The problem, I think with the type of community that he proposes is that the tendency with such groups is toward the STP principle-- the Same Ten People.
I've seen it happen a hundred times. People get comfortable with the same ten folks running things, and so nothing ever changes. The ten people continue to run things as they always have run them.
Just because the group is smaller does not make it a more effective body. What makes it effective is if the whole community takes part in the elective process. If there is real dialogue, and an opportunity for people to change their opinions safely.
In a small government, this can be very difficult to do-- for the very reasons that OSC pointed out. People KNOW you. They expect certain things from you.
That said, OSC is spot on. Government should FEEL local, somehow. But that means that both the government and the governed have responsabilities to live up to.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with both Scott's comments and OSC. There is such a disconnect between the officials and the people they supposedly represent that the difference between our democracy and the oligarchies or feudal systems of bygone days are sometimes non-existent. Take the office of president, for example. Who have our presidents been? By and large they have all been folks born with a silver spoon in their mouth, folks whose families all know one another because they run in the same elite society circles. Clevelands and Roosevelts and Kenedys and so on.
On the national level maybe there is no getting away from that. On the local level we really should know the people who make some of the important decisions. I love OSC's school board idea, but I don't know how it could be brought to pass.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked that article, too - I just sent it on to my mom over in the Tri-Cities.
I figured she'd really like it, since I just got an earful about bad big government. She (and all my family over there for that matter) like to let me know everything that's not right with government when I visit, since I work for the state.
I get to practice lots of "um-hmms" and "tell me more about that" - and then I share with my agency about how the prevailing viewpoint east of the mountains is that government sucks, and here's why, and here are the real grass-roots ideas about how to fix it . . .
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was reading along and nodding, yes, yes, until I got to the part about Nixon's vilification.
Um. His actions were pretty well documented, weren't they? Nixon doesn't need to be vilified. Or are there unjustified slanders implied that I'm not aware of?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked the column. I don't like small towns, though. If a little bit of big government is the price one pays for having a symphony, large libraries, and a vibrant theater scene-- and not just a bunch of bad bars-- then so be it. I'm a city guy.
posted
I think his Nixon comments can be understood better in the context of his short story "Cross Country Trip to Kill Richard Nixon" and the essay explaining its genesis.
He never claimed that Nixon was a good man. He was exactly as bad as he was. What OSC didn't like was the hypocrisy of those villifying him. They weren't any better, just not in his position of power (FWIW- his opinion, not mine). It's been a while, but that's what I remember.
For someone from the left, it's like how you viewed Clinton's impeachment and the "righteous indignation" of all these conservative Republican representatives speaking about morality and the shame it brought- only to be shown to have been just as bad themselves. Hypocrisy and profoundly irritating.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are problems in little towns too, and sometimes being big isn't a problem, it is a solution.
What happens when there is a bad teacher in that school, one that use to be good but should have retired years ago. I know this still happens...which is why I have a hard time supporting tenure positions....at least in a larger system you can switch teachers, or file a complaint with someone who hasn't been working with her for 50 years or so.
Or if the "same ten" are bigoted, and don't approve of "those uppity <insert racial slur here>......the small rural towns in the south were the last among us to change their ways in regards to civil rights, weren't they?
I like that WW article more than most of them, but it has the same problem that a lot of political theories have...it over-simplifies to the point of non-usefulness. I don;t say uselessness, because they have valid points which should be addressed....but they are not useful in a practical sense because they are usually fueled by a mistaken belief that everything was better "back then", when the reality is that while it may have been better in some ways it wasn't for a large section of society.
Try being handicapped in the 1950's and see how easy it was to go to the bathroom in public.
Or being black in Detroit or Harlem, or the deep south, during the 60's.
I have lived in a small town before, and it was even worse than the large ones I grew up in. My family was invited to the local 4th of July party the 4th year we were there...and everyone commented on how unusual it was, because we had only been living there for a few years. No one else had been invited in less than 5 years before us...
We had to take our trash to the dump every two weeks ourselves...but I noticed the local DPW workers picking up some of the locals trash and taking it there in their trucks, even though the rest of us had to pay to dispose of our refuse. When I asked about it, it turned out that it was a member of a family who were long time residents who was doing it...and he also was the person all complaints would have to go through about abuses of dumping policies....and he worked at the local DPW as a supervisor.
Smaller isn't always better, or more honest. It is just as hard to find an honest politicion in a small town as it is in NYC, and sometimes it is even harder.
I've lived in big towns and small towns. I've seen bad and good in them both.
OSC's point isn't about small towns, or big towns, really-- but about small groups of people.
How would his plan work in suburbia? In the inner city? Would personal touchability make government more responsive and effective?
I think so. But I think that in order to work, the voters need to be much better educated; much more willing to commit time to the process than they are now.
They have to have a mind for the community.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know...I don't live in a small town per se. I live in a suburb of 70,000 or so, but we have a pretty small school system. I mention that because OSC made a specific point of mentioning school boards and school systems in small towns.
The problem I think I see with small local government, especially in my town, is you get more adults than students, and none of them want to pay for schooling. We keep trying to pass bond issues in my city because we're trying to close one high school and consolidate into one, but we need repairs on it and many other schools. Everyone keeps voting it down becuase they don't have kids in the school system, rated one of the best in southeastern Michigan, so all the kids suffer.
Also the school board sucks, with one or two exceptions. My dad has been PTA president for like 7 years, even after my brother and I graduated from high school he stayed on because he knows the system so well. Everyone likes him, and everyone wants him to run for the school board, but he won't because he, like everyone else, hates the school board. They never listen to the public, and I've been to a ton of school board meetings with complaining parents and students.
I don't know if Royal Oak (my happy little town) is representative of all cities that size, but honestly the problem isn't with the size of the district or the constituency, it's with the electorate and those they elect.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's not talking about small-town school districts so much as the school districts they have in populous areas like Pennsylvania, where there is basically one high school, one middle shool, and one elementary per district. The district lines are drawn up tiny on purpose. I have never worked there, so I can't comment on it. I have a colleague from up north who swears by it. I live in a mostly rural county that contains two or three small towns. Our district is one of the worst funded in the nation, with some of the worst test scores. And our school board is mostly unresponsive to the community. In fact, when a bunch of people, including me, went to a district board meeting to protest a decision that had been made, the head of the board looked at us, his constituents, and said "You're stuck with me for the next four years whether you like it or not." And he'll get re-elected when that time comes because most constituents don't know what's going on, and he is a good old boy with a good old American name, and the nickname "Coach." Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, theoretically, smaller means more contact. And more contact means, feasibly, that there will be more control by the electors rather than the elected.
I think OSC's article assumes a responsible public-- which is the real problem. There's very little encouragment for an involved, responsible public. Most parents, for example, are more concerned with the question, "Is Johnny's teacher teaching him correctly?' than "Is the redistricting plan for Johnny's school sound and forward thinking?" And with good reason-- the teacher has a viable, tangible connection to them. The redistricting plan is boring.
I believe a small electorate, as outlined by OSC would be much more effective, IF the electorate is made up of people who are actively involved in the process.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't it possible that responsible people have other fish to fry than redistricting. There is a reason we farm these duties out to other officials.
There are harsh repercussions in small town life. It only takes four bigots to put a cramp in ones lifestyle, ones choice of friends and cultural influences is limited. And while people say that there is a distinct small town culture, it's all the same kind of off-white bland to me, that is, unless the town is impeccably planned with a vibrant Main street, a walking culture, and a nice town square. But then again, those are the same qualities I like in a well planned big city.
Maybe my aversion is stronger to small towns in the West and Midwest, and the older smaller towns on the East Coast have more going for them.
quote:Most parents, for example, are more concerned with the question, "Is Johnny's teacher teaching him correctly?' . . .
In my experience, few parents are concerned with this question. Many more are concerned with the question "Will Johnny's teacher give him a good grade?"
quote: I think OSC's article assumes a responsible public-- which is the real problem.
I think that nails the issue straight on. Most people either don't know what is happening, or don't care. The size of the student population as a proportion of the total population of the district matters too. Sometimes you get a district with a lot of people, but not many students, so the people with no kids don't care, and don't want to contribute. Until people feel like a better school system will benefit them, sans kids, they won't get involved.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know this is a tangent, and I beg indulgence for it. (I am stereotypically INTP and dither away on the most irrelevant details all the time.)
quote:But apart from obvious clues like that, what do we know? Kennedy was able to hide his sexual predations and his medical condition and the fact that he was drugged six ways from Tuesday to deal with the pain.
Anyone know anything about what medical reason was given for JFK being "drugged six ways from Tuesday to deal with the pain?" My understanding was that he had Addison disease -- an insufficiency of the adrenal gland -- but any symptoms should have been mitigated by titrating the replacement doses of glucocorticoids and mineralocorticoids.
Did he have an additional diagnosis that I'm unaware of? Or is this something about Addison's that I just didn't know? Any JFK fanatics out there?
quote:The recent revelation that President John F. Kennedy concealed his severe illnesses appears quite shocking and appalling from our modern perspective. As reported by the historian Robert Dallek, Kennedy had severe chronic back pain that led him to take a series of strong, potentially sedating medications. Kennedy also used stimulants and drugs to lower his anxiety level. Finally, he concealed his Addison's Disease, or failure of the adrenal glands, that forced him to take chronic steroids.
Huh. I had no idea! I wonder if the lower back pain was secondary to osteoporosis -- maybe his replacement does of glucocorticoids was too high? Curious.]
posted
Irami-- do you think that OSC's plan would work in inner cities? Would minorities benefit from having touchable elected officials?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Irami-- do you think that OSC's plan would work in inner cities? Would minorities benefit from having touchable elected officials?
Nope. Minorities in inner cities would benefit from having great teachers and good books, and male role models who aren't in jail, aren't breaking their back to pay rent, and aren't hustlers. Sure, there is a disconnect between the civic institutions and the people, but I'd rather have one authoritarian from Choate setting the curriculum(since we are talking about Kennedy) who knew what the hell he was doing, than a school board full of over-worked neighbors who really didn't do that well in school themselves and don't really know the importance of education. It doesn't matter where the politicians come from, or even how touchable they are, as long as they are good. In this case, the devil you know is worse than the Kennedy you don't.
There is a sense in which this is Ownership Society idea. Assuming that the smaller, more intimate the school districts, the bigger the stake the individuals are going to have in it, and the better it's going to run. That's fine, but it also assumes that there is a mass of competent and energetic community out there without better things to do, and I just don't know if that's true. Maybe if there was a plan. A rigorous national standard, and local districts were the ones to figure out how to implement it. In theory, that's what NCLB is supposed to do. The problem, in my estimation, is the make up of the test, as kids I see need to learn responsibility, dignity and virtue, damn the fractions. But I'm going too far afield.
______
Since we are doing tangents.
Douthat who wrote an Article about Harvard Grade inflation in the current Atlantic Monthly. You can't get the whole article on line without a subscription, but he made a few really cogent points about a false meritocracy that's foisted upon students, whereas children of previous generations could proudly, with social acceptability, rely on family money or social connections to land them jobs, so they were comfortable with getting Cs, Harvard's grade inflation is a mark that companies are looking to some standard, any standard, even a bad standard to make a claim that the US is a meritocracy, so now Harvard just raises grades.
posted
Scott R, in Cleveland at least inner city residents do have a "touchable" electorate. All the people that serve on City Council have to live in the district they represent. The mayor has to live in the city limits (she of course doesn't live in a neighborhood that is representative of most of Cleveland, however). Has it helped? While not one leader to 1000 people, it is "local." Cleveland is ranked at the bottom of the heap in just about every area a city can be rated.
OSC couldn't resist the usual jabs at his fellow Democrats (insert snicker here). We Democrats were too hard on Nixon (who actually did something criminal) but too soft on Clinton (who didn't). Yeah. Funny.
It is like others have said on here already...it comes down to the electorate having to get up off their collective hienies and doing something. Sadly, we have entered into an era that is seriously looking like a retread of the 80's "Me Generation" where personal wealth, status and property were more important than just about anything else. Very contrary to that drug addled sex fiend who in the 60's inspired a nation when he said "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
Now it is more like, "What have you done for ME lately?"
posted
Scott, lastly, it's not about community influence in the school. It's not about voting for my friends running for office. It's about the job being competently done. If there is some mega-school district that couldn't give a darn what my opinion is as a parent, or even had the audacity to tell me what my opinion should be, but did well by my kid, who cares?
Fil may be on to something that there is something small in the me me me focus in this push for smaller towns, and I wonder how much of this is putting the insecurity of the parent ahead of the well-being of the child.
posted
To argue the opposite side of it for a second, I think that if a group like a school board doesn't care one way of another what a parent has to say about the education of their own children, the chances if them doing a good job with that child aren't high.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
