Liberty, local control

After hearing Sen. Tom Cotton’s reasons (and I use the word “reason” lightly) why the District of Columbia should not be made a state, I felt compelled to respond.

His implication that taxpaying Americans who have white-collar jobs are less worthy of representation is as nonsensical as it is hypocritical, given that one would have difficulty thinking of a more white-collar profession than that of senator. There is also no constitutional basis for preventing D.C. statehood, as the Constitution allows Congress to determine how D.C. should be configured.

Setting aside also the fact that opposition to taxation without representation was one of the tenets upon which this nation was based, his opinion that over 700,000 Americans should be denied representation because he doesn’t personally approve of which candidate they may prefer is the stuff of dictatorships, not democracies.

However, self-autonomy is also at stake. For example, if the D.C. City Council approves a law, any member of Congress can singlehandedly prevent that law from taking effect.

What would our reaction be if Arkansas passed a law only to have it nullified by one member of Congress from New York or California? Would that be our idea of liberty and freedom? How would we feel if a President Barack Obama or President Hillary Clinton controlled our National Guard? And would you think kindly of someone who told you that a proper solution would be to dissolve Arkansas and divide it between Missouri and Louisiana?

Statehood for D.C. is neither a power grab nor a partisan issue. It’s a matter of basic liberty and local control, things Senator Cotton professes to believe in.

ERIC MOAK

Little Rock