The author is from California and has a first hand look at the oppressive, progressive California state legislature and governor. As a blue state, Oregon's runaway progressive legislature can be lumped in with California's war on freedom. Would local politics be any different? Do people have to move to cities and states to maintain their freedom? Or will newcomers destroy it there too? Wasn't all of America supposed to stand for maximum freedom for the individual? Where do we go next when all our freedoms have been claimed by the government?
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."
--- Thomas Jefferson
State governments can be as oppressive as Washington
... increasingly, the clearest threat to democracy and minority rights today comes not just from a surfeit of central power concentrated in Washington, D.C., but also from increased centralization of authority within states, and even regional agencies. Oppressive diktats from state capitals increasingly seek to limit local control over basic issues such as education, zoning, bathroom designations, guns and energy development
This follows a historical trend over the past century. Ever since the Great Depression, and even before, governmental power has been shifting inexorably from the local governments to regional, state and, of course, federal jurisdictions. In 1910, the federal level accounted for 30.8 percent of all government spending, with state governments comprising 7.7 percent and the local level more than 61 percent. More than 100 years later, not only had the federal share exploded to nearly 60 percent, but, far less recognized, the state share had nearly doubled, while that of local governments has fallen to barely 25 percent, a nearly 60 percent drop. Much of what is done at the local level today is at the behest, and often with funding derived from, the statehouse or Washington.
Diversity vs. regimentation
This trend is particularly notable in the country’s two megastates: California and Texas. Each is increasingly controlled by ideological fanatics who see in their statehouse dominion an ideal chance to impose their agenda on dissenting communities. In California, Jerry Brown’s climate jihad is the rationale for employing “the coercive power of the central state,” in his own words, to gain control over virtually every aspect of planning and development.
Yet, in a nation — and in states — ever more divided, it seems imperative that more leeway be given to communities. A policy that may seem fine in Malibu should not unnecessarily be imposed on Modesto. Nor should something like bathroom laws — affecting, at most, 0.6 percent of the population — be used by activists to ban travel to entire states, often hurting most those places with a more progressive worldview.
If he accomplishes nothing else, President Donald Trump has opened the door for radical localism. Progressive loathing of a putative blow-dried Caesar may be tediously overdone, but the point has been made: The presidency, the apex of government control, is not owned by one party. The progressive notion of inevitable triumph over all comers has been at least delayed in most of the country.
This is not to say that radical localism can be easily accomplished. Even as people disperse to increasingly distinct communities, the concentration of corporate power — the Fortune 500 companies’ share of GDP has more than doubled to over 70 percent since the mid-1990s — favors the large state. Narrow, often single-issue lobby groups increasingly dominate legislatures — whether in Austin, Albany or Sacramento — and are often more obsessed with imposing their agendas than allowing for differences in communities.
Yet, a political constituency for radical localism exists. As the American Enterprise Institute’s Sam Abrams has pointed out, whatever their party or ideology, people generally favor local government over federal government for most issues. The notion of radical localism may not be popular among those in both parties who crave to exercise unchecked power, but it represents perhaps our last, best hope to preserve a democracy worthy of the name.
Joel Kotkin is the R.C. Hobbs Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in Orange and executive director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism (www.opportunityurbanism.org).
USC NOTE: In an ideal world, if small communities could agree on social issues, there would likely be better acceptance of minority views at the state level too. Lake Oswego is now similarly divided and a new, unabashed partisan group is bringing its agenda to the whole city - even if a large segment of the population doesn't agree. Add to that the ever-increasing slew of special nterest groups that represent only a fraction of people, and many citizens have lost any power to influence the course of their town.
It isn't only people of color or those suffering some inequity who are disenfranchised by the majority . More local control might help in some places, but not all cities, and not for long, and not in Oregon.
No comments:
Post a Comment