The USDA already has people all over hte country who are in contact with farmers. The people who were being moved last year had no reason to move. It was purely a spiteful manoeuvre.
And this is true for all federal agencies – only 15% of federal civilian employees are located in the greater DC area (cite). The vast majority of the federal workforce already live in the communities they assist, and not in some Washington bubble. The senior leadership of agencies and departments live and work in Washington, but the people in those positions are also constantly traveling to meetings, conventions, regional tours, etc.
This isn’t to argue that there isn’t a “bubble” for people in these positions, but it’s not about geography. It’s about regularly engaging with the same industry representatives, lobbyists, interest groups and others stakeholders in their field. And that’s going to happen wherever you set up headquarters.
The “classic” science fiction location for a moved US (or successor state) capital is Denver. Though of course that was generally well before metro Denver became as massive as it is now.
coughs, clears throat: Washington DC.
If they wanted to move the Smithsonian Museum, they could probably save some relocation costs by simply mailing some of the exhibits to the new location. (I expect that many Dopers will get the reference here.)
No, I don’t see any benefit from moving the capital.
I’m surprised nobody has yet mentioned the BLM move.
You must have missed the consensus on this board that government shouldn’t be run like a business.
Exactly. Within mere months of setting up the new Fort Capital District Business Only No Residents We Mean It No Maternity Ward Inside, the former K-Streeters will fill up office parks in whatever civilian-inhabited city grows around the front gate, and by the end of the next presidency chef José Andrés will have set up restaurants there, a theatre hosting the finest Opera companies and Broadway tours will open, and I may get in trouble if I mention what other classes of entepreneur will be in business the very day after the move.
They are not going to refuse to hit the Midwest if that’s where the seat of government is. And Congressman Heartlander may affect being “a Man Of The People” (in spite of his 1percenter net worth) but his 30ish Legislative Director is going to want some quality of life in exchange for the thankless hard work.
Which has the advantage of a 200 year head start and a location at the Eastern Fall Line, at what was then the head of navigation of a major river and a natural stop on the land route between the major cities of the incipient nation, an easy ride away from the homes of some of the major Founders, where the town of Alexandria had already sprung (originaly inside the District). So it was not deliberately plunked in the middle-of-nowhere, and especially after the Civil War it had the chance to grow organically into a real city as opposed to a mere garrison town.
Government isn’t a business. But there are principles like efficiency and effectiveness that are important to both.
I’ve said that, and loudly.
But centralization and decentralization are not purely business concepts. And businesses alternately centralize and then decentralize as the previous procedure proves to be less than exemplary. Citing business in the same sentence as whether to centralize or not is a losing proposition.
The main problem with the OP - assuming that it was meant in any way seriously, which I doubt - is that it’s also based on a false premise. Government is not based in Washington, but in the greater Washington-Baltimore Combined Statistical Area. This is an immense region of over 9 million people, less than 10% of which is Washington. It already is representative of the country and can’t seriously be charged with the nonsense that is sometimes thrown at it.
Even better it’s now one of the wealthiest, fastest-growing, and most dynamic CSAs in the country. It cannot be replicated, without totally gutting it and destroying the economy both of the region and of the country as a whole. The economy of the region is centered around the federal district but it in no way synonymous with it. The part of it that is government is also in no way synonymous with the federal district. Anyone who thinks that a new federal district will accomplish anything other than destruction and devastation is abstracted from reality.
Maybe, but I can think of at least one example where some people might have access to voice their opinion. Remember when Congress was having hearings on the ACA? A bunch of people went to protest, and that’s what changed the calculus of the vote.
If the Congressional hearings were in the middle of the country, more people from the middle of the country would have access to protest. And it would be equal for people on the coasts. That might, at least, give some people more of a voice.
Is this true? From Harvard Business Review:
Maybe it depends on the industry. Twitter and Square and Facebook are allowing their WFH people to work remotely permanently. Google will allow it until June 2021. It remains to be seen how the companies will fare.
Yes, but what allows this to continue? I would contend that at least one factor is that they’ve created a very insular culture in DC. They don’t have to answer to anyone because the people around them go along.
It’s interesting to me that the elected officials in the swing states won’t go against the will of the voters in certifying the vote. I think that one reason is because they still have to live in that community and would get a lot of pushback if they did.
That’s possible, but I think it will take some time to create that kind of culture in another place.
Agreed. This will need to change as well. That’s actually the more fundamental change that would need to happen to make any of the rest change.
Could you explain this a little more? It sounds like a contradiction.
There’s nothing true about this. And were it true, moving the capital wouldn’t change it.
There are a few hundred elected officials in Washington. The government is made up of tens of thousands of people.
And again, being in Washington is no less “among the people” than were the capital to be moved to, say, Kansas. Any location one might choose would be exactly the same.*
All you would be doing is punishing people who live and work in Washington, exactly like what happened with the Kansas City incident last year.
Maybe not. But there’s a perception that there is. Maybe even the change in perception will go a long way to changing things.
What makes you sure that it’s not true? Or at least the perception isn’t held by many.
To preempt your argument that it’s just one [stupid] Republican saying things, I’ll just say that almost half the country voted the way they did for a reason. It’s been surmised a number of times that this might be one of the reasons.
No it wouldn’t. Nothing even a little bit. Because the same kind of people who benefit from spreading this kind of lie now will continue to benefit from it.
“Those out of touch bureaucrats on Washington” will become “Those out of touch bureaucrats in Kansas” without missing a beat.
You’re never going to successfully address demagoguery and propaganda
by “addressing” the problems that demagogues and propagandists purportedly identify because they don’t actually care about the truth of what’s they’re saying.
Trump is the perfect example. If he says he is worried about election security then actually doing something to improve election security won’t change anything because he doesn’t actually care about election security.
This is exactly the same thing.
By even taking these “concerns” seriously you’re just playing into their hands.
And the OP and anyone even entertaining the OP—this is evidence that some people are internalizing the propaganda, lies, and bigotry against the ordinary people of Washington and those who work in government.
Having the capitol be located in the heartland of America isn’t a bad idea but it isn’t worth the immense cost and hassle to move.
I’m not saying that this move would cure all of government’s ills. Not by a long shot.
Are you saying that Washington isn’t insular and that there are no problems with the way things are working now?
For an example of this, just look at New York state; a lot of people rail against “those bureaucrats in Albany” even though Albany is a small city surrounded by relatively rural countryside, as opposed to as if New York’s capitol had been located in Manhattan.
Although - there are indeed out-of-touch bureaucrats in government; that isn’t a misrepresentation.
Out of curiosity I looked it up, the population center of the US per the 2010 census was near Plato, MO, population 109. So Joplin was a pretty good guess though if we ever complete the '20 census, the center will probably shift closer to Springfield (Springfield!), only a 76 mile drive from Plato.
Our new capital could be a Clooney-ish geographical oddity, three hour flights from everywhere, not to mention an eternal tribute to The Simpsons.
While there is a problem, it’s completely unrelated to the physical location of Washington DC.
What is it related to?