Nathan Newman wrote:
>But even you said that having state laws strip local governments of power
>over eminent domain was not the policy you favored. What you refuse to
>hear is that I agree that abuses to eminent domain and have REPEATEDLY
>listed alternative policy goals that would rein in eminent domain abuses by
>corporations, yet you keep ignoring that the policy being debated is state
>governments stripping local governments of power.
-One of the awful things about life in Washington is that political -discussions always devolve into having to take a position on some -goddamned bill or other. No principle, no broad strategy - just where -do you stand on HR 1683, or some such. That's why I try to minimize -my contact with Washington. And now you're telling me I've got to -organize my politics around 30 goddamned bills in 30 goddamned state -legislatures.
YES, you do. Cause no one gives a damn about "broad strategy" that doesn't matter in real life. You can discuss broad strategy and principles on actual decisions that might help or hurt people in their lives, but most folks are looking for a graduate seminar. That doesn't mean you can't generate sophisticated discussions, but you need to tie it to actual decisions where peoples lives are effected.
-I've told you what my principle is: eminent domain should be very -narrowly defined for broad public benefit. -Much of the actual legislation under consideration uses very similar -language, so your characterization of it seems a bit tendentious. If -they're "stripping local governments of power," they're stipping them -of powers they shouldn't have.
So fine, you are blocking politically with the rightwing on their legislation. You want white state legislators to tell many minority-led city council people that they are too incompetent to resist real estate interests, so they "shouldn't have" such powers.
Your position is reactionary just from the pure racial dynamics of most states. In the name of stopping some abuse, you want to gut democratic rights of local cities.
With all your rhetoric around corrupt unions, corrupt cities, and so forth, you are just sounding like the worst of the goo-goo conservative "Progressives" of the early twentieth century who undermined working class politics in this country. Precisely because you don't want to engage in the muck of real politics, you want to strangle democratic decision-making and gut local home rule powers. That is truly one of the most reactionary positions I've seen you take.
Nathan Newman