But with all the excusing, and condemning (rightfully so) of the public officials involved, little blame has been cast on the residents who let this happen. At the same time, the Bell story highlights in dramatic fashion the challenges to devolved local governance. While centralized bureaucracies lack the ability to customize policy to local circumstances, and are by nature unresponsive to regional concerns, the cries by many to “bring government closer to the people”, also demands a concomitant movement of “the people” closer to their government through habits as mundane as reading the local newspaper, attending the local Council Meeting, or running for office. Without these practices “home rule” can easily become rule from somebody’s home, as it appears to have occurred with the aforementioned Mr. Rizzo.
Who is correct in their evaluation of the people of Bell, California? Mr. Peterson? Or those who would defend the residents? Even if it is the case that many or most white Americans are disengaged from local politics, can we also say that there is a different culture at work here? Or would that be too politically incorrect? Learning to be a citizen of a republic requires more than passing a citizenship test and learning how to vote, and is a task that may take some time. (Especially if we give credence to Aristotle and apply the dictum that those who would rule must first be ruled to republics.) Should people not first demonstrate that they can obey laws and work (in a very broad sense) and live with other members of a community? But American republicanism has been replaced by fanatical democratism.
Nonetheless, is Bell really a political community in any meaningful sense? And how real is a community if its members do very little economic/productive activity within its borders?
No comments:
Post a Comment