This morning, Adam observed that he "can't figure out why Tea Partiers haven't staged a full scale revolt over DC residents being taxed without representation." Me, neither! But some news yesterday highlighted that D.C. is capable of at least electing representatives, even non-voting ones, who can be forceful advocates.D.C.'s non-voting representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, announced she will support legislation to give the District real congressional representation, albeit sans a senator, even though the bill includes a poison pill amendment that would overturn the D.C. gun ban. "This is the best chance we've had to get a House vote for D.C. in my lifetime. Nobody would leave it on the table because it's not at all clear when there will be another chance," she told the Washington Post.
I think that speaks to the "ethic of ultimate responsibility" that Max Weber fans like myself see as important in politics: Finding the best possible deal to accomplish good ends. Norton has been fighting for good causes for a long time -- I was pleasantly surprised to see this picture of her representing female Newsweek employees who sued the magazine for discrimination in 1970 -- and she's being shrewd here. The sooner D.C. has a voting representative, the sooner congressional interference in gun laws, and other issues that are the province of the District's local government, will come to an end.
-- Tim Fernholz
