Posted on 03/16/2015 10:31:22 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
I grew up in a small town in Kentucky, the son of — at that time — McGovern Democrats. My dad was a math professor at the local college, my mom was a public-school teacher, and neither one of them had voted for a Republican in their lives — and had no intention to.
Me? As soon as I started learning about politics, I turned towards conservatism — dramatically — and started hectoring my parents. (Just after she pulled the lever for Mondale in 1984, I remember telling my mother that the moment she voted I’d felt a disturbance in the Force akin to that felt by Obi-Wan Kenobi at the destruction of Alderaan. She was not amused.) The change had nothing to do with youthful rebellion — after all, if it was standard for professors’ kids to tack right, then Cambridge Massachusetts would be practically overrun with young Ted Cruz supporters — but rather two realities that were intruding upon my young mind.
The first, of course, was the Cold War and the Soviet threat. Without going into too many details, I thought détente was simply another word for appeasement, and found it incredible that some people actually argued that the right response to an expansionist totalitarian power was timidity and disarmament.
The second reason for the change was my experience with small-town government. It pushed me in a libertarian direction before I even knew what a libertarian was.
The public schools were dreadful. Focused on patronage more than education, the school system was a public jobs program that was better at promoting the athletic and social interests of the town’s elite than prepping kids for work or college. I remember a brief run at starting a laughable “underground paper” at my high school, and the title of my first op-ed was “Who’s Your Dad?” — focusing on the single-most important factor for making school teams or winning local scholarships. We trashed the paper before we even printed it, but the sentiment (and anger) was real. I certainly benefited from individual teachers going above and beyond the call of duty — taking an interest in a geeky kid who really, really liked to read — but the system itself was largely malignant.
And that malignancy has spread throughout the public institutions. Our local government’s core mission was dispensing favors. If you were part of the local elite, the normal rules of life simply didn’t apply. Speeding tickets? No problem. You need a conditional use permit? You got it! To this day one of the most satisfying events of my professional life was defeating the local zoning board in the first constitutional case of my career — winning the case after a local leader haughtily told my church client, “We can and will dictate how you worship.”
In my town, if you were poor or lacked connections, “the rules” applied to you with a vengeance. After all, someone had to pay the city’s bills. There was no escaping speeding tickets, zoning officials were ruthless, and each interaction with the unyielding authorities carried with it the threat of immediate escalation, sometimes without justification. A friend of mine was once beaten senseless by a local police officer after a traffic stop — all because he was dating the cop’s ex-girlfriend.
Because of this experience, I often shudder when I hear conservatives extolling the virtues of “local control” or “local authorities” — as if local officials are somehow inherently more virtuous than the feds. Government is prone to corruption at all levels — especially when under the hammerlock of one-party rule (the Democrats ruled my town). Make no mistake, I love my hometown, and I love the people in it, but that love has nothing to do with its government.
Reading the DOJ’s Ferguson report took me back to the bad old days. It is the story of a small class of the local power brokers creating two sets of rules, one for the connected and another for the mass of people who are forced — often at gunpoint — to pay for the “privilege” of being governed. This is a very old story, and if the poor of Ferguson are overwhelmingly black, then it’s inevitable that a government built on exploitation will disproportionately exploit black citizens. I have no doubt that there are some racists in Ferguson’s leadership, but we also know that even black leaders will exploit black citizens in the cities they lead — setting up de facto rules that benefit the governing class at the expense of the poor. See, for example, Detroit.
It is entirely possible to believe (as I do) that the evidence indicates that “hands up, don’t shoot” is a fiction, even a malicious fiction, while also believing that the evidence indicates that Ferguson’s government was corrupt in exactly the way that government is typically corrupt.
We often take for granted the rule of law. If you are blessed to live in a town where the officials are relatively clean, or if you’re among the class of people that officials fear to cross, then public institutions seem benign — helpful, even. But there are millions of our fellow citizens who live a different reality, under the authority of different kinds of public officials — officials who view them as virtual ATMs, regardless of their ability to pay. And when the government imposes that mindset on police officers, forcing men and women who are trained to respond to (and anticipate) the most violent incidents to essentially become the armed tax collectors of a corrupt system, then that government is unjust, and its officials must be made to feel the bite of the Constitution that they’ve willfully and continually abused.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner
Conservatives focus on the abuse of federal power. Which often leads them to apparently assume that state or local powers cannot be similarly abused. But local misgovernment can be every bit as oppressive.
The Ferguson city government, like a great many others, is corrupt. But liberals or the Justice Department isn't interested in local corruption or oppression unless they can hand a racism label on it.
Conservatives should be able to point out that what Ferguson was doing was wrong, whether their policies had anything to do with race or not.
Conservatives focus on the abuse of federal power. Which often leads them to apparently assume that state or local powers cannot be similarly abused. But local misgovernment can be every bit as oppressive.
very true.. BUT... federal corruption EFFECTS all 50 States and all territory’s..
States can be corrupt and county’s and municipality’s can be as well.. while other places can be fairly honest..
Democracy ALWAYS tarnish’s honesty...
Because democracy is Mob Rule by mobsters.. (ALWAYS)..
Thats WHY? the progressives have BRAIN WASHED ALL AMERICANS..
To make the word DEMOCRACY.. Sacrosanct..
The word is SOOoo nasty it is OMITTED from the American Constitution.. ON PURPOSE..
Americans no longer KNOW what the word means.. i.e. democracy..
DEMOCRACY Was, Is, and always will be.. Mob Rule by mobsters..
much as monarchy, fascism and socialism (( IS ))..
A MOB...... farming citizens like farm animals like a dairy farmers and cattle barons.. on a good day..
ON BAD DAYs IT’S much worse..
The reason I prefer local control over federal control is that while both are corrupt, I can escape local corruption by moving. I also have a shot at fixing the local corruption. It is much harder to flee the federal government, and impossible to fix.
The word “democracy” has changed meanings and implications since the 1780s.
As has often been pointed out, it’s the worst possible form of government, except for all the others.
Unless you’d care to describe a preferable method?
It’s reasonable to point out that the original Constitution put major restrictions on the federal government, but very few indeed on actions of a state government within that state. IOW, the original Constitution would have had nothing to say about what was going on in Ferguson.
There were four power centers under the original Constitution: President, House of Reps, Senate, Supremes.
Of those, the Founders had exactly one intended to be chosen directly by the People. The House of Representative, which is why they called it what they did.
The Senate was chosen by the states.
The President was chose by the Electoral College.
The Supremes were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, so they were two levels removed from direct representation. The House had no role.
The President is now effectively chosen (almost always) by popular vote. Senators are directly elected. Only the Court is any longer isolated from democracy, and it’s now only one step removed rather than two.
Unless you’d care to describe a preferable method?
Democracy is centralized givernment.. top down political management..
ALways a mistake.. in every iteration..
DE-centralized giverment is much better.. like a republic..
even though most republics are democracy’s and NOT republics at all.. i.e. centralized.. aka banana republics..
Americas Republic is totally UNIQUE.... one copy..
Never before tried by anyone except here..
WHY.?. Canada and all of European and south american givernments are centralized..
AND WHY?... ALL democrats and most republicans are in fact DEMOCRATS.....
They are confused if not totally delusional..
and cannot or WON’T “SEE” democracy is a nasty thing, POLITICALLY FILTHY..
not to speak of stupid..
Nice rant. You care to prescribe a preferable form of government.
Decentralized is not a form of government. Never been a “system of government” more decentralized than the feudal “system.”
But is was highly oppressive for the vast majority of those who lived under it.
Or look at China during the warlord period.
Centralized government are more or less by definition oppressive. But that doesn’t mean decentralized government cannot also be. Sometimes even more so.
“Conservatives should be able to point out that what Ferguson was doing was wrong, whether their policies had anything to do with race or not.”
Actually, it’s not clear that the police were doing anything wrong. The DOJ report failed to take into consideration the ages of those picked on by the cops. While the arrest rates were higher for blacks, those rates didn’t take into account that whites in the town are, on average much older than black residents, due to demographic shifts over the last couple of decades. Older people, of all races but especially whites, are much less likely to get into trouble, while young blacks are much more likely to do so.
Did you read the article? French was not referring to racial issues but to the police being turned into collection agencies for a government using its less powerful citizens as an ATM.
That’s pretty much my point. Liberals cannot see anything wrong in government action unless they can somehow tie it to race.
.
I wonder if the Ferguson local government was mostly Republican or Democrat.
its not about preference, its about understanding that power corrupts, which is why you try to limit their power. Federal government have the most power while local government have some power but not as much. Those who have the power should be effected by the laws they pass otherwise they become indifferent to them
Thass a good question.
Lots of discussion about the skin color of city officials, I haven’t seen anything about their party affiliation.
Turns out Ferguson has nonpartisan voting. Officials may or may not be affiliated with a party, but it doesn’t show up on the ballots.
Voter turnout is usually about 12%. Largely because elections are held in odd numbered years, like most cities in MO. Ironically enough, this was a progressive innovation intended to isolate city elections from the emotions of national contests. The unitended consequence is few people turn out. In the last election the majority of those who actually voted were white, despite their being a smallish minority of the city population.
Voter turnout is usually about 12%. Largely because elections are held in odd numbered years....The unitended consequence is few people turn out.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
That’s good! They’re the ones who are interested and concerned enough to be informed and get out and vote. If a smaller percentage of the American population, those who are informed and intelligent, voted in the Presidential Elections there would never be a Democrat in the White House.
Democracy (big D) is just dandy......as long as you’re not the fat guy in the lifeboat. :0)
It is curious how often those who defend localism as the lesser of evils are so purblind to the virtues and power of localism under Article V to reform the evils of overgrown central government.
As to this author, he fails to place federalism and democracy in context. He rails against corruption, against government by and for elitists, and quite properly so, but he does not place the failures of "democratic" or representative government in context as the least dangerous and oppressive of governments. The true context is to acknowledge that representative government is not perfect and it cannot be perfect but it can be corrective. In other words, representative government will make almost all the mistakes totalitarian governments make but has a much better chance of reform and invoking a process which will put government on a different track in a better direction which will cure or at least mitigate some of its mistakes.
A totalitarian government, especially a centralized totalitarian government like the Soviet Union (or like the government the United States is increasingly becoming) is definitionally incapable of identifying mistakes, correcting them, and changing course. Gorbachev tried it in the Soviet Union and the whole system crashed.
A representative government, in theory, can modify mistakes and, the smaller the government, the easier the course change is to effect and tolerate. Every reform breaks someone's Rice bowl and will understandably be resisted bitterly. When the system entrenches interests other than individual voters interests in places like K St. or Wall Street, elitist government becomes inevitable and all the more difficult to reform.
This author rails against entrenched interests which he identifies as elitist interests at the local level and well he should because that is the implacable destiny of democracy. Ted Kennedy (gasp) at least had the rhetoric right, the struggle never ends.
I do not believe that local politicians are intrinsically more virtuous than Washington-based politicians. I believe they have a different set of self-interested motives, some of which favor a reform fit for modern times. Other selfish interests which we cannot even now anticipate will emerge later and will present a challenge later.
Meanwhile, the struggle goes on because it never ends. If it ever actually ends, we have something different, something much worse than representative democracy to reform we will have another Soviet Union. But at that point reform will not suffice, because "reform" will mean revolution.
In my opinion, the fundamental difference between a locally controlled government and a centralized federal government is that an overbearing centralized government (which is, by definition what it must become) slow, overbearing, clumsy and wrong.
It is the difference between a 150,000 ton supertanker and a frigate.
Both federal and local have a place, but having federal government take the place of local government is going to, by necessity decrease its effectiveness and increase dramatically its bureaucratic burden on the citizenry.
A federal government 3000 miles away controlling what should be done in your community will not work. They don’t understand your problems, your resources, your climate, your customs, etc.
And getting them to respond to change is nearly impossible.
But most of all, as another poster put it, you can’t move away from an overbearing federal government.
That has always been the great thing about America. It was, at one time, more like a thousand separate laboratory experiments in government, policy, education, etc. If a school system in a community tried to do something radically different to teach its children, failure only meant the failure of that one school system and the poor education of its own children. People who cared and didn’t want to participate could either move to another community, or stay and enact local change.
If a federal policy directive (such as Common Core) is enacted and enforced (for example, via disbursement of federal monies such as highway funds to compliant states and denied to those who don’t toe the federal line) and it fails, the entire country will suffer, and generations could be poorly educated. You cannot move away from it. And good luck changing it.
Having both Federal and Local government is not an intrinsic evil, and is good...if they both stay within the defined boundaries. That ship sailed a long, long time ago.
I think the author has this wrong. Corruption of local officials has nothing at all to do with this crap in Ferguson.
It has everything to do with some people blaming every ill they encounter on racism, and being encouraged to do so by racists at all levels of society.
That’s it.
Every government, black, white, pink or green, has corruption, stupidity, wrong-headedness, bureaucratic stubbornness, and injustice. There are a lot of places where people of all colors are just as ill-used as citizens of Ferguson, but they aren’t burning down the town.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.