Rethinking the United "States"
July 7, 2009
Auto-posted while I am in Washington, DC for the Campus Progress conference.
Anyone who lives in a city that is part of a much larger state is probably familiar with the city hall vs. statehouse conflicts that often dominate political decisions. Northern Virginia, for instance, a fairly progressive urban/suburban area around Washington DC, often seems to get held hostage by the conservatives who run things down in Richmond (which used to be the capital of the Confederate States of America, I might add). Another example would be New York City, where big-city proposals like Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing scheme often get scoffed at by small minds in Albany.
In light of a recent hot topic, the idea of abolishing the United States Senate, I can't help but wonder if a similar unrealistic logic could be applied to state-level politics. What if we carved up states and created state-like entities that look something like existing congressional districts?
Maybe we don't need 435 governments, but they could follow a few basic rules. Primarily, that no state-like government contain more than one Metropolitan Statistical Area (there are currently 363). Also, that these entities retain most of the states rights that currently exist under our system of federalism.
I know this is a very idealist proposal. There are certainly tons of consequences that would come as a result of trying to do this. But at the root of things, is the current system where cities have to compete with each other or with rural dwellers for attention in the state government really the best for all involved?
Anyone who lives in a city that is part of a much larger state is probably familiar with the city hall vs. statehouse conflicts that often dominate political decisions. Northern Virginia, for instance, a fairly progressive urban/suburban area around Washington DC, often seems to get held hostage by the conservatives who run things down in Richmond (which used to be the capital of the Confederate States of America, I might add). Another example would be New York City, where big-city proposals like Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing scheme often get scoffed at by small minds in Albany.
In light of a recent hot topic, the idea of abolishing the United States Senate, I can't help but wonder if a similar unrealistic logic could be applied to state-level politics. What if we carved up states and created state-like entities that look something like existing congressional districts?
Maybe we don't need 435 governments, but they could follow a few basic rules. Primarily, that no state-like government contain more than one Metropolitan Statistical Area (there are currently 363). Also, that these entities retain most of the states rights that currently exist under our system of federalism.
I know this is a very idealist proposal. There are certainly tons of consequences that would come as a result of trying to do this. But at the root of things, is the current system where cities have to compete with each other or with rural dwellers for attention in the state government really the best for all involved?
"...(which used to be the capital of the Confederate States of America, I might add)."
Wow, snarky *and* irrelevant. Good work!
Childish asides aside, the idea of abolishing states has quite a few problems, and I’ll only hit on a few of them here.
Let’s look at your example. If NYC shouldn’t have to answer to NY state, why should Staten Island or Brooklyn have to answer to city hall? Why not just carve up the city into autonomous neighborhoods? Or let’s bring it home to Northeast Ohio: if we carve up the state into “congressional districts” with only one MSA apiece, that's not going to stop the suburbanites from butting heads with the city dwellers or keep the Elyrians from arguing with the Clevelanders.
I think one problem with your plan is that it presupposes a political homogeneity that doesn't exist. If everyone who lived in a given geographical area always agreed on everything, then the democratic process would serve no purpose.
Furthermore, you claim that state governments get in the way of municipal affairs and should therefore be abolished – in other words, the more centralized political authority has no right to meddle in local affairs. (Gee, that sounds awfully familiar… where might we have heard that argument before… I dunno, maybe Richmond, circa 1860? Funny how you knock the Confederacy, but then use the same logic to justify your proposal that they used to justify secession.) If we're going to get rid of the state government, why not get rid of the federal government as well? After all, if the problem is that state government is too removed from the concerns of the municipality to govern effectively, think about how much more removed the federal government is.
I agree that the most local government is the best government. But disbanding a government because the people within its jurisdiction disagree with one another pretty much nullifies the purpose of government in the first place, which exists to iron out those differences.
This is essentially the same debate that played itself out in the pages of The Federalist Papers. The solution that Hamilton, Madison, and Jay devised is perfectly applicable here: not to eliminate centralized authority, but to restrict it to its appropriate role. This is what conservatives mean when they talk about "small government."