(no subject)

[deckardcanine]

For the first time in about nine years, I have written to a newspaper in strictly my own words (as opposed to prewritten emails pushed by activist organizations). And for the first time ever, I have written in response to another person's letter to a newspaper. Here's what he wrote:

What were folks thinking when they heard Mayor Adrian Fenty's rallying cry for granting D.C. a full-fledged U.S. House vote? Look at what the limited democracy D.C. has enjoyed for the past three decades has wrought: failing schools, high taxes, persistent crime, dicey public services and corruption. When will folks realize that Washington was better off when the federal government ran things rather than local officials?

Chances are that somebody replied sooner than me, but there's a slight chance that my reply will be featured in the paper by virtue of politeness, conciseness, and well-chosen words -- or simply at random from the stack. Unfortunately, I didn't think to copy and paste before sending the email, so I'll have to give you guys just the gist.

I won't deny that D.C.'s problems are as bad as the writer says or even that the federal government could do a better job of handling them. But to answer his first question: it's the principle of the thing. When you deny people a representative democracy because you don't trust them to choose well for themselves, you're setting a dangerous precedent that flies in the face of this nation's most time-honored, most redeeming principle. At the District's level, I'll take an awful council elected by locals over a great council appointed by federally elected leaders.

What do you think?

Comments

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

How about Palestine under Hamas? Or Iran under Ahmenijad and the ayatollahs?

I'd rather be subject to a non-democratic government under rule of democratic law than under a democratic government under rule of tyranny. The law is more important to me than who's pulling the strings.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Your last sentence strikes me funny, because I could say the same thing to describe my position.

To me, this isn't just about the health of D.C.; it's about the health of the U.S. If the U.S. won't grant rights to certain citizens just because they happen to live in the capital, or because they collectively have a bad voting record, then what precedent does that set for the rest of the country? This is especially important for the world's most influential nation.

It is the suspicion of many here that Congress hasn't allowed D.C. representation because we're mostly Democrats. Whether or not that's true, it raises a legitimate fear of partisan unfairness.

But if you really don't want D.C. to have its own Senators and Representatives, then at least be consistent enough to request that Washingtonians get especially low taxes.

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

I personally have no objections to D.C. residents setting up their own government, my point was that democracy alone doesn't make good government, you need a good constitution or the equivalent also, so the government is answerable to the law as well as to the people. And if I had to choose one or the other, I'd prefer a government answerable to the law over one answerable to the people.

I think they should just append D.C. to Virginia or one of the other nearby states so the residents have Congressional representation. Let D.C. decide which state by a ballot.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. Maryland is more likely, tho.