Some More Thoughts on DC Statehood
Our friends on the Left make no qualms about their hatred of the electoral college and the Senate. For their anti-democratic leanings, the Left has deemed them relics of slavery, oppression, and racism. The common refrain is that it’s unfair for Wyoming to have the same representation as California in the Senate. It’s curious, though not surprising, that they never complain that, say, Vermont’s 643,503 residents and Texas' 29,183,290 residents have the same amount of Senatorial representation.
It happens that this is not a concern of mine. As a Conservative, I cherish every speed bump between the masses and mob rule. However, our friends on the Left have made it abundantly clear that they do consider anti-democratic institutions to be serious problems.
Yet, the cause of the moment is to make the District of Columbia a state. It would be the third-smallest state ahead of only Wyoming and Vermont. But as a state, would have two Senators. In other words, DC would contribute to exactly the dynamic which Democrats have spent the last several years decrying. The difference? In this case, it would benefit the Democrats.
What then are we to make of Democratic eagerness to exploit an institution they’ve groused about for years now that they stand to benefit?
I don’t think this is a good argument for why DC shouldn’t be a state. I’ve previously written on my opinion of DC statehood. But it does make what I think is an important point: the Democrats see DC statehood as a means for political gain, principles be damned.