Some Thoughts on DC Statehood
Yesterday I listened to the most recent episode of The Argument from The New York Times. The topic was DC statehood which the host, Jane Coston, supports. The arguers were National Review’s Dan McLaughlin and George Derek Musgrove of UMBC. I highly recommend the episode for anyone interested in the subject. But I wanted to add some thoughts of my own to the public discourse (though they are by no means original).
To start with, there are about 700,000 American citizens who have fewer rights than the rest of us simply because of their zip code. And they aren’t ancillary rights either. If you live in DC, you do no representation in Congress (DC has members of Congress but they are non-voting). That’s not all that dissimilar to the complaints of our founders that the colonists were not represented in parliament simply because of where they lived. Ideally, something should be done to address this.
There are of course reasons why DC was set up the way it was. They largely had to do with ensuring the security of the federal government and preventing it from being dominated by any particular state. But in 2021, the idea of the federal government being made subservient to a state government is laughable. The security issue remains thorny (look to the events of January 6 if you need proof that it is a going concern). However, there ought to be some way of addressing that while extending the right of representation to the citizens who live in the district.
Given the preceding paragraphs, you may infer that I am in favor of statehood. You would be wrong. Or at least partially wrong.
In the abstract, I think statehood is a fine idea. However, we don’t live in the abstract.
In reality, DC statehood is a naked political power grab. A chance to add 2 brand new Senate seats and a House seat, all D+∞. More importantly, it will be perceived (and in some real ways is) as an attempt to change the rules of the game to benefit one side of the political aisle.
The addition of new states has historically been among the most divisive issues since the founding of the United States. There is a reason why most new states are added in pairs. Alaska was admitted to the union to counterbalance the reliably Republican Hawaii.
We live in an era of high polarization. Both sides of the whistle think they’re on the verge of losing everything and both sides think the other will do anything (even cheat) to win. It’s not hard for me to imagine DC statehood being the catalyst for one of David French’s American divorce scenarios.
If DC is going to become a state, it’s important for the health of the union that it not be perceived as a naked power grab. And attempt by the Democrats to give themselves an edge by changing the rules of the game.
And there are ways of accomplishing the goal of giving DC residents representation in Congress that are within the bounds of political fair play.
I favor retrocession into Maryland. Where the portions of the District that aren’t federal buildings would become part of Maryland. Or, perhaps, a similar arrangement with Virginia (though as a Virginian, I would be sad to see another Democratic stronghold added to the Commonwealth).
On the other hand, if we are dead set on making DC a state in its own right, then there is likely some compromise that could be brokered where a 52nd state is also admitted with a Republican-leaning such that the fundamental balance of power remains mostly unchanged in the short term. Perhaps western Washington could be separated from Seattle and the eastern half of the state, for example.
Regardless, it’s not wise to play with matches in a straw house. Especially when demagogues on both sides have taken their turn dousing the rafters in gasoline.