City on a Hill: Republican hypocrisy

Democrats across the country are scared of what will happen on Nov. 4, but District of Columbia residents have good reason to be especially worried.  With Republicans poised to take control of the House of Representatives, this year’s midterm elections will likely put the GOP in a position to meddle in the District’s affairs and reverse laws passed by the D.C. Council. This is worrisome in and of itself, given the gulf between the policies that the heavily Democratic District favors and the Republicans’ social conservatism. But it’s even more disturbing that their convenient embrace of federal intervention comes at a time when many Republicans continue to tout their dedication to states’ rights and local government.

Congress granted D.C. home rule in 1973, giving local politicians greater latitude to enact policy without federal oversight, but Congress still has the power to intervene in the District. Even in the era of home rule, the District’s local government serves at the pleasure of Congress.

In a few months, a new activist crop of Republican politicians will probably control the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The committee is the mechanism Congress uses to oversee and control the District’s local government. As the continued failure to achieve full congressional representation shows, the District does not get everything it wants when this committee is under Democratic control—but it certainly helps. When the D.C. Council recently passed controversial gay marriage and medical marijuana legislation, for example, Congress did not intervene.

That will not be the case if the GOP gains control of the House and Representatives and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) becomes the chair of that committee. In the past, Chaffetz has argued that local autonomy is not in line with the Constitution and that Congress should roll back gay marriage in D.C. Chaffetz has also said that order to obtain congressional representation, the city—with the exception of a few federal buildings—should become a part of Maryland.

Conservatives like him are fond of explaining that the Constitution grants Congress control over D.C. policy because it is not a state. Recently, Chaffetz told Washington City Paper that Vincent Gray, who won the Democratic mayoral primary, should not seek more autonomy because it is unconstitutional. Every bill that the D.C. Council passes is given a 30-day hold in Congress so that members can review—and if they like, gut—that legislation.

But he and other meddling conservatives ignore the fact that the founders fully intended for D.C. to have local autonomy. In Federalist 43, James Madison wrote, “a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed [for residents of the federal District].” Worse yet, they are hypocritically ignoring their own small government principles in order to secure social policies they favor. Chaffetz’s past statements and his campaign website shamelessly flaunt his commitment to “limited government.” On his campaign website, he writes, “many programs currently run by the federal government—such as the Department of Education—should be left to state and local governments. I will seek to restrict the role of the federal government.”

Despite those anti-federalist sentiments, if they control the House, Republican interventionists will soon be abandoning their own rhetoric to keep the District from pursuing liberal policy. Unfortunately, it might be time to stock up on those “Don’t Tread on Me” banners that are so popular with the Tea Party.

Want some real talk without the hypocrisy? Email Eric at epilch@georgetownvoice.com