The opposition to DC Statehood — and especially the calls for retrocession to Maryland — seem to undermine any rationale for the idea of sovereign states in the first place. 🧵1/
Federalism implies allegiance to your state AND to the country. This is the basis for "equal" Senate representation. If your interests as a citizen are tied to your state, then maybe you shouldn’t be undervalued just because there are fewer of you.
I think there are better ways to manage the balance between state and national representation, but that’s the logic. And it depends on people having a sense of identity with their state. (Even if that identity is declining, as in @dhopkins1776’s book.) 3/…
So when someone says DC should just be merged with Maryland, despite lack of any interest from Marylanders or Washingtonians, what does that say about our respect for citizens’ attachment to their states? 4/
Even more so the argument that Washingtonians should just decide to live in a different community if they want representation. 5/
It sort of makes you think that the whole logic of equal representation in the Senate, and of the Electoral College, all depend on principles no one is interested in taking seriously. 6/END

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Hans Noel

Hans Noel Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ProfHansNoel

28 Apr
The thing about James Carville’s faculty lounge comment is he’s not trying to provide a fair analysis of politics. He is doing politics. And to the extent that he’s praising Biden for also doing politics, he’s right! (although I don’t think even Carville gets it.) 🧵1/
The fact that Carville used “faculty lounge” as a synecdoche* for the nuanced conceptualization** academics traffic in is a red herring. Carville argues that Biden succeeds because he doesn’t talk like that. True, as far as that goes. 2/

(*see what I did there?)
But the subtext*** could be that Democrats shouldn’t talk about race at all. @seanilling cuts right through to that, so we know that Carville’s phrasing was effective at communicating what he wants to say, even if in fact there is no lounge for faculty. 3/

(***I can’t stop!)
Read 14 tweets
22 Feb
I think this thoughtful op-ed from @NickTroiano has a lot of smart stuff. But it’s very unsatisfying. I think this passage gets to the crux of the problem with so much of the way we think about party reform. 1/…
Electoral politics is not “an industry” like any other. And it makes little sense to talk about parties in terms of “market share.” A simple analogy helps to show why:

In your grocery store cereal aisle, you find almost limitless choices. The breakfast cereal industry won’t leave you with only two choices. You get corn flakes. I get shredded wheat. Someone else gets the artisanal brand. We each get to take them home and eat what we bought.

Read 9 tweets
3 Mar 20
Everyone asking “is the Party Deciding?” OT1H, it sure looks like party leaders are coordinating to help Biden. OTOH, weren’t they supposed to do that in the invisible primary? And anyway, shouldn’t we wait till people vote?

We’re not Mayor Pete! This isn’t Iowa! 1/10
Meanwhile, however, I think it’s safe to say that the book is relevant. Here’s my view… 2/10
The Party Decides is ultimately about how to think about parties in nominations. Instead of looking at nominations from the POV of candidates competing for votes, we looked from the POV of the party, and the incentives of activists, leaders and long-standing members. 3/10
Read 10 tweets
28 Feb 19
Kudos to @KevinMKruse for including political scientists in his rundown of experts disputing @DineshDSouza’s silly claim that there has not been a realignment on racial issues in American political parties. 1/x
Important b/c D’Souza not only mangles the history. He has a fals view of what a political party is. Parties, especially in the U.S., are coalitions -- meaning they bring together people who disagree, but who choose to set aside those disagreements. 2/x…
Managing those disagreements can be hard, but it’s what parties do. 3/x…
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!