WASHINGTON, D.C.: TIME TO MAKE IT THE 51ST STATE

The issue of statehood for Washington, D.C.  has resurfaced with new urgency. This year,the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, as in 2020, passed legislation making the District of Columbia  the 51^st state. Prospects for passage in the almost evenly divided Senate aren’t good, making it unlikely the country will get its first new state in 62 years.

We decided we should tackle the issue because (1) the history isn’t well understood and (2) the matter has become so entangled with racially-tinged partisan politics, it deserves examination in the context of the country’s social justice/racial equality

discussion. Though we each support D.C. statehood, we don’t come  at the issue from the same perspective, so we’ll offer different approaches.   

 

Rob and Henry:  An Idea Whose Time Has 

Come

Why hasn’t Washington, D.C. been a state all along? We mostly can thank James Madison. He contended in Federalist No. 43 that for its own maintenance and safety, the nation’s capital should remain separate and distinct from any other state. He feared “an imputation of awe or influence” dishonorable and unsatisfactory to the other states in the union.

Fair enough. Maybe that rationale made

sense in the late 1700s when the exercise of power by the few people living in the nation’s capital might bring down on them the wrath of the other states. That hardly seems likely now, given the strength of the American military and the difficulty the states would have in taking unified action against Washington.

Opponents of D.C. statehood hardly ever trot out Madison’s argument now. They rely on tradition (that’s how it’s always been), nonsense like Washington’s small geographical size and lack of certain “amenities” (one opponent noted it doesn’t have a landfill), and blatant political concerns (like fear of adding two Democratic senators).

We find the history worth studying because it also shows Americans understood from the

beginning the fundamental unfairness of subjecting Washington’s citizens to the same taxes, military service obligations, and other federally imposed duties the rest of us have, but without representation in Congress (Washington has a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives, but no representation at all in the U. S. Senate). 

Early in the country’s history political pundits recognized the problem. Augustus Woodward, writing in 1801 under the name Epaminondas, suggested giving Washington one senator and House seats based on population. Over 150 constitutional amendments and  bills have

been proposed since that would allow Washington representation in Congress. Since the mid-1980s, members of Congress have offered more than a dozen statehood bills. Until the 2020 and 2021 measures that passed the House, the bills failed. Most never got a vote in either chamber.

                                      

Support for D.C. statehood has become imbedded in the Democratic Party’s agenda. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, the last three Democratic presidents, each endorsed the idea. In November 2016, 79% of D.C. residents voted ‘yes’ on a statehood referendum.

            

As we noted, the D.C. statehood issue now

mostly turns on race and party politics. Washington’s population is  about 47% black and the city votes overwhelmingly Democratic in presidential elections. Republicans who oppose D.C. statehood will talk about political “imbalance.” Most won’t, however, come out and say they just don’t want two more black Democratic senators, even if race in many cases underlies their opposition. 

               

We have a hard time seeing a basis for

opposing D.C.  statehood, given the fairness issue -- we did fight a war with England over ‘taxation without representation,’ didn’t we? As for Washington’s characteristics, while it would be the smallest state geographically, it wouldn’t

have the smallest population (fewer people live in Vermont and Wyoming). It would,  however, have the highest median household income among the states, the highest per capita GDP, and the best educated populace, since almost 60% of its residents hold a bachelor’s degree and 34% have graduate degrees. This is an idea whose time has come.                

Woodson Has His Say

The District of Columbia (D.C.) consists of 712,000 U.S. Citizens – 45.1 percent black, 42.2 white, 5.2 Hispanic, 4.1 percent Asian, 0.2 percent Native American and Alaska Native, 0.1 percent Pacific Islander and 3.1 percent from two or more races. All are bound by the Constitution to fight the country’s wars and pay taxes. There are more residents in D.C. than are in Wyoming and Vermont. D.C’s

population is practically equal to that of Alaska, and North Dakota. Each of these states has two senators and one representative in Congress. Because D.C. is not a state, it has no senators or voting representative in Congress.

Should D.C. be granted Statehood? The U. S. House of Representatives thinks so. In April, it voted 208 – 216 to grant D.C. Statehood. Now it must get through the Senate.

            

Granting D.C. Statehood has the benefit of giving this diverse population what they have voted for through a free and fair election. In a 2016 referendum, 79 % of D.C’s residents voted for Statehood. The principle of  “one

man, one vote” should be respected. Granting D.C. Statehood would say to other countries around the world that America believes in democracy no matter the racial makeup of the constituency. Also, because of the diversity of the constituency (the most diverse in the country) D.C. would serve as secure senatorial seats for racial progressives to advance policy discussions and legislation on race, ethnicity, and nationality. Because these officials are almost certain to be persons of color,  it offers the country the opportunity to regularly have brown and black 

faces in high places. The

country could use more of this symbolism. While 

this representation would be more than mere symbolism, symbolism does matter. That would be good for us and our children.

TRUMP AND THE PRESS: THERE HE GOES AGAIN

Donald Trump began fighting with the news media as a 2016 candidate. At rallies, he leveled the charge “fake news” at

mainstream media organizations and reporters who challenged his actions or statements. That has continued since he took office. Now, in addition to attacking the press generally, Trump seems to have saved his most vitriolic and disturbing attacks for women reporters and minority women reporters.

Trump’s behavior threatens American democracy, demeans his office, and brings

closer the fears of encroaching fascism former State Secretary Madeleine Albright cautioned us about in her 2018 book Fascism: A Warning. The president’s treatment of the press underscores the need for removing him from office five months from now. 

Special Disdain for Women

Though Trump does berate male reporters from time to time, recently he’s saved special invective for female journalists.

During news conferences and coronavirus task force briefings, Trump has said very unpleasant things to women attending and working at those meetings.  They include:

·    Calling one female CBS correspondent “fake” and “disgraceful.”

·    Telling CNN’s Abby Phillips, “You ask a lot of stupid questions.”

·    Saying to another female CNN reporter that, “You’ve had enough” when the woman tried asking a question.

·    Once telling ABC’s Cecilia Vega, “I know you’re not thinking. You never do.”

Such insults produced former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson’s description of

Trump as a “misogynistic jerk.” She added that he treats women reporters differently than men and in a way that’s “horrible.”

Saving Real Vitriol for Minority Women

Soon after becoming president, Trump began insulting female reporters of color. He had

an early run-in with April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks, asking her if she could arrange a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus. She wrote a book, Under Fire: Reporting from the Front Lines of the Trump White House, in which she accused him of discriminating against minority journalists.

Trump later started a feud with Yamiche Alcindor, a black woman who once worked as

a reporter for The New York Times but now appears on the PBS News Hour and serves as an MSNBC contributor. Trump has asked her to be “nice” and not “threatening.” On several occasions he wouldn’t answer questions from her that seemed no more hostile than questions white male reporters ask.

Trump berating reporter Yamiche Alcindor 

Most recently, Trump seemingly profiled a CBS reporter of Asian heritage, Weijia Jiang, telling her she should “ask China” a question about his early downplaying of the corona-

virus. She called him on that, asking why he directed such a statement at her. He later said she should “keep her voice down.”

The Ryan, Alcindor, and Jiang incidents suggest Trump believes he can bully minority

women reporters at will. Trump’s attacks on women journalists, including minority women, no doubt helped encourage a recent report by the Committee to Protect Journalists that described Trump’s war on the press as “dangerously under[mining] truth and consensus in a deeply divided country.”

Trump goes after reporters of all stripes who don’t work for Fox News. He calls them names, insults their intelligence, and denigrates the  organizations for which they

work. Recently, for example, he took on The Washington Post White House Bureau Chief Phillip Rucker, co-author of A Very Stable Genius, a book highly critical of Trump’s actions as president.

Secretary Albright wrote “The advantage of a free press is diminished when anyone can claim to be an objective journalist, then disseminate narratives conjured out of thin air to make others believe rubbish.” (p. 114).  We would add that destroying the credibility of the free press represents the first step in that process. Clearly, Trump wishes to bestow credibility on the part of the press that supports his conduct and attack the part that dares criticize him. 

Time for Another Warning

Earlier this year, in a post titled From Russia With Love 2.0: American Democracy, Autocracy, Plutocracy, or Fascism? we cited Secretary Albright’s warnings about the fascist threat in light of new reports concerning Russian plans for interfering in this year’s presidential election. Trump’s

attacks on the press, particularly by targeting women and minority journalists, require that we turn to Secretary Albright once more. On the press issue, she asked, “If the president of the United States says the press always lies, how can Vladimir Putin be faulted for making the same claim?” (p.5).  Later, she noted how “contagious” anti-press behavior becomes. Not long after Trump excluded prominent reporters from his news conferences, other governments began taking actions against reporters who wrote stories those governments didn’t like and called them “fake news.” (pp. 212-13)

We can’t stress enough how strongly we believe Trump’s attacks on the press threaten American democracy as much or more than other actions he’s taken. The fact he picks on and insults women, especially women of color, just makes it worse. We can’t let our outrage wane though his persistent, destructive behavior continues unabated. A “new “normal” is too dangerous.

We’re reminded of the wisdom in Thomas Jefferson’s 1787 observation that, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

We’ve often pointed out the many reasons the American people must remove Trump and preserve the democracy we’ve painstakingly built over almost 250 years. Trump’s press interaction, especially with women reporters, ranks right at the top.