Come See us: 123 Main St

•

Find us on Social Media

After the Future

· ·

Quote of the Day: David Brooks

Since the New Deal, we have become accustomed to seeing American politics as an ever-concentrated national enterprise. But the sclerosis of the federal system will inevitably produce a reversal, as…

Since the New Deal, we have become
accustomed to seeing American politics as an ever-concentrated national
enterprise. But the sclerosis of the federal system will inevitably produce a
reversal, as regions fill the void.

The happiest people these days are
those who leave Washington and get elected mayor or governor. The most
frustrated people are people who were mayor and governor and get elected to the
Senate. They end each day knowing they were busy. They’re just not sure they
accomplished anything. (Source)

When he's right, he's right. I
honestly don't know why anybody, except for prestige reasons, would want to be
a US senator or congressman.

In the early days of the republic the federal job was the
low-prestige job, and the local job was the more coveted. Why? Because what
mattered was your state identity, your face-to-face relationships, your local
reputation. Nobody knew or much cared what you were doing in Washington. The
run-up to the Civil War and the subsequent growth of mass media changed all
that, but I think it would be a healthy thing if the current paralysis in
Washington forces things to come full circle. 

Is there something intrinsically more boring about local
issues, or is it just that they seem intrinsically less important because they
are local? Sure, there are critical things that need to be dealt with on the
national and global level–trade, climate change, wealth distribution, labor
practices, disaster relief, and some other things that are not presently front
of mind. These issues have enormous impacts on our lives lived on the local level, but is there any reason why any
of us should care that Chris Christie is unnecessarily spending $10 million on
a special election in NJ?  Yet, that's
what the cable networks are full of. Christie is NJ's problem; he's not anyone else's yet.

The question to ask is where your focus of attention and your engagement should lie. Where is it likely to have the most impact? What are the distractions, and what are the things that matter? Don't focus on abstractions; fight for the particular in the concrete circumstances of your life. This is more of an admonition to myself, I suppose. It's not something I do terribly well. 

 

Comments

2 responses

  1. Jonathan Avatar
    Jonathan

    Your basic point about the inherent interest in local versus national politics is sound, Jack. However, as a resident of Illinois — specifically the city of Chicago — I can tell you in my case it doesn’t hold true. The only place in the country where I imagine local politics would be more interesting than here would be NYC. But nothing beats Chicago. It’s like medieval Florence.

    Reply
  2. Jack Whelan Avatar
    Jack Whelan

    Yes, i think the mega cities are in a category by themselves. I don’t know if you’ve been paying much attention to the school closures issue there, but it’s an astonishing play by Emmanuel, and I’m hoping it’s the kind of thing that will politicize families into resisting the machine there.
    I got involved with local education issues here in Seattle because it’s something that everyone feels affected by, at least indirectly. And Seattle is a city still small enough and homogeneous enough (at least there’s no teaparty to deal with) that coming to some agreement about tough issues isn’t impossible. As elsewhere, it’s mostly business interests vs. community interests–The Gates Foundation is a big local player as well as a global player. Amazon, Starbucks, and Boeing cast a long shodow, but they are not invincible. And whatever corruption there might be is small potatoes compared to LA, NY, and CHI.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *