D.C. Can't Have Representation Because

A couple of weeks ago, days before the Supreme Court made the Internet explode, Sen. Rand Paul was spending his obviously valuable time shutting down another bid by the citizens of the District of Columbia to get a slice more autonomy from the federal government.  This might seem confusing, given Paul's reputation for demanding less federal involvement in local affairs, especially fiscal affairs.  But considering this dichotomy for too long gets us into the weeds of the ideology of a man who (in addition to having a weak grasp of civics) doesn't care so much for originalist readings of the founding documents as much as he does political power and his right to set poor people on fire.  In fact, he admits outright that he doesn't have a problem with D.C. autonomy, per se:

“I think it’s a good way to call attention to some issues that have national implications,” Paul said in an interview Tuesday. “We don’t have [control] over the states but we do for D.C.”

Translation: "The federalism I wholeheartedly support in some instances is aggravating in other instances, so I'm gonna spit on these people over here until the country sees how mad I am about this situation."

Clearly, Paul's opinion on this matter (as so many) isn't worth whatever he pays his barber to do whatever it is he does.  But it does beg the question of why this has gone largely unnoticed outside the District (and even within, what with the heat wave).  Or better yet: why is this even a discussion we're able to have?  As with most questions, the answer lies with some jerk-off squatting in the middle of the road, pants crumpled around his ankles, insisting that traffic cannot move until he successfully takes a shit and stop all that honking, I can't concentrate! 

The most solid constitutional argument against representation for the District is that it was never originally meant to have any.  And, like any intellectually lazy deferment to a half-considered constitutionality, this argument made sense at the time, but has since begun to erode.  Used to be, the city where Congress met was just that: there was nothing here except congressmen, senators, presidents, judges, and the slaves servants they brought with them.  And it would be absurd to give federal representatives their own additional representation.  But as the government settled in here, it--like any government will in the place where it resides--encouraged its own economies: restaurants, bars, bordellos, hotels, hospitals, brothels, social clubs, laundromats, whore houses, etc.  And as the government expanded, especially in the 20th Century, those businesses continued developing, bigger and more numerous, bringing both government and non-government employees into the city to work and, in many cases, live.

It didn't take too long for Washington to become a real live, grown-up city--an industry town for an ever-growing industry.  Accordingly, it was granted a few of the niceties enjoyed by other towns: city government, electoral votes... and that's about it.  All because the city was at one time in a weird situation and now it's not so much, but it's now infested by people who are black vote Democrat work for the government have different concerns than many congressmen do and would have to be put on the same footing as the rest of the country.  Certainly, congressmen shouldn't have their own representation outside of their home districts--they are their own representatives--and government employees shouldn't have extra representation beyond what other Americans get.  Those who choose to live in Maryland or Virginia have representation in those states and the same should apply for those who chose not to, along with those thousands of Washingtonians who are born here, live here, and pay federal taxes here, without a day spent working for the federal government. 

That argument is usually followed up with a lazy, twenty-year-old crack about Marion Berry (HA!  Get it?  Crack.  Marion Berry?!  Oh, the relevance!). See, Berry is a convenient short-hand for anyone who wants to get out of the conversation quickly by pointing out that voters of the District have not always made good choices; Kwame Brown would probably make for a more timely example, but he's not nearly as colorful.  This is the "they haven't earned it" argument.  And a good argument it might be, if other constituencies had ever been required to earn their right of representation.  But, of course, none have (unless you count former Confederate states in the 1870s, but if the District ever withdraws from and goes to war with the Union, I'll switch sides on this issue).  If we applied that logic to the rest of the country, there are several congressional districts that should probably have their representation rights stripped, or at least be made to sit quietly in the corner for a few election cycles.  Just to name a few: the NY-15, the CA-50, the TX-22, Alaska, and all of Louisiana.  But notice how those districts not only maintain representation but will also return the same clowns, thugs, and lunatics to Washington every election, as though to rub it in our faces. 

The arguments against Statehood deteriorate further: the finisher is almost always a succinct bon mot along the lines of "if you don't like it, move."  A brilliant and simplistic little nugget, eh?  And I know what you're thinking: such an easy fix must have more universal applications.  That's right: I just found a solution for Israel-Palestine.  

Some will point out that Rand's torpedo was only effective because supporters of the bill (D.C. officials among them) decided it better to pull out for this round, rather than swallow some extremely bitter pills just to satiate a few petty partisans.  That's true.  And it brings to mind a previous attempt to bring congressional representation to the District that was crushed because it would've required less stringent gun laws than the city would prefer.  Many (including myself) believed that that was a situation of the city cutting off its nose to spite its face.  The problem is that many of those who criticized the decision (including, again, myself) don't usually live in parts of the city where guns are an enormous problem--and where guns mean something very different than they do to the many rural members of the House and Senate.

And therein lies the problem: not necessarily racism (though it often appears that way) or elitism (D.C. has plenty of its own elite on its side) or even the shifting sands of temporary transplants who are unable and unwilling to fight for D.C. Statehood for more than the few years during which they have employment here.  It's the refusal of leading politicians to consider proposals that don't immediately benefit them and, in the case of a party ever-more insistent on eating the federal government and any goodwill it has remaining, to do a relatively simple thing like let the city that they live in for most of the year be a real part of America.

Imagine a chunk of rural Tennessee or sub-suburban Arizona suddenly not having their usual representation in Congress and think of the shit storm Republicans would brew about Real Americans(TM) not having their say in Washington.  And why would it matter then if it doesn't now?