Wednesday, November 08, 2006

NEWS FROM THE COLONIES

This is from Sam Smith, the editor of The Progressive Review.................Scott

[From a memo your editor sent to the chair of a taskforce working on
self-government issues for Adrian Fenty, the probable new mayor of the
colony of Washington. It addresses the widespread confusion in the media
and elsewhere between congressional representation and true self
government]

- FENTY, LIKE MANY IN THIS TOWN, tends to conflate representation and
statehood. They are vastly different. Representation - and realistically
we are speaking of House representation only or else the push would be
for statehood - is a symbolic matter of little positive importance but
which would create the illusion that DC residents are full citizens.

- FOR ABOUT A CENTURY, representation has been used as a method to
distract residents and Congress from self government issues such as home
rule and statehood. Those behind these efforts have traditionally
included the business and media. For example:

1888: Conservative newspaperman Theodore Noyes of the Washington Star
launches campaign for congressional representation; strongly opposes
real democracy. Noyes writes, "National representation for the capital
community is not in the slightest degree inconsistent with control of
the capital by the nation through Congress."

1899: A political scientist describes the Board of Trade - which
supports a congressional vote only -- as providing DC with the ideal
form of local government through a "representative aristocracy."

1919: Board of Trade and Chamber of Commerce advocate congressional
representation and oppose home rule. Labor unions urge elected
officials.

1934: A special committee recommends a nonvoting delegate but no home
rule.

1943: Board of Trade appears before Senate Committee to support
representation in Congress but opposes local self-government.

1960s: Segregationist Rep. John McMillan favors a DC vote for president
and vice president, says a struggle for home rule will cripple the
national vote. McMillan thinks the national vote should "satisfy" DC
residents "at least for a while."

1971: DC gets a nonvoting congressional delegate. In first delegate
race, the statehood arguments of Julius Hobson are strongly opposed by
Walter Fauntroy who will become the leader of a lengthy and futile drive
for a constitutional amendment granting congressional representation.

1972: Walter Fauntroy and John Hechinger, later major players in the
voting rights drive, sabotage George McGovern's planned announcement of
support for DC statehood.

1981: The League of Women Voters, Walter Fauntroy, and the Washington
Post - all strong advocates of congressional voting representation - are
the leading voices again DC statehood.

1985: The voting rights amendment is defeated with less than half the
required states voting for it. Meanwhile years of potential work for
full democracy are dissipated and diluted.

1998: Twenty citizens file full democracy law suit. Establishment
figures and elite bar refuse to help. Four months later, the latter file
a suit for congressional representation.

2004: Del. Norton convinced the Democratic Party to drop DC statehood
from its platform, to be replaced by a call for voting rights. According
to The Washington Times, "Pat Elwood, vice chairman of the [Democratic]
state committee, said she agreed with Mrs. Norton's view that statehood
'dilutes' the message of congressional voting representation."

- THE SLOGAN "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" unconsciously reveals
the colonial goals of the movement. The slogan originally stemmed from a
major complaint of the business and upper classes against the British
crown and, much like corporate mantras of today, such as "free markets",
it gained a currency far broader than its applicability.

While New England businessmen were speaking not of self government but
only of some representation in the English parliament, Patrick Henry
addressed taxation in a fiery address in 1765 against the Stamp Act
declaring, "If this be treason, make the most of it."

What's significant is that Henry was not speaking of representation in
the Parliament, but rather of the right of the Virginia legislature to
approve any taxes on the people. In other words, Henry was taking the
side of full democracy rather than insignificant representation in a
national legislature that still held plenary powers over the colonies.
It is this critical and similar distinction that current use of the
phrase "taxation without representation" obscures.

- WITH REPRESENTATION in the House, DC would still be a full colony of
the United States just as Algeria was despite representation in the
French National Assembly.

- THERE ARE ONLY TWO WAYS THAT DC residents can become full citizens of
the U.S. Either we become a state or we become part of another state
either through retrocession or merger. Yet, almost without exception,
elected DC officials including Fenty refuse to advocate the cause of
statehood except when incorrectly conflating it with representation.

- THE ARGUMENT that DC representation is a first step to statehood might
bear some weight had there been the slightest discussion as to what the
first such step should be. Instead, this position was taken ex cathedra,
ignoring such important alternative incremental approaches as getting
control over our budget, permitting a commuter tax, regaining control
over our prison system, gaining control over our judges and so forth.

- THOSE SUPPORTING REPRESENTATION are keeping citizens and Congress from
confronting the lack of self-government in DC. As a consequence they
should be viewed as part of the problem rather than part of the
solution.

No comments: