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.

A SALUTE TO COVID FIGHTERS: SHOULDN’T WE DO MORE?

 

“I look at it; I view it as, in a sense, a wartime president. I mean, that's what we're fighting”.

Donald J. Trump, March 18^th, 2020

 

“This is a wartime undertaking”.

President Joe Biden, January 21^st, 2021

There have been few areas of agreement between Biden and Trump. But they both agree, fighting the Coronavirus is like war.

In every war there are combatants. Some are more essential and more vulnerable than others. This war is no different. Like other wars the risks have not been borne equally.  Those who earn their living primarily by moving

words and numbers around on paper can work from home. Office computers were moved home and Zoom became the thing for holding meetings, conferences, and even prosecuting legal proceedings.

 

We think that no combatants have been more essential or more vulnerable than

our essential health care workers. They have gone into battle daily since the outbreak of the Coronavirus to take care of our infected loved ones and

comfort them while they suffered and often died, because we could not be at their bedsides. They often worked for minimum wages.

According to a joint undertaking by Kaiser Health News (KHN) a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues, and “The Guardian”, in a report published December 23, 2020, more than 2,900 U.S. health care workers died during the COVID-19 pandemic between March 2020 and December of 2020.  People of color have

been disproportionately affected, accounting for about 65% of deaths. The deaths continue.  

Some of these workers worked in plants, in crowded conditions that didn’t permit social distancing. The food industry offered one prime example. Workers in meat processing plants, especially, suffered high rates of infection and death from the disease.

Bearing a Heavier Burden

Many home health providers care for multiple patients, who also bear the consequences of

their work conditions. “If you think about perfect vectors for transmission, unprotected individuals going from house to house have to rank at the top of the list,” said Nina Kohn, a professor specializing in civil rights law at Syracuse University, quoted in the KHN report.

Nonetheless, caregivers like Samira, in Richmond, Virginia, identified in the KHN report, have little choice but to work. Samira — who makes $8.25 an hour with one client and $9.44 an hour with another, and owes tens of thousands of dollars in hospital bills from previous work injuries — has no other option but to risk getting sick.

“I can’t afford not to work. And my clients, they don’t have anybody but me,” she said. “So I just pray every day I don’t get it.”

From Despair to Hope

When we came to understand the deadly nature of the Coronavirus, the nation

faced a calamity like few it had experienced in its 250-year history.  The country shut down and the health care workers on the front line faced the grim task of continuing to treat thousands of people for a disease, medical experts knew little about. We had no drugs proven effective against the virus. Since it was airborne, people

caught it easily from other people. In many cases, the consequences were deadly. Those health care workers found themselves hooking people up to ventilators, knowing their patients would often die anyway. They did so because it was their job.

Worse than the lack of effective treatments was the fact there was no vaccine that could keep people from getting the disease. The only tools for prevention were masks, hand washing,  and “social distancing.”

Vaccine and Hope

Federal agencies began approving vaccines

for use in the United States in late November/early December of 2020. Unfortunately, the federal government didn’t have a distribution plan and left most of the work to the states. Predictably, inoculations lagged in the early months of vaccine availability.  That changed with the beginning of the Biden administration.  The new president made vaccination a high national priority. He set a goal of 100 million shots administered by the end of his first 100 days in office. His team met that goal by day 58. The goal now is sufficient vaccine supply by May for every American who wants it. We can all now see hope.

The national experience with Covid-19 has

shown some encouraging traits in the American character. Yes, we have endured senseless selfishness born of partisan bickering, but when faced with adversity, Americans have risen to the challenge.

Who can forget those inspiring scenes in March, April, and May of 2020 of people

standing on their balconies saluting front line health care workers during shift changes? Such expressions of support now occupy a special place in American lore, joining the spontaneous expressions of patriotism that sprang up after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Now, with hope and optimism that maybe, just maybe normal appears in sight, we take a few moments and review where we’ve been and where we’re going, from the perspective of the people who’ve borne the brunt of fighting the  war on the pandemic

Coronavirus.  The vaccines now available provide real hope, especially for the people who’ve led the fight against the devastation this virus has wrought.

Many front-line workers are now dead, leaving behind husbands, wives, children,

grandchildren, siblings and loved ones from whom they were taken tragically and some often too soon, or have survived but suffer long term medical consequences.

Is simply expressing our heartfelt gratitude enough? Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) referenced the KHN data citing the need for a pending bill that would provide compensation to the families of health care workers who died or sustained harm from COVID-19.

We believe these combatants deserve the same treatment veterans who bore the brunt of the burdens of wars received - special benefits for their sacrifice.