Good morning. 37 today, expected high … 42 (Douglas Adams notwithstanding).
- In honor of the day, a hoax noted. Geek pranks.
- Another one.
- Kudos to Mr Bush.
- The elephant in the room, regarding Obama and his Church. Or how not to reach across the aisle.
- This winter was very cold. The upside … supercooled water.
- Where your petro-dollar goes.
- On being Gay in Church.
- Putting disparate things together, in science.
- A logic riddle.
- Voting and DC as injustice … which in a nation of immigrants seems a really odd way to look at it. Virtually all of us have crossed an ocean to get here, the idea that if this was such a personal injustice that one cannot move if it mattered seems … strained.
- Loss of faith in the college years, examined. Another view of our youth.
- A holy grail.
- Ephraim! twice.
- Rome and the Protestant a difference noted.
- Prayer.
- A lenten dish well received by kids … a thing in which to rejoice.
- A Patristic book club, to compete with Ms Winfrey? Suggestions for your club can be found at the link.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but oppression remains bad even if it’s possible to flee from it, yes? Cossacks burning Shetls to the ground doesn’t become okay just because Jews were able to move to America?
Dumb policies don’t cease being dumb because people can go elsewhere.
David,
If I’m beating you (up physically) … that’s wrong. If however, you were free to just walk away at any time and the beating would stop it is not so clear, is it consensual S/M behavior? That may be wrong, but the wrong is in a different category. Choice changes the situation, why not here?
There are two points here that you seem to have missed noting. First, the “oppression” is chosen voluntarily that is, the residents have selected living there is preferable to enfranchisement. Second, it seems to me there are reasons the situation being as it is, e.g., for not having DC Senatorial or Congressional representations as the people there, by virtue of their locale have personal ways of influencing Congressional leaders through local human contact.
Finally, of course, given my current political theories, this would all be solved by increasing/empowering local government. All those choices in the first paragraph would available for decisions and policies in DC precincts just as any city.
I’m vaguely okay with the “you can move” rationale in certain cases on federalism grounds, but only when the local community actually makes a democratic decision that a subminority disapproves of. Even there, I don’t think it’s universally true (slavery in Mississippi doesn’t become okay because of the underground railroad to Canada); I think there are some rights that can’t be bartered away, and I think democratic representation is one of them.
I don’t think, however, that the “you can move” justification works on its own, absent the federalism pairing (in other words, in cases where injustice in question was not decided upon democratically by the locality). For starters, it doesn’t answer my base objection that dumb laws remain dumb regardless of whether people have, with some inconvenience, the option of avoiding them. I think restricts on people’s liberties need some positive rationale for their enactment.
Second, it doesn’t answer why I should be forced to leave at all. Take your beating example. Your scenario sounds less like S&M (which I actively want, not just tolerate) and more like a gang setting, where a gang tells me that if I ever set foot in, say, a certain neighborhood, they’ll beat me. I don’t think in any reasonable sense I’m then consenting to a beating by walking through that neighborhood — I have a right to walk through any public space I want; they’re the ones who should have to justify their action, and that doesn’t change just because I can “go somewhere else.” Politics at the degree of arbitrariness you’re allowing for in policymaking (outside actors anti-democratically stripping people of their voting rights for no reason other than “they can move”) is no different than territorial gang extortion.
Third, choosing to live somewhere does not imply consent to every characteristic of the neighborhood. If I choose to live in a high crime area, I’m not consenting to be robbed, even though I recognize it as a potential reality. At best it means that I find that risk outweighed by other factors. At worst, I don’t really have a choose — the neighborhood is the only one I could afford in the area of a job, or where my kid could get low-cost medical treatment, or where my ailing mother is. Regardless, it wouldn’t dissolve my right to protest high crime rights.
DC is a particularly bad example because it exemplifies both problems. It’s a fundamental right (voting), and it’s not federalism because the locality wants to have voting rights, and a large outside group (the USFG) which they have no influence over is preventing them. The faint positive objections (such as that they’d be able to influence their legislators more easily) are a) indistinguishable from my home district in the Maryland 8th, b) archaic, given the proliferation of electronic communication, Congressman traveling home regularly, and the sheer fact that nobody has a “good” chance for spontaneous interaction in a 600,000 person district, c) not necessarily a bad thing (why is it a problem again that DC reps will be particularly attuned to constituent desires?) and d) rather clearly outweighed (even if I could be convinced it was bad, it’s not bad enough to justify mass disenfranchisement).
David,
I don’t understand what you mean by “federalism” vs “you can move”.
I think also, we have different ideas of the enfranchisement right and I might try to explore that further on my own in a further post, but on general principles it seems clear that democratic rights can be bartered away or even not considered a right at all, e.g., a monastic community.
I’ll endeavor to answer each of your points:
If you have made a particular enemy of a gang member based in a neighborhood and then you choose to move there. If then, you get beat up … I think you are largely to blame or at least complicit.
However, the arguments you give, “the neighborhood is the only one I could afford in the area of a job, or where my kid could get low-cost medical treatment, or where my ailing mother is.” can’t actually apply to more than a infinitesimal fraction of residents of DC. It’s unclear how any but perhaps the last one can realistically apply to DC. What unique resources does it offer that are unavailable anywhere else. None I think.
The distinction isn’t between “federalism” and “you can move”. It’s that “you can move” is a semi-plausible argument in cases of federalism (where the locality democratically adapts a certain policy you disagree with, because we respect pluralism), but not in other cases (e.g., in D.C., where the locality is specifically not being allowed to adapt the policy it wishes). D.C. is not a federalist situation, because DC residents aren’t being allowed self-determination.
I’m not sure what you mean by a monastic community, but I don’t think that anyone can barter away franchise. One can elect not to vote, but one can’t elect to be legally barred from voting.
@1: I feel like lots of laws are just stupid. That can co-exist with the idea that people pass laws via the simple extension that there are many stupid people, who may well pass stupid laws. Or alternatively, not-stupid people passed a law that made sense in their context/time period, but not today, and keeping it on the books is stupid. I feel like it is a rather high (not to mention convenient) burden to place on critics of an awful policy that they have to be able to argue for it before they argue against it. I don’t think I have to whisper sweet nothings about why it might be okay for DC to be under dictatorial rule before I critique it. Sometimes, idiocy really just is idiocy, and injustice is just injustice.
@2: I’ll double check, but I’m reasonably confident that the law still (rightfully!) still holds the gang member 100% blameworthy for beating me even if we somehow became “enemies” (we clearly have different ideas of what it means to “consent” to something). I also don’t conceptualize DC residents as “enemies” of the American people or the USFG. And finally, some people are born in DC, so we are being “forced to leave” if we want to have the right to vote. But even were that not the case, people have the right to move through public spaces without losing their rights — whether it the right not to be beaten, or the right to vote.
@3: That some protests may be futile because they won’t change the problem doesn’t mean that every effort for change is futile, and the futility of some quests really can’t be enlisted to argue against advocating for quite doable changes. To say we shouldn’t support a simple legal change like voting laws because it’s really hard to reduce crime rates in Chicago is asinine.
David,
I’m a little unclear on what voting they can’t do. They voted in the primary. The vote in local elections. I’ll bet they even vote for judges. They vote for the Executive. What they don’t vote for (should be) the most irrelevant part of the electoral process, Congress. It’s not that their entirely disenfranchised … just a little bit.
I’ve never suggested you can “barter way” enfranchisement. I’m suggesting you can choose to give it up. Monastic communities are non-democratic (there is no “voting” or any sense of enfranchisement) … and it’s not a problem. I used it as example that enfranchisement can be given up.
Well, I disagree. I think you have to understand the context of the prior law before you can convincingly argue against me. It seems to me that sort of an important principle in law too … isn’t that stare decisis?
It’s because fundamentally, as a conservative, we are more democratic than you progressives. We give the dead a vote, you don’t.
But actually we’re tiptoeing around the real elephant in the room, we have a fundamentally different notion how we view enfranchisement.
I feel like Congress is kind of important, and not having representation in it is more than “a little” disenfranchised (particularly given Congress effectively sits as a super-legislature over local DC elections — Congress can and has overriden statutes passed by the DC city council that it wouldn’t have the authority to do if DC were state. It’s even prohibited DC from merely counting ballots in certain referendums they didn’t like. At least in theory, every law or or ordinance DC passes is subject to Congressional overhaul for any reason whatsoever in the status quo). Whether or not Congress should be irrelevant, it’s not, and it’s particularly not for DCers for whom Congress literally can rule over with dictatorial fiat.
Stare decisis merely holds that we should have a presumption of not overturning previous legal interpretation. Aside from its dubious cross-applicability to legislative acts, I don’t think it necessarily requires one to affirmatively argue for the policy one is trying to oppose. Presumably, utter irrationality or gross injustice (or in the case of DC, both) would be an excellent way to override the presumption of stare decisis.
I think what we’re actually tip-toeing around is whether you think DC disenfranchisement is a good idea or not. So, if you were a state legislator who could cast the deciding vote in the threshold state on a constitutional amendment giving DC full and equal representation in Congress (House and Senate), would you vote aye or nay? If nay, why? Particularly in light of your view of voting as a “privilege” (way too elitist for me, but whatevs), what have DC residents done to make themselves uniquely undeserving of this privilege, compared to, say, Georgians?
David,
Well, as you know, I think how “important” Congress is a source of a lot of our problems.
I think the reasons why DC was not a state was that, likely, as a presumptive center the employment of the federal agency employees that had enough (unelected) power anyhow. But, as it is, I think most DC residents are not employees of the state, the best solution would be to annex DC into Virginia or Maryland.
What DC residents have “done” to make themselves ineligible to vote is to chose to not have that privilege. Driving license is a privilege. I don’t have to apply for one. By doing so, I have no “right” to drive … but that is my choice. Likewise with DC residents.
No No No No No! You cannot goalpost shift like that. Your whole discourse of voting as a “privilege” does not define “privilege” as “something the state can arbitrarily grant at its discretion for any reason it so chooses.” It links privilege to very specific standards of stakeholding and informed-ness, both of which DCers can easily meet (at least as well as anyone else). You can’t just change your mind and decide that now they key element to gain the privilege of the vote is that your residence is outside the beltway.
The state grants the privilege of driving to people who meet specific requirements, but only ones which rationally relate to being a good driver or the state’s interest in having safe roads. Taking a driving test is one. Signing up for a driver’s license is another. Having blond hair is not one. Neither is being able to solve calculus problems.
Insofar as voting is a “privilege” (which I don’t accept), it also can be only withheld to be people who don’t meet requirements rationally relating to electoral legitimacy. Citizenship is one. You argue that informed-ness is another. Living beyond Western Avenue is not rationally related to any state interest in voting. It is not legitimate grounds for withholding the privilege.
David,
On the shifting of goalposts, I was trying to respond to your “elephant” comment and remarking “what should be done” and step away from more theoretical considerations of idea and ideal. It seemed to me your elephant remark was a direct question of “what should we do now” as opposed to what I’ve been talking about.
But it was at one time. Now it is a sign of some sort that those people who choose to live there are disinterested in their vote. State boundaries are historical and somewhat arbitrary. There are very many cities on state boundaries in which half of the city is in one state and the other in another. I’m willing to guess your outrage meter could find something “really dumb” about that. DC is a lot like that. But before I’m going to call the DC voting situation “dumb” I think visiting the arguments for why it was set up that way is the first step.
Now, I’m not quite sure what you’re advocating. If you think DC should get is own Senatorial and Congressional reps, I’m going to call foul. That’s just partisan hackery, that is, you as a Democrat seeking more Democratic votes in House and Senate on the cheap. If you think Maryland or Virginia, I’m a little unfamiliar with the details of geography in the DC and environs makes more sense then that seems reasonable to me … but as it takes an Amendment … as you noted unlikely. But, as I’ve repeated a few time, because it’s their choice I not going exactly get too excited about it either way.
No, it really isn’t, anymore than being a Jew in Berlin in 1940 means being disinterested in surviving. You’re being ridiculously over-determinative here. Living in location X is not facial consent to everything that happens in X, or every policy that governs X. The fact that DC residents loudly and vocally protest their disenfranchisement seems to me proof that they are quite interested in voting. They’re just interested in voting in DC, and not in someplace that isn’t their home. The fact that DC residents have demonstrated, time and again, that they really want to vote should trump infinite number of abstract arguments that they don’t care. This whole conversation is a classic case of the French Bureaucrat’s objection: “Sure, DC residents want to vote in practice, but do they in theory?”
Oh, come off it. I care more that DC voters get representation than the how of it, so both statehood or retrocession are theoretically fine (in theory, neither would require an amendment — what would need an amendment would be to give DC a vote in Congress without admitting it as a state). But I think the how should be decided by the principle of self-determination — i.e., by the residents of DC themselves. If DC wants to retrocede back into MD, fine. If DC wants to stay autonomous and vote that way, also fine. Democracy means they get to choose for themselves.
But this is the real elephant in the room, isn’t it? If DC was not solidly Democratic (and if it wasn’t solidly Republican instead — I hardly consider Democrats to be idealistic saints), it’d have the vote yesterday. Whether DC deserves representation is wholly independent of whom it will vote for — the only injection of partisanship is the continued deprivation of their vote because it would mean more Democrats. That I’m the partisan one in this circumstance is laughable (I also support representation for all the other American colonial possessions — Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, etc. — even though I have no idea how they’d vote). Now, I admit pure partisanship may not be the only consideration for DC’s continued colonial status. DC also is overwhelmingly Black — another factor which undoubtedly makes its continued disenfranchisement more palatable. But whatever the particular ratio of partisanship:racism that maintains the status quo, they’re both still irrational reasons. And there has still been no positive reason for why, in the present day, DC should remain a colonial possession.
In any event, most DC vote advocates have been willing to make the “Utah trade”, in which Utah gets an extra (presumably GOP) Rep to counterbalance DC’s (presumably Democratic) one. There’s no way to balance the Senate seats, but frankly, even the Utah House seat is a concession that lies wholly outside questions of justice anyway — Republicans have no moral claim against the dilution of their power because people who should rightfully be allowed to vote are now finally being so allowed. One could as easily have made the same claim when Blacks were enfranchised (and indeed, it was), and it’d still be trumped by the indefatigable response that Blacks have the right to vote.
David,
Bullpocky. The Presidency and Congress has been solidly Democratic more than a few times in the past.
… except that they actually don’t.
… but if you, as a Jew, moved from America to Berlin, Germany in 1937 … I’d argue your survival was less important than whatever reason you chose to move there.