Playing politics on DC

ARTICLE: Senators Block D.C. Vote Bill, Delivering Possibly Fatal Blow, By Mary Beth Sheridan, Washington Post, September 19, 2007; Page A01

Per my "55th State" piece in this month's Esquire, see how the GOP in Senate block this innovative House compromise (blue seat to DC and red one to Utah) out of fear that precedence set for DC statehood and 2 blue senators.

Thus the free-slave state analogy I offered in the piece. No DC movement without accompanying balance in Senate by a new red state.

Comments

[purpleslog]

The bill was clearly unconstitutional. Alot of money and time would have been wasted in the courts.

Calling it "innovative" does not change this fact.

If they really want DC to get reps, DC can go through the statehood process, or propose a const amendment giving federal districts a house rep (or some formula for house reps based on population), or an amendment to convert the federal district to a state, or they can turn much of DC back to adjacent states.

[Walt Lips]

Tom, I think the better approach for full DC voting rights is to make the District a part of Maryland rather than a separate state. That would be consistent with Arlington leaving the District for Virginia back before the Civil War, and would not upset any political balance in the Senate. The District lacks all of the mix that exists within the current 50 states in terms of rural vs urban vs suburban, and Government vs private sector employment. It would be a mistake to have two Senators representing such a geograhically small, and politically and economically homogeneous entity.

[zenpundit]

Hi Tom,

May I extend your historical analogy ? You wrote:

"Thus the free-slave state analogy I offered in the piece. No DC movement without accompanying balance in Senate by a new red state."

There you have the age of Manifest Destiny and James K. Polk. Not just Texas but Texas and Oregon and the Mexican Cession.

Balancing free-state Oregon with slave state Texas and the spirit of the Missouri Compromise became, a decade later, Dred Scott's slavery everywhere vs. "No More Slave States" and ultimately, Civil War.

History never quite repeats itself. The lesson here, I think, is that the dangerous ideological polarization and mutual intellectual isolation of partisan blocs in this country is something that needs to be addressed if the U.S. is going to add new stars.

The problem is not territorial expansion itself - I think that would be a good thing for America if other states voluntarily petitioned for union - the problem is that a substantial portion of the American political class holds partisan interests more dear and higher than national interests the way antebellum elites were sectionalists.

Adding new states "shakes the board" and will prompt a furious effort to " re-set the rules" to preserve current power arrangements, which, if the dynamic becomes escalatory and bitter, could take us down an unpleasant road. This polarization is, in my view, becoming a strategic achilles heel for the United States.

[Michael]

I think Zen's hit it. Even if those additional states are added under a "one for you and one for you" basis, there's no guarantee that they'll stay blue or red once inside the union and subject to domestic conditions. If one side or another gains an advantage. . .

I wonder if it might be better to propose a legal secession amendment to the Constitution if we do start adding more states? That would at least reduce the body count (I think, I hope. . .).