On reviewing Adrian Fenty's positions, I'm afraid he does not seem ready to address the real issues of DC's colonial status. He is not alone in this - all the Democratic mayoral candidates save Michael Brown ducked the issue of statehood during the campaign.

- FENTY, LIKE MANY IN THIS TOWN, tends to conflate representation and
statehood. They are vastly different. Representation - and
realistically we are speaking of House representation only or else the
push would be for statehood - is a symbolic matter of little positive
importance but which would create the illusion that DC residents are
full citizens.

- FOR ABOUT A CENTURY, representation has been used as a method to
distract residents and Congress from self government issues such as
home rule and statehood. Those behind these efforts have traditionally
included the business and media. For example:

1888: Conservative newspaperman Theodore Noyes of the Washington Star
launches campaign for congressional representation; strongly opposes
real democracy. Noyes writes, "National representation for the capital
community is not in the slightest degree inconsistent with control of
the capital by the nation through Congress."

1899: A political scientist describes the Board of Trade - which
supports a congressional vote only -- as providing DC with the ideal
form of local government through a "representative aristocracy."

1919: Board of Trade and Chamber of Commerce advocate congressional
representation and oppose home rule. Labor unions urge elected officials.

1934: A special committee recommends a nonvoting delegate but no home rule.

1943: Board of Trade appears before Senate Committee to support
representation in Congress but opposes local self-government.

1960s: Segregationist Rep. John McMillan favors a DC vote for
president and vice president, says a struggle for home rule will
cripple the national vote. McMillan thinks the national vote should
"satisfy" DC residents "at least for a while."

1971: DC gets a nonvoting congressional delegate. In first delegate
race, the statehood arguments of Julius Hobson are strongly opposed by
Walter Fauntroy who will become the leader of a lengthy and futile
drive for a constitutional amendment granting congressional representation.

1972: Walter Fauntroy and John Hechinger, later major players in the
voting rights drive, sabotage George McGovern's planned announcement
of support for DC statehood.

1981: The League of Women Voters, Walter Fauntroy, and the Washington
Post - all strong advocates of congressional voting representation -
are the leading voices again DC statehood.

1985: The voting rights amendment is defeated with less than half the
required states voting for it. Meanwhile years of potential work for
full democracy are dissipated and diluted.

1998: Twenty citizens file full democracy law suit. Establishment
figures and elite bar refuse to help. Four months later, the latter
file a suit for congressional representation.

2004: Del. Norton convinced the Democratic Party to drop DC statehood
from its platform, to be replaced by a call for voting rights.
According to The Washington Times, "Pat Elwood, vice chairman of the
[Democratic] state committee, said she agreed with Mrs. Norton's view
that statehood 'dilutes' the message of congressional voting representation."

- THE SLOGAN "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" unconsciously
reveals the colonial goals of the movement. The slogan originally
stemmed from a major complaint of the business and upper classes
against the British crown and, much like corporate mantras of today,
such as "free markets", it gained a currency far broader than its
applicability.

While New England businessmen were speaking not of self government but
only of some representation in the English parliament, Patrick Henry
addressed taxation in a fiery address in 1765 against the Stamp Act
declaring, "If this be treason, make the most of it."

What's significant is that Henry was not speaking of representation in
the Parliament, but rather of the right of the Virginia legislature to
approve any taxes on the people. In other words, Henry was taking the
side of full democracy rather than insignificant representation in a
national legislature that still held plenary powers over the colonies.
It is this critical and similar distinction that current use of the
phrase "taxation without representation" obscures.

- WITH REPRESENTATION in the House, DC would still be a full colony of
the United States just as Algeria was despite representation in the
French National Assembly.

- THERE ARE ONLY TWO WAYS THAT DC residents can become full citizens
of the U.S. Either we become a state or we become part of another
state either through retrocession or merger. Yet, almost without
exception, elected DC officials including Fenty refuse to advocate the
cause of statehood except when incorrectly conflating it with representation.

- THE ARGUMENT that DC representation is a first step to statehood
might bear some weight had there been the slightest discussion as to
what the first such step should be. Instead, this position was taken
ex cathedra, ignoring such important alternative incremental
approaches as getting control over our budget, permitting a commuter
tax, regaining control over our prison system, gaining control over
our judges and so forth.

- THOSE SUPPORTING REPRESENTATION are keeping citizens and Congress
from confronting the lack of self-government in DC. As a consequence
they should be viewed as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.



||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW
Since 1964, Washington's Most Unofficial Source

1312 18th St NW (5th Floor)
Washington DC 20036 202-835-0770
Fax: 202-835-0779
Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Editor: Sam Smith

LATEST HEADLINES: http://prorev.com
LATEST UNDERNEWS: http://prorev.com/indexa.htm