure, you could make it a state in name, but it would never be on a level playing field with all the other states in terms of the power it wielded. So I’m fine with keeping DC out of the Senate.

[Steve_MB]

@Belowjob2.0

Now you’re the one veering off into tinfoil hat territory. The Republican objections to DC statehood isn’t based on racism, and won’t soften because the place is full of white leftists instead of black leftists.

Not at all. The opposition to DC statehood is largely based on resistance to sharing wealth and power with people who are seen as unworthy, and incapable of managing their own affairs. A significant amount of research suggests that white Americans specifically, and people in general, are more willing to share wealth and power with people like themselves. For example, whites in states with low nonwhite populations support more spending on social welfare and education than whites in states where such spending benefits blacks and Latinos.

When the DC becomes white majority again, white Americans will become much more favorably inclined to give DC statehood. Particularly when you consider that the whites who settle in DC are likely to be college educated managerial and professional types drawn from all over the US. They will have ties of family, friendship, and common association with influential whites throughout the country. Their lack of voting rights will be seen as a problem affecting real people, not the absurd protests of people who, as I observed earlier, don’t really count.

If this theory were true, it would cut across party lines. I’ll be waiting for your list of three nationally prominent Democrats who have declared opposition to DC statehood or nationally prominent Republicans who have declared support for same. (Heck, I’ll accept three total instead of requiring three of each.)