Looking to History for Another Opinion

As a U.S. citizen and legal resident of the state of Michigan, has it ever occurred to you that you have no legal right to local self-government? That’s what one side of the argument is claiming these days, the other side arguing that the state’s 1963 constitution does make such provision. Here’s a scary statement, however, from the legal side defending local self-government:

It is true as a matter of state law that the State of Michigan, if it chose to do so, could eliminate local government jurisdictions and govern them directly … The State has the power to create cities, townships, villages and counties, and it can legally eliminate them as well.

Wow. That is the guy on our side? Follow that link above to read the entire article and both sides of the question.

Lately I’ve been dipping once again into Alexis de Toqueville’s Democracy in America. Yes, yes, I know—before you can object, I acknowledge that this book was written by a very young Frenchman and not by an American citizen, let alone an American lawyer, judge or historian. Some of de Toqueville’s opinions have been challenged in the years since his 1831 visit to the United States, but there is no other survey of American life and politics from that period, the more objective for having been written by an outsider, that covers as much ground from as many different perspectives as de Toqueville’s account. A dinner party conversation, for example, he would often write up several different times in his journals, first giving the bare facts, then the social background of the guests, then the political discussion of the evening. His work continues to be taken seriously to our day.

What strikes me most forcibly in this re-reading is the emphasis the author lays on local government in America. Specifically, he notes that township government preceded any organization of counties and states and, in older, longer-established parts of the country, continues to be not only the form of government with the most direct citizen population but also the greatest source of allegiance to community, law and nation. Thus from his observations he maintains “...that the most powerful, and perhaps the only, means which we still possess of interesting men in the welfare of their country, is to make them partakers in the government.” Here is another statement, somewhat longer but important for containing a supporting argument within it:

The partisans of centralization in Europe are wont to maintain that the government can administer the affairs of each locality better than the citizens could do it for themselves; this may be true, when the central powers are enlightened, and the local authorities are ignorant; when it [central authority] is alert, and the local authorities are ignorant; when it is accustomed to act, and they to obey. ...But I deny that it is so, when the people are as enlightened, as awake to their own interests, and as accustomed to reflect on them, as the Americans are. I am persuaded, on the contrary, that, in this case, the collective strength of the citizens will always conduce more efficaciously to the public welfare than the authority of the government. ...[W]enever a central administration affects complete to supersede the persons most interested, I believe that it is either misled, or desirous to mislead [my emphasis added].”

We in Michigan and across the entire United States need to decide once again what we want. Do we want our citizens to become “accustomed to obey,” or do we want them—that is, ourselves—to gain and hold, through continued practice, the skills of self-government? Why cannot the state send in advisors rather than managers to struggling communities? It is what our country first attempts with governments overseas. Why should our own local governments be accorded less respect than foreign governments? It is no mere coincidence that de Toqueville saw the greatest danger to democracy in the "tyranny of the majority."

Or is self-government just too much work? Are we not up to the standards of 1831 any more?

The Late Great State of Michigan

Maybe this story has passed you by, but if you live in Michigan, you need to get up to speed. Folks in other states, you should also take heed, because you could be next.

Except for Rachel Maddow, most reporters have either ignored this nightmare or focused only on parts of it, such as the threat to collective bargaining, leaving basic issues untouched. Finally, however, a voice of reason from Traverse City has called the new law by its rightful name, so if you’re anywhere in northern Michigan, pick up the current copy of Northern Express and read Stephen Tuttle’s take on Michigan’s newest and possible worst law in history. Bless Steve’s heart! Tuttle gets to the heart of the matter. This is indeed, as he calls it, a coup d’état, taking power away not only from voting, taxpaying, law-abiding citizens but also from their local elected officials. Government is not a corporation, should not be run like a corporation, and should not be run by corporations, but the people of Michigan may be waking up too late on this one.

The hostile take-over didn’t happen overnight. The question is, can it be turned around? And if so, how? Our State Supreme Court has long been on the side of monied interests, and I don’t look to them to see the unconstitutionality of this law. The problem with Michigan’s Supreme Court go way beyond which party is in power, too. Partisanship and favor-owing are the problem.

If you can’t get your hands on an Express, here’s another quick overview of the story on the new Michigan law. And for those with time and interest, here’s the Michigan House bill passed February 23 that led to the new law.

(My attempts to access Public Acts 4 and 7, created by these house bills, “did not return a result.” The search engine speculates that the act may be too new to have been added into the database as yet. What do you suppose is the holdup?)

When is your local government in trouble with the state? Read Section 12 carefully, noting that only one (1) of the triggering difficulties need be present for the state to review. The diagnosis is then “probable financial stress,” and if you’re stressed, obviously someone else needs to step in. Forget elections, forget self-governance. What are the powers of the Emergency Manager? See Section 19.

So far, most of the reporting on Michigan’s new law has focused on the danger to collective bargaining rights. There’s a hell of a lot more at stake. Is it “paranoia” to be worried?

(1) “He doesn’t mean us. He means Detroit.” Law is law, friends. It doesn’t name names, and it applies across the board. No exceptions. If we wait to worry until the review lands on our doorstep, we deserve what we get.

(2) “He just wants to motivate towns and school districts to get their acts together, and if they do that they don’t need to worry.” Budget cuts at the state level will have effects at the local level. A town or school district may not be financially stressed at the moment, but—look out! The floor could drop out from under us tomorrow.

(3) “Crisis calls for crisis management.” When a crisis is over, the law will still be in place, and the governor’s budget priorities will still have a great deal to do with who the sacrificial lambs will be. Getting rid of an Emergency Financial Manager once one has been put in place may turn out to be next to impossible

(4) “He only wants what’s best for Michigan.” So you would trust to the benevolence of someone with dictatorial powers, trust that person to be “on your side”? How many people in Third World countries have tried that?

We're supposed to govern ourselves. Or is that too hard? Would we rather close our eyes and be led backwards? Just so it would be clear where to point the finger of blame?