Last year around this time (and the year before that), I was arguing with some of my fellow conservatives about the insanity of finding any common cause whatsoever with the so-called alt-right. The issue wasn’t that every avowed nationalist who claimed membership in the alt-right was a Nazi or Klansman. It was that the alt-right was open to Nazis and Klansmen. And why wouldn’t these newly minted white supremacists welcome such pioneering organizations to their cause?
Right-wing cynics, hucksters, and opportunists deliberately blurred these distinctions in the name of a right-wing popular front. Steve Bannon, now a White House consigliere, is by most accounts not a bigot in his personal dealings. But when he ran Breitbart, he had no problem making it a “platform” for the alt-right. Internet entertainer Milo Yiannopoulos was a Breitbart star for his defenses of the alt-right and its supposedly hilarious Holocaust jokes. He was let go (and disinvited from the Conservative Political Action Conference) only when it was revealed he was equally broad-minded about some expressions of pedophilia as he was about some expressions of Nazism.
Win what? Well, that varied. At first it was the war on the “establishment,” including Fox News. Then one alleged civil war on the right or another. And, ultimately, the fight to get Donald Trump the nomination and the presidency.
As the primaries wound down, the imperative for unity intensified. Why look under rocks when you can use them as stepping stones to victory? Besides, Trump was making it as clear as possible that he welcomed support and praise from any quarter.
Whatever its status at the White House, the alt-right thinks it will replace the traditional Right. It won’t, for the simple reason that the vast, overwhelming majority of conservatives are patriotic and decent, just like Americans generally. They don’t want anything to do with people who want to overthrow the Constitution and set up racial Bantustans.
No, the real threat to traditional conservatism is the mindset that made it possible to form even a theoretical alliance with the alt-right in the first place: the idea that winning and fighting are self-justifying.
Over the last decade, many on the right have convinced themselves that the real problem with conservatism is a lack of will. They admiringly quote left-wing activist Saul Alinsky and claim that “we” have to be like “them” by doing whatever is necessary to “win.”
During the campaign, when Trump attacked the ethnicity of an American judge or the parents of a fallen Muslim U.S. soldier, the response from his defenders on the right was usually, “At least he fights!”
Such amorality was warranted, many explained, because if Clinton had won, America would be “over.” National-security official Michael Anton, then writing from the safety of anonymity, dubbed it a “Flight 93 election” and argued that conservatives must do anything for victory or accept certain death. In an interview with New York magazine, Anton went further. “If we must have Caesar,” he said, “who do you want him to be? One of theirs? Or one of yours (ours)?”
The election is over. Yet that spirit not only endures, it has intensified. Trump’s conservative critics, or “apostates” as Conrad Black calls us, face the same ultimatum. “The choice, for sane conservatives,” Black writes, “is Trump or national disaster.” Black is hardly alone in making this or similar cases. The upshot of them all is that the test for “sane” (or real or good or true) conservatives is loyalty to the president, not to any coherent body of ideas or ideals. Even truth takes a back seat.
I’d point out that such thinking could invite the worst and most opportunistic creatures to infiltrate the movement. Except they already have.
-
No comments on The right vs the alt-right
-
How can two songs be the number one song in the country today in 1956? Do a Google search for the words “B side”:
(Those songs, by the way, were the first Elvis recorded with his fantastic backup singers, the Jordanaires.)
Today in 1962, the Beatles made their debut with their new drummer, Ringo Starr, following a two-hour rehearsal.
-
Because I am, as Charlie Sykes once called me, a “media ho,” I will be on the radio three times over the next two days.
I will start by being on Wisconsin Public Radio’s Ideas Network’s Joy Cardin Week in Review segment Friday at 8 a.m. for one of the last times. (Cardin announced earlier this week she’s retiring; her last show will be Sept. 29.)
As I’ve said for almost a decade, Joy Cardin and all the other Ideas Network programming can be heard on WLBL (930 AM) in Auburndale, WHID (88.1 FM) in Green Bay, WHWC (88.3 FM) in Menomonie, WRFW (88.7 FM) in River Falls, WEPS (88.9 FM) in Elgin, Ill., WHAA (89.1 FM) in Adams, WHBM (90.3 FM) in Park Falls, WHLA (90.3 FM) in La Crosse, WRST (90.3 FM) in Oshkosh, WHAD (90.7 FM) in Delafield, W215AQ (90.9 FM) in Middleton, KUWS (91.3 FM) in Superior, WHHI (91.3 FM) in Highland, WSHS (91.7 FM) in Sheboygan, WHDI (91.9 FM) in Sister Bay, WLBL (91.9 FM) in Wausau, W275AF (102.9 FM) in Ashland, W300BM (107.9 FM) in Madison, and of course online at www.wpr.org.
My opponent will be Scot Ross of One Wisconsin Now.
Since as you know I always seem to appear around holidays, this appearance may be in commemoration of Birth Control Pills Day, Helium Discovery Day, National Bad Poetry Day, National Fajita Day, National Ice Cream Pie Day, National Soft Ice Cream Day, or perhaps National Men’s Grooming Day.
Less than 12 hours later I will be announcing my first high school football game of the season — Benton/Scales Mound, the nation’s first two-state co-op team, against Potosi/Cassville, a brand new co-op team, at superhits106.com. That will be followed less than 18 hours later by the first game in the Six Rivers Jamboree, Belmont and North Crawford from UW–Platteville, on ESPN Radio AM 1590 WPVL.
-
With a vote on the Foxconn incentive package reportedly set to take place today, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute looks at the pros and cons of what is likely to be approved today:
Much of the discussion thus far about Foxconn Technology Group bringing an LCD screen manufacturing plant to southeastern Wisconsin has focused on the deal itself and the money that could flow out of — and eventually into — our state Capitol.
That’s important, and we synopsize the key numbers below. But the sheer size and scope of the deal raises unprecedented questions about everything from job creation and impacts on economic growth in the decades ahead to how free markets and economies work best, most fairly and efficiently, for everyone in the long term.
There are smart people coming down on both sides of this one, and the divergence of opinion stems at least partly from how far down the road (no, not just I-94, though that’s a question as well) one thinks he or she can clearly see.
As a key analysis of the deal by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau states, “Technological advances and changes in Foxconn’s market share, operating procedures or product mix could significantly affect employment and wages at the proposed facility over time.”
The impending legislative decision — the Assembly is expected to vote Thursday, but no vote has yet been scheduled in the Senate — will require peripheral vision as well, and that’s always the blurriest. Proponents call the deal “transformational.” Opponents worry about the precedent it would set and all the other roads and businesses that exist — or might want to — in other parts of our unique state.
To help shed light on a complex deliberation, we’ve asked three of the smartest economists in Wisconsin (or with Wisconsin roots) to share their thoughts prior to action in Madison. Their initial takes — one skeptical, one largely sanguine and one against — are summarized below, along with an analysis of the prospects for Taiwan-based Foxconn and LCD technology.
Why Wisconsinites should be skeptical by Andrew Hanson
Taxpayers should ask, “Is this a good deal for us?” Among the reasons why it’s not: The billions of state dollars could be used for economic development with a better track record, the economic-multiplier estimate for the Foxconn plant is extremely generous and the deal sets an ill-advised precedent for other large employers in Wisconsin.Fiscal costs certain, but a potential for large gains by Noah Williams
The high upfront costs must be weighed against the potential that Foxconn may help Wisconsin develop as a hub of high-tech manufacturing, which could generate gains far beyond the direct jobs created.There are better ways to create jobs and growth by Ike Brannon
Governments aren’t very good at figuring out which businesses are likely to grow and which are likely to fail. What governments can do is create an environment that’s conducive to small and medium-sized businesses to invest, grow and expand.What will the future of LCDs mean for Wisconsin? by Robert S. Anthony
Will technology inside the plant be obsolete the day it opens? While Foxconn has shown itself to be a smart and agile company, its future here depends on how it reacts to the ever-evolving display industry.Finally, we synopsize key points being made by Tim Sheehy, president of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce and, in the interest of full disclosure, a Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Board member.
Sheehy concedes that in general there is risk in granting individual corporate economic incentive packages in a market-based economy. But he argues that for most every state, incentives are a necessary tool in the competition for jobs and capital investment and asks, “What is Wisconsin supposed to do, disarm?”
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau memo, worth reading in its entirety, includes a wide variety of points:
• Foxconn agrees to build a $10 billion facility over six years and create up to 13,000 jobs, with a reported average salary of $53,875.
• The state will provide up to $3 billion through two types of tax credits (which can mean cash payments) and a construction sales tax exemption. Foxconn could be eligible for the maximum if employment reaches 13,000 positions by 2021 and remains at that level.
• A Foxconn payroll tax credit over 15 years would relate to any employee with wages of at least $30,000 and up to $100,000. It could amount to $1.5 billion.
• A Foxconn capital expenditures credit would be paid over seven years and could amount to $1.35 billion.
• It is believed that Foxconn would be able to claim the 7.5 percent manufacturing and agriculture credit.
• The bill would create a sales and use tax exemption. Based on estimated capital expenditures of $10 billion, Foxconn and its contractors would save $139 million. “However, since it is highly unlikely that Foxconn would locate in the state without the incentives provided under the bill, this amount should not be viewed as a state revenue loss,” notes the LFB analysis.
• The state could make up to $10 million in grants to local governments for development costs related to infrastructure and public safety.
• The bill would authorize $252 million in bonds for use in the I-94 North-South corridor project. If fully issued, estimated general fund-supported debt service payments on the bonds would be $408 million.
To estimate how long it will take for state government to recoup its investment, the LFB made a variety of assumptions. Much of the following is taken directly from the LFB analysis:
• Average annual employment of approximately 10,200 construction workers and equipment suppliers earning an average total compensation of approximately $59,600 (including benefits) per year during the four-year construction period.
• Nearly 6,000 indirect and induced jobs created during the construction period, with an average total compensation of $48,900.
• Indirect and induced construction-period jobs generating increased state tax revenues equal to approximately 6.3 percent of the additional gross wages.
• Indirect and induced jobs associated with the project totaling 22,000 beginning in 2021. Average annual wages for these individuals are estimated at approximately $51,000. Total ongoing wages are estimated at $1.12 billion annually, and related state taxes are estimated at $71 million per year. Smaller impacts are estimated in calendar years 2017 through 2020 as the project ramps up. (A new report paid for by the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. adjusted job-creation estimates outside the plant, with fewer long-term jobs expected but more short-term jobs expected during construction.)
The LFB analysis says: “Based on these figures, DOA projects that the cost of the refundable state tax credits under the bill will exceed the potential increased tax revenues until fiscal year 2032-’33. As of the end of that year, the cumulative net cost of the incentive package is estimated at $1.04 billion. Beginning in 2033-’34, payments to the company would cease and increased state tax collections are estimated at $115 million per year.
“DOA estimates that the project’s break-even point would occur during the 2042-’43 fiscal year.”
“It should be noted,” according to the LFB, “that the analysis focuses only on the impacts of the Foxconn project on the state treasury, but does not account for other benefits to the state’s economy and residents.” These include Foxconn’s $10 billion investment, employment opportunities for the state’s workforce and adding a new sector to Wisconsin’s manufacturing economy.
MMAC’s perspective
The Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce points to this bigger picture. MMAC says tax revenue is only one long-term measure — wages and benefits paid to Wisconsin workers during construction and during operation of the complex should also be considered.
• During construction: Based on a $10 billion capital investment, the project would create over 10,200 new jobs for prime and sub-contractors and equipment suppliers; over 1,700 jobs for suppliers and another 4,200 jobs that would result from new household expenditures — a total of over 16,200 jobs with $3.6 billion in labor income over the four-year construction period, according to an EY Quantitative Economics and Statistics analysis, paid for by Foxconn.
• During operation: If Foxconn employment reaches 13,000, the EY analysis projects over 11,400 jobs among suppliers. The household spending from those direct and indirect jobs would produce another 10,800 jobs. The total ongoing job impact could reach over 35,200 and total annual labor income of $2 billion, under those assumptions.
Ultimately, according to MMAC, a $10 billion Foxconn investment with 13,000 jobs could have a cumulative impact of $78 billion to Wisconsin’s gross domestic product over 15 years.
WPRI has an underlying and guiding belief in the efficacy and promise of free markets and limited government that allows the private sector to flourish. We espouse sound public policy that ensures opportunity and enables prosperity. Our function today — and in the weeks ahead — is to provide the best information possible to legislators, who are being asked to make one of the most important and impactful decisions of their careers. We urge them to consider all potential benefits and ramifications before voting.
These are legitimate points. An excerpt from Brannon:
In my first year as a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh in the mid-1990s, I had a colleague who spent his summers consulting for a small tech firm with a couple hundred employees called Epic Systems. At the time, the state was vigorously giving subsidies to manufacturing companies to come to the state or not leave the state, while benignly ignoring companies like Epic.
Today, Verona-based Epic employs nearly 10,000 people, most of whom live and work in the state and most of whom have skilled, well-paying jobs that any state would kill to attract.
There are better ways to attract new jobs than to give billions of dollars to one large manufacturer. The state can do more to attract entrepreneurs.
A lower tax rate on businesses would be one way to do this. And doing more to encourage foreign-born students — who are much more likely to start businesses than U.S. born-students — to remain in Wisconsin would pay dividends in the long run, I believe.
Neither reform would produce immediate returns, but they would plant the seeds for the next Epic Systems and leave the state less dependent on the fortunes of one company or industry.
Brannon doesn’t point out that Epic is in Verona and not Madison, where it began, because Verona gave Epic tax incentives to move that Madison refused to give. Paul Soglin won’t mention that in his potential loss for governor.
Brannon is correct though naïve because he doesn’t mention how politics works. Encouraging foreign-born students to remain here misses the fact that the Trump administration is trying to slam the door on immigration. There is, sadly, no real support for severely reducing business taxes even in the supposedly pro-business GOP. When politicians feel they must make pledges of job creation to get and stay elected, well, that’s how we have the system we have today.
Illegitimate points are illustrated by Sen. Van Wangaard (R–Racine):
M.D. Kittle brings up an illegitimate issue brought up by opponents:
Opponents of Wisconsin’s potentially massive economic development deal with Foxconn Technology Group like to point to Pennsylvania’s tale of heartbreak at the hands of the Taiwanese tech giant.
That’s certainly how the Washington Post painted the picture earlier this year when Foxconn, in the first few weeks after President Trump’s inauguration, announced it plans to invest billions of dollars in the United States and create as many as 50,000 jobs.
In 2013, the post reported, Foxconn Chairman Terry Gou pledged to build a $30 million factory in Pennsylvania’s capital, Harrisburg, and hire 500 workers.
“But the factory was never built. The jobs never came,” the Post morbidly reported.
True. The deal didn’t go down.
But the story, and others like it, left out some very important details, according to a guy who has gotten to know Gou and Foxconn over the past several months: Gov. Scott Walker.
In a key way, Foxconn didn’t leave Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania left Foxconn, according to administration officials.
After Democrat Tom Wolf unseated Republican Gov. Tom Corbett in 2014, Foxconn saw the writing on the wall, Walker said.
“In the case of Pennsylvania, they changed leadership, they changed who the governor was,” Walker told MacIver News Service Tuesday on the Vicki McKenna Show, on NewsTalk 1130 WISN in Milwaukee.
“I jokingly, but only half jokingly, say, it’s probably a pretty good reason not to change who the governor is for the next few years,” Walker, who is expected to run in 2018 for a third term, added.
The Badger State’s proposed $3 billion incentives package would no doubt play a big part in sealing Foxconn’s plan to build a $10 billion high-tech manufacturing campus in southeast Wisconsin – a development project that could ultimately create 13,000 jobs at what would be Foxconn’s first North American manufacturing operation.
But Walker said Wisconsin offers Foxconn intangible benefits that other states cannot, chief among them, stability.
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, billed as “The most liberal Governor in America,” brought into office an agenda of big tax increases and stiffer government regulations on business.
“The idea that the new governor, with new terms, a new potential business climate, might come in, was something that was a grave concern for (Foxconn), and so they backed away,” Walker said.
Foxconn, too, slowed its investment in Brazil, as the South American nation reeled under corruption and the impeachment and removal of its president.
That point, too, is not noted in the Washington Post story, which all but accuses Foxconn of being a deadbeat business. Foxconn, according to the newspaper, “spoke of a $10 billion plan in 2011” in Brazil.
“In Brazil, Foxconn has an iPhone factory, but its investment has fallen far short of expectations,” the Post reported.
Gou has made it clear that Foxconn needs to be in the United States. The proposed southeast Wisconsin operation would make super-high-definition liquid crystal display panels to be used in various industries. The United States remains the largest consumer market in the world, and “Made in the U.S.A.” is critical to Foxconn’s growth prospects, the chairman told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel late last month.
Gou pointed to Wisconsin’s advantageous geographical location, its transportation and logistics strengths, and its vibrant university and technical college system. He said Wisconsin has the assets to again become a center of manufacturing.
“You have a good foundation,” he told the newspaper.
Walker said Foxconn wanted to be in the middle of the United States, near a major market like Chicago, “but not in the state of Illinois.”
“Rather, in a state like Wisconsin, where we balance budgets, we have a fully funded pension system, we have a rainy day fund that’s 165 times bigger than when we took office, we have a business climate that went from the bottom 10 to the top 10,” Walker said.
The Washington Post piece suggests Gou and Foxconn are nothing more than big corporate teases — that Pennsylvania isn’t the only state that has loved and lost a potential Foxconn development deal.
But, as Walker administration officials have pointed out in recent weeks, if Pennsylvania truly was broken-hearted about Foxconn’s departure, why was it so heavily courting the deal that Wisconsin appears to be on the brink of landing? Pennsylvania was noted as several states in the running for the Foxconn project.
What’s not been widely reported is the fact that Gou’s $10 million commitment to Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh for robotics research didn’t end after the Pennsylvania economic development deal fell apart.
“Foxconn said its $10 million donation … was ‘moving forward very successfully,’ with half of the funds having been spent four years later,” the Washington Post reported.
Walker blames politics for the half-truths about Foxconn in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
“As we know with other issues, there are some people who are so bothered by the idea that we might have success here, particularly because they somehow think it might be beneficial to me or to some future campaign,” the Republican governor said.
“The bottom line is this is just good for Wisconsin.”
The most important point to be made is that none of what is in the Foxconn package is money the state would have were it not for Foxconn. There would be no infrastructure spending and no tax breaks if Foxconn wasn’t coming to this state. This is money that does not exist right now.
-
One of three national debt-rating firms, Moody’s Investors Service, has upgraded Wisconsin’s debt a notch.
Befitting a candidate preparing for a re-election campaign, Governor Scott Walker called this “historic” news driven by “bold reforms and accountable stewardship of the taxpayer’s dollar…[It] shows that Wisconsin is working.”
Added Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke, “[C]onservative reforms and fiscal responsibility are translating into a stable and accountable future for Wisconsin’s finances…[O]ur reforms are working for Wisconsin.”
Of course the party in power will credit itself with any positive development. So, in the spirit of this topic, I rate the Walker and Steineke statements as typical political exaggeration.
On examination, the debt upgrade falls rather short of being explained by “bold reforms.” And, of greater interest, are factors that could lead to a reversal, i.e., a future downgrade. As I will explain, early warning signals merit watching.
The upgrade by Moody’s groups Wisconsin with 18 states that are one notch below the top tier of 14 states. It remains to be seen whether the other two rating services (Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings) will follow suit. Currently, S&P rates Wisconsin in a group that is below 29 other states.
The explanation offered by Moody’s is as follows:
The upgrade…reflects the proven fiscal benefits of the state’s approach to granting and funding pension obligations when many other states are experiencing stress from rising costs and heavy liabilities; an economy that delivers steady but moderate growth; conservatively managed budgets; and adequate liquidity.
Of the four factors cited, Republicans can claim direct credit for “conservatively managed budgets.” (As for those who tout “the state’s approach to granting and funding pension obligations,” that reflects longstanding practices that pre-date the 2010 Republican takeover of state government.)
Things get interesting — and, for me, perplexing — when one looks at (1) the actual trajectory of the Wisconsin budget since 2010 and (2) factors that Moody’s says could lead to a downgrade. Specifically, two budgetary measures that Moody’s cites are moving in the wrong direction.
For conservatives, the 2011-13 state budget was a major step forward. Walker and the Legislature eliminated the “structural” budget deficit and moved away from one-time budget gimmicks that were a hallmark of the administration of former Governor Jim Doyle.
The record since then is decidedly less impressive. Campaign-driven budget measures have brought the structural deficit back to life. According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the forward looking structural imbalance reached nearly $1.8 billion after the 2013-15 budget and now stands at $1.1 billion.
Moody’s cautions that a debt downgrade could be prompted by a “return to structural budget imbalance…” As that clearly has happened, I asked Moodys to clarify. A spokesman said that “outyear budget gap projections are well under 5 percent of revenues which is typical of such forecasts…We weigh projected gaps against a state’s resources and its track record of [eventually] balancing budgets.” In other words, for Moodys the $1.1 billion projection is manageable. The caution about a “return to structural budget imbalance” likely harkens back to the sustained and larger deficits of the Doyle years.
A second caution factor that Moodys says could prompt a downgrade would involve “accelerated deterioration of the state’s financial position resulting in…larger GAAP-negative fund balances.” That refers to “generally accepted accounting principles,” a benchmark of a state’s fiscal position in light of projected obligations.
GAAP deficits soared under Doyle. Predictably, the return to fiscal sanity in the 2011-13 state budget reversed the Doyle trend. Just as predictably, the less prudent budgetary record since then has GAAP deficits back on the upswing. Walker’s proposed 2017-19 budget would boost that shortfall by about 30 per cent. (Walker pledged to eliminate the GAAP deficit in his 2010 campaign, a pledge that obviously came with an early expiration date.)
Moodys told me “the GAAP deficit is one area where Wisconsin does not compare well” with other states. It further observed that a portion of the deficit effectively is artificial (my word, not Moodys) because of difference in the state’s fiscal year and that of local governments that receive state aid.
At the risk of getting even more wonky, here are the state’s “GAAP-negative fund balances” for the last five years.
2012: -$2.63 billion
2013: -$2.34 billion
2014: -$2.02 billion
2015: -$2.44 billion
2016: -$2.39 billion
It remains to be seen what level of “acceleration” in those numbers would prompt Moody’s to revisit the Wisconsin debt rating.
The biggest reason for Walker’s backsliding on and Doyle’s ignorance of fiscal responsibility is that neither they nor any other politician in this state are required to be fiscally responsible. Despite six years of total Republican control in Madison there remains no Taxpayer Bill of Rights in the state Constitution to mandate spending and tax controls on every level of government, particularly state government. The requirement for a balanced state budget is on a cash basis, unlike every other level of government in this state, which must GAAP-balance their budgets. There are no referendum requirements for tas increases.
The school-district revenue caps are law. Laws can be changed. The only way to ensure real fiscal responsibility is to constitutionally require it.
-
The Beatles were never known for having wild concerts. (Other than their fans, that is.)
Today in 1960, the Beatles played their first of 48 appearances at the Indra Club in Hamburg, West Germany. The Indra Club’s owner asked the Beatles to put on a “mach shau.” The Beatles responded by reportedly screaming, shouting, leaping around the stage, and playing lying on the floor of the club. John Lennon reportedly made a stage appearance wearing only his underwear, and also wore a toilet seat around his neck on stage. As they say, Sei vorsichtig mit deinen Wünschen.
Four years later, the council of Glasgow, Scotland, required that men who had Beatles haircuts would have to wear swimming caps in city pools, because men’s hair was clogging the pool filters.
Today in 1968, the Doors had their only number one album, “Waiting for the Sun”:
-
I bet this opinion from RightWisconsin will stir up the lefties:
Wisconsin may not have statues dedicated to leaders of the Confederacy (we were on the good side), but we have a suggestion of a statue in desperate need of being taken down.
It’s time for the statue of Robert La Follette at the National Statuary Hall Collection in the U.S. Capitol to come down. While we’re at it, let’s remove the bust of La Follette from the Capitol in Madison as well. There will be protests. But let’s face it, the Progressive Era is over. Thank God.
Wisconsin is now a red state, won fairly by former Governor Tommy Thompson (three times), Governor Scott Walker (three times) and President Donald Trump. We re-elected a conservative senator in a presidential year, Ron Johnson, when every pundit said it couldn’t be done. The majority of our representation to Congress is conservative. Conservatives control the state Assembly and the state Senate with record numbers, and conservatives even control the state Supreme Court 5-2.
Ironically, the only remaining Democratic statewide office-holder is Doug La Follette, a poor relation and a pale shadow of the La Follettes past.
So why continue to honor Robert La Follette? Seriously, who would miss him?
Let’s start with the statue in Washington. Wisconsin has two statues at the U.S. Capitol, one of Fr. Jacques Marquette and the other of La Follette. La Follette is actually the only Wisconsin statue in National Statuary Hall while Marquette is somewhere else sulking about the lost Catholic mission of the university named after him.
To get rid of the La Follette statue, all it would take is for the Wisconsin legislature to pass a resolution, with the governor’s approval, suggesting an alternative. Then Congress’ Joint Committee on the Library would approve it and, voila, no more monument to Progressive politics. Given Republican control of Congress, how could they say no?
We can replace La Follette with a more deserving representative of Wisconsin: Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a native of Shorewood, WI. Rehnquist served for 33 years on the Supreme Court, 19 as Chief Justice. His role in shaping the conservative direction of the court is a legacy worth remembering for all time, and Wisconsin should be proud to have a statue of the Chief Justice representing the state in our nation’s Capitol.
As for the bust of La Follette in the state Capitol, the state should just box it up and send it to the Wisconsin Historical Society. Future tours of school children can play guess who is the grumpy old man. If we have to replace it, who better to honor than former Governor Tommy Thompson?
La Follette was Wisconsin’s governor and a U.S. senator, a presidential candidate, father of another governor and senator (and grandfather of former attorney general Bronson La Follette) and one of those atop the Progressive Era. The high school I went to has Fighting Bob’s bust in its library. (Why the La Follette teams were called the Lancers and not the Fighting Bobs is not something I can explain.)
About La Follette’s progressivism, a comment on RightWisconsin’s Facebook page says:
Yes. La Follette was one of the first communists to advocate stealing your money and mine to buy votes.
The Progressive Era is taught as a period in which government went back to the people instead of the moneyed interests, through, for instance, the 17th Amendment allowing direct election of U.S. senators instead of having them chosen by state legislatures, and primary elections instead of party candidates chosen in smoke-filled rooms. The latter process gave us Donald Trump. (Just saying.) The former is a favorite target of conservatives, but is unlikely to follow the 18th Amendment and be removed from the Constitution.
RightWisconsin doesn’t say why Fighting Bob should be condemned to the treatment of disfavored Soviet Union leaders, other than that, well, liberals aren’t in power in state government. (Despite one of Wisconsin’s U.S. senators and three of its U.S. representatives.) Political power comes and goes. Recall that the state Legislature swung from Republican control through most of the 2000s to Democratic control after the 2008 elections and then back to GOP control after the 2010 elections. It seems unlikely, to say the least, that Democrats will repeat their 2008 feat, but in these turbulent political times it’s not impossible.
The lefties will not tell you the numerous negatives of progressives, partly because self-analysis is not a strength of theirs, as shown in their post-2016 circular firing squad. The core belief of progressives from La Follette’s day is that man can be improved, and government and experts are the people to do it, and should have the authority to mandate improvement.
Whether or not you like primary elections, that accomplishment pales in comparison to the income tax, designed to separate people from their money to feed Govzilla on the concept that, yes, government and its experts know better than you what you need and what society needs.
If they only stopped there. Let’s go to Princeton University:
After the largest recession in history, a political movement comprising mostly white, small-town, Protestant voters grabbed the reins of power from elites under the banner of making America great.
Sound like 2016? Try 1900. And these weren’t conservatives. These were progressives. “They described it as a revolution, the likes of which the world had never seen,” says Thomas Leonard, a research scholar in the Humanities Council and a lecturer in economics at Princeton and author of Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics & American Economics in the Progressive Era(Princeton University Press). While corporations were checked and progressive presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson 1879 were voted in, the Progressive Era — 1900 to 1920 — was marred by a darker history of racism and xenophobia among its politicians. …
Leonard shows, however, that their policies were undergirded by social Darwinism and eugenics and excluded groups deemed inferior — including women, Southern- and Eastern-European immigrants, Catholics, Jews, and blacks.
“They wanted to help ‘the people,’ but excluded millions of Americans from that privileged category on the grounds that they were inferior,” he says.
Progressives pushed for voter registration, literacy tests, and poll taxes to mitigate fraud and corruption, bolstering the Jim Crow South. In 1913, they proposed a minimum wage to benefit skilled Anglo-Saxon workers by requiring immigrants to prove they had a job paying that wage to enter the country.
Thomas Sowell adds:
An influential 1916 best-seller, ‘‘The Passing of the Great Race” — celebrating Nordic Europeans — was written by Madison Grant, a staunch activist for Progressive causes such as endangered species, municipal reform, conservation and the creation of national parks.
He was a member of an exclusive social club founded by Republican Progressive Theodore Roosevelt, and Grant and Franklin D. Roosevelt became friends in the 1920s, addressing one another in letters as ‘‘My dear Frank” and ‘‘My dear Madison.’‘ Grant’s book was translated into German, and Adolf Hitler called it his Bible. …
Progressive intellectuals who crusaded against the admission of immigrants from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, branding them as genetically inferior, included many prominent academic scholars — such as heads of such scholarly organizations as the American Economic Association and the American Sociological Association.
Southern segregationists who railed against blacks were often also Progressives who railed against Wall Street. …
Wilson introduced racial segregation into the government agencies where it didn’t exist at the time, while Republican President Calvin Coolidge’s wife invited the wives of black congressmen to the White House. As late as 1957, civil-rights legislation was sponsored in Congress by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.
Later, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was sponsored by Democrats, a higher percentage of congressional Republicans voted for it than did congressional Democrats. Revisionist histories tell a different story. But, as Casey Stengel used to say, ‘‘You could look it up” — in the Congressional Record, in this case.
Another progressive was Margaret Sanger, who said …
“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”
“Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks— those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”
“I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world that have disease from their parents, that have no chance to be a human being, practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit.”
“As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation…. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”
Two progressives with Wisconsin ties were fans of eugenics as well. John R. Comons, an advisor to La Follette, was described thusly here:
One result of our study is that, in his analysis of institutional dynamics in the United States, Commons’ rejection of laissez-faire is derived from a racist analytical framework: the “superior races” should be protected from the “inferior races”. Another result is that Commons adopts a neo-Lamarckian framework which takes education as the basis for the assimilation of “inferior races”. This article then shows that policies often defended as progressives, as education policies, may be derived from racist foundations.
A Wisconsin State Journal story about the strange history of Alma includes this:
And even a University of Wisconsin luminary such as Charles Van Hise, as president of the university, gave lectures in which he supported eugenics as a way to conserve human resources. He said that “as a first very moderate step toward the development of the stamina of the human race, defectives should be precluded from continuing the race by some proper method.”
La Follette’s position on eugenics is unknown. There is considerable evidence that La Follette didn’t have the same racist views as other progressives. However, his economic views are not an endorsement of the progressive era. Christian Schneider in 2012 chronicled progressivism:
“I believed then, as I believe now, that the only salvation for the Republican Party lies in purging itself wholly from the influence of financial interests,” wrote La Follette in his autobiography. But after 112 years of La Follette’s Progressive vision coming to fruition, it is worth considering: What now constitutes the state’s most powerful “financial interest”?
Government unions are a good place to start. While things like “public sector unions” and “women voting” were still dreams when La Follette was governor from 1901 to 1906, government unions now spend more than any other single group to affect campaigns in Wisconsin. And this spending is rarely intended to forge a new Progressive vision in Wisconsin. It is generally used to protect what the unions already have. …
One of La Follette’s many sworn enemies, Republican Gov. Edward Scofield, dismissed his rage against the party “machine” in 1900, predicting that government would one day become the same type of machine La Follette purportedly loathed. …
And in 2012, it was that machine of 284,963 Wisconsin state and local government employees and their spouses who sought to recall Scott Walker from the governorship, thereby attempting to overturn a popular election held little more than a year earlier. (The recall election is also a product of the Progressives, having been added to the state constitution in 1926 by La Follette loyalists.)
In his time as governor, La Follette could not have imagined the breadth and scope to which government would grow in Wisconsin. In 1899, the state spent $4.7 million on everything, from public education to universities, to the court system, to “insane county asylums.” (About 32 percent of all government was funded by railroad license fees.) That amounts to $121.5 million in 2012 dollars, or $58.73 per capita. This year, Wisconsin state government is scheduled to raise and spend around $32.4 billion, or $5,696.52 per capita.
The imposition of the nation’s first income tax in 1911 — and the commensurate revenue it produced — sparked an inexorable 100-year march toward government as the state’s largest employer:
Even in the past 35 years, government has become the primary employer for more and more Wisconsin citizens. Today, 71,552 more Wisconsinites are employed by state and local governments than in 1976, an increase of 33 percent.
All those new government jobs came with a cost; especially once Democratic Gov. Gaylord Nelson signed the nation’s first law allowing public sector collective bargaining in 1959. Within a decade, unionized teachers were participating in illegal strikes to force higher salaries and better benefits. As a result, Wisconsin passed a new landmark mediation-arbitration law that virtually guaranteed that teacher compensation couldn’t be cut.
Geographical-pattern bargaining strategies were perfected by the teachers union, forcing school districts to match the gaudy compensation packages passed in comparable districts around the state. By 2011, state government employee salary and benefit packages averaged $71,000. In the Milwaukee school district, average employee compensation soared to more than $100,000 per employee — for nine months of work.
In recent decades, the growth in the cost of government has exceeded the growth in the state’s economic output. In 1980, state spending accounted for 12.9 percent of the state’s gross domestic product. By 2010, that number had grown to 16.2 percent of Wisconsin’s GDP:
The financial cost to taxpayers is just the beginning. Bob La Follette stood on hundreds of stages, wagons and soapboxes upbraiding railroads for their monopolistic practices. The railroads, he argued, preyed on the public, soaked customers for excessive fees, then turned around and bought legislators with campaign contributions.
But now that party standard-bearers are picked through primary elections (thanks to “Fighting Bob”) and not backroom dealings, the most powerful monopoly that still exists can be found in the state’s public education system. …
It isn’t incumbent on you, as a Progressive, to learn that after two unsuccessful gubernatorial runs, Robert La Follette’s third campaign was funded almost entirely by wealthy U.S. Rep. Joseph Babcock, who thought bankrolling La Follette would catapult himself into the U.S. Senate. According to author Robert S. Maxwell, in La Follette and the Rise of Progressives in Wisconsin:
“La Follette also received valuable assistance from the leader of the congressional delegation, Joseph W. Babcock. This politically ambitious ex-lumberman had already served four terms in Congress and was seeking a larger field for his talents. He was quite aware of the disintegration of the Republican organization and sought to organize the machine to advance his own interests. Babcock was sure that his support of a La Follette ticket would be both popular and successful. It is probable that he thought he would be able to control the new governor and use the state organization to elevate himself to the senatorship.
“Events were to prove that he misjudged his candidate completely and vastly overestimated his own abilities, but during the campaign of 1900, Babcock’s financial assistance and organizing skill contributed greatly to its success.”
You aren’t expected to know that La Follette, in his 1900 campaign, completely changed course and positioned himself as a pro-corporate candidate to earn the approval of the public. When one supporter urged La Follette to talk about regulating railroad fees, La Follette bristled because of the backlash it might cause. …
You are also supposed to forget the black marks of Progressivism: the virulently racist eugenics of La Follette’s handpicked president of the University of Wisconsin, Charles Van Hise, who once said, “He who thinks not of himself primarily, but of his race and of its future, is the new patriot.” You have to forget that Progressives played a part in foisting Prohibition on the nation, an unforeseen effect of which was people either blinding or killing themselves by drinking substitute alcohol made of chemicals such as paint thinner.
What about La Follette and prohibition? La Follette and His Legacy, written by the UW–Madison La Follette Institute of Public Affairs, wrote:
Elected and reelected as Dane County District Attorney, he enhanced his reputation by doggedly prosecuting all types of offenders, especially drunkards and vagrants. Espousing the Republican belief in hard work to achieve self-sufficiency, La Follette had no sympathy for the lawbreakers.
But he also didn’t advocate any stiffer laws regarding alcohol use. Throughout his political career he avoided the divisive prohibition issue and instead concentrated on what he felt to be more weighty problems-oppression of individuals by powerful corporations, undemocratic decisionmaking and corruption in government, and foreign military actions by the national government.What Fighting Bob hath wrought is almost all negative. Bigger government has gotten us less freedom. Replacing the supposed monopoly power of wealth with the actual monopoly power of government is not an improvement. If you don’t believe in individual freedom, then it’s easy to take the next step and oppose freedom for those who don’t look like you. (Labor unions have opposed free trade and immigration for decades because they believed foreign-born workers would drag down their members’ wages.) The primary election, which seemed like a good idea at the time, gave us Donald Trump, and yet in the Democratic Party the smoke-filled rooms still gave Democrat Hillary Clinton, not the alleged people’s choice, Bernie Sanders. Prohibition gave us organized crime, and if La Follette didn’t go out of his way to support Prohibition, there is no evidence he publicly opposed it, in a state full of breweries.
I don’t support the whitewashing of history. Maybe La Follette’s bust should remain public view, but there needs to be a better explanation of how the Progressive Era was a step backward for this state and this nation.
-
Something called The Jack News writes:
A recent lawsuit in the Golden State has brought attention to an interesting, and mostly ignored, problem: California is simply too large of a state. …
But the lawsuit raises an enticing possibility: Has the time come to add more stars to Old Glory by breaking up the union’s biggest states?
Splitting Up States
Most discussion about potential new states, focus on the longstanding desires of America’s two most populous non-state territories: The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Statehood is a divisive question in Puerto Rico, however, and the status of the nation’s capital city raises complicated questions of sovereignty that could likely only be solved by constitutional amendment.
Creating new states out of existing ones, on the other hand, has a long history. The framers of the Constitution included a clause specifically allowing for it, with the consent of both Congress and the state or states concerned. Vermont, Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia were all carved out from existing states using this method.
Consent for West Virginia was, controversially, granted by the “restored” unionist government of Virginia during the height of the Civil War, but the legitimacy of that move has been long-settled. In each of the other cases, state legislatures responded to public demand by giving their consent, and Congress dutifully obliged. By exercise of democratic consent, America’s sovereign states can divide themselves, and sometimes they have.
Goldilocks States
Proposed movements to split existing states have a wide history; but not all such proposals have much chance of gaining traction. Adding a new member to the union requires not just the consent of the state being broken up, but also Congress, and Congress has usually had some broad principles in mind.
The first, and most important consideration, is population. As the United States expanded westward across the continent, Congress always required a minimum population before a territory could apply for statehood. Since becoming a state comes with two senators and at least one representative regardless of population, Congress is unlikely to ever approve a state less populous than the current 50thlargest, Wyoming (585,501 as of 2016). This also happens to be reasonably close to the size of the average U.S. House district, which is just over 700,000.
That rules out most of America’s territories outside of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, since the largest, Guam, has just under 160,000 residents. It likewise makes unlikely proposals like Superior, to make a new state from the upper peninsula of Michigan, or splitting a state like Colorado, which ranks 22nd in population of the states. The resulting states simply would not have enough people to justify the Constitution’s minimum federal representation.
The Big Five
Because of this aversion to low-population states, it is probable that only the nation’s largest and most populous states would be eligible for partition. Those also happen to be the states were movements for partition have been strongest, and a serious topic of debate over the years.
The five most-populated states and their 2016 population are, in order: California (39 million), Texas (27 million), Florida (20 million), New York (19 million), and Illinois (12 million). All are good potential candidates to carve out newer, smaller states.
California
California already hosts the oldest and most persistent partition movement, the would-be “State of Jefferson” that aspires to encompass far-northern California as well as adjacent parts of southern Oregon. There is also a persistent split between the central part of the state, centered around the Bay Area, and southern California centered around Los Angeles.
A recent proposal to split California into six states ended up failing and folding, largely because six was too ambitious a number, and the proposed borders too arbitrary. A state split into the three parts, however (with the northernmost possibly picking up part of Oregon) would neatly follow the existing political and cultural divisions.
Jefferson already has a suitable name, and several counties in the region have approved of it in referendums. There are many potential options for naming the other two; but for simplicity’s sake let’s call them North California and South California. Alternately, geographical features like “Sierra” or “Mojave” could provide each with a fresh start and a distinct identity.
Texas
Texas is unique in a lot of ways, but one of the most unusual is an obscure bit of trivia tucked into the joint resolution annexing the then-independent Republic of Texas in 1845. In order to sweeten the deal, Congress offered its pre-approval to for Texas to split itself into as many as five states.
Whether or not that offer still stands is unclear and debated among constitutional scholars. Texas has seen many partition proposals, but none ultimately overcame the state’s uniquely strong sense of identity.
The sprawling state encompasses many distinct regions; but the most common proposals have centered around the southwest portion of the state nearest the Mexican border. After the Civil War, it was briefly proposed to create a state named Lincoln from the parts of Texas between the Rio Grande and the Colorado River, roughly dividing the state in half.
A similar modern proposal, could perhaps result in a state of Rio Grande, extending from Brownsville to El Paso, and with its capital in San Antonio. The result would leave the more predominately Latino and Democratic parts of the state, free to govern themselves without being dominated by the rest of Texas’s overwhelming Republican supermajority.
Florida
Florida is another state where the cultural and political divide is stark between two regions: the predominantly conservative and Republican northern half of the state, versus the more Hispanic and Democratic south centered around Miami.
The idea of division has attracted enough support to be endorsed by county legislators in Ft. Lauderdale, and a handful of state legislators. It’s less clear where the border would be drawn. Which side would get Orlando, Tampa, and Cape Canaveral?
Central Florida is a culturally mixed region, politically purple, and home to some of the state’s most famous and valuable assets. While residents of the conservative panhandle on the one hand, and liberal Miami on the other, might relish being free of the other, there is no clear dividing line between them. Where exactly to draw the border, would probably end up being a contentious, and potentially unsolvable question.
If a fair border could be agreed upon, America’s most famous swing state might instead become one reliably red state and one reliably blue state. A repeat of the 2000 election fiasco, where a few hundred votes decided the state and thus the presidency, would be very unlikely.
New York
The Empire State has always housed two very distinct regions: the metropolis in and around New York City, and the rural bulk of the state’s landmass that has become known as Upstate New York.
On both sides of that divide, frustrations run high and proposals for a split have been persistent for decades. Upstaters chafe at the domination the city exercises by having the majority of the population, while residents of the five boroughs have little connection to places like Buffalo and Rochester.
If there is any metropolis that can make the case for its own statehood, it would be New York City’s eight million inhabitants. Extending that to include Long Island and the adjacent counties immediately north of the city, would push the population north of ten million.
Which half would get to keep the name “New York” could be debated, but to avoid confusion it would probably be best if that name stuck with the city that shares it. The rural rest of the state, perhaps picking a new name based on geography or the local Native American tribes, could govern itself without being overshadowed by the metropolitan neighbors. The state of Adirondack, or Mohawk, or Erie, or Hudson, could even put the question up to vote. After all, “upstate” would no longer work as a description.
Illinois
Illinois suffers from a similar dynamic as New York: a single dominating metropolis at one end, split from the predominantly rural and politically conservative rest of the state. Chicago’s sense of identity is drastically distinct from the rest of Illinois, to the degree that the city’s distinctive flag is a much more common sight on its streets than Illinois’s banner.
Partition already has a degree of perennial support, with legislators from both Chicago and “downstate” introducing bills to that effect in the legislature. The political calculus is obvious: Democrats who dominate Chicago could firmly control any new state built around it, and Republicans consigned to permanent minority status in southern and central Illinois would instead have a solidly red state to govern.
It’s not just politics, of course. There is a real social and cultural divide between diverse and cosmopolitan Chicago, and the vast stretches of small towns and farmland that occupy the rest of Illinois.
A recent survey even found that Illinois was the only state where a majority of its residents said they would move to a different state if they could. They might just have that option, without having to move at all. Like the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Illinois and Chicago could go through a velvet divorce that leaves both happier.
Two by two in the Senate
In the era before the Civil War, it was common practice to admit new free states and new slave states together in pairs, to maintain the precarious balance of power in the Senate. That is a practice that could be revived in the 21st Century, albeit in the much less troublesome context of partisan politics, instead of human bondage.
Past election results provide an easy and fairly reliable guide to guess the partisan tilt of any new state. Pairing likely-Republican and likely-Democratic states would be necessary to secure bipartisan buy-in at all levels of the decision, and solid majorities in favor in both the state and national legislatures.
The State of Jefferson, for example, would most likely give its two Senate seats as well as its electoral votes to the GOP. Splitting the rest of California in two, would produce two Democratic states from what had previously been one. Thus the net effect would be to add two Senators for both parties.
Florida, currently has one Republican Senator and one Democratic Senator. A split state would, most likely, send two from each party, for a neutral net effect. This same calculations can be played out elsewhere. Two new Republican Senators from upstate New York, could balance two new Democratic Senators from southwest Texas.
That kind of partisan horse-trading might sound unseemly, but it could be the necessary grease to arrive at a good policy result: state governments that are more representative, effectively providing localized laboratories of democracy. More states means more experimentation, and a stronger sense of federalism across the country.
There’s nothing magic about 50 states and 100 senators. It’s more than time for us to reopen the political debate about state sizes. Admitting six new states into the union, for the first time since 1959, would solve a multitude of state problems without upsetting our current national political balance.
David Blaska suggests the opposite, and has a map to match:
No county has ever merged with another. Now, apparently, Ozaukee and Washington Counties are raising the possibility. Both counties are populous (Ozaukee: 88,314; Washington: 134,296). Both counties are wealthy Republican exurbs of Greater Milwaukee. Which means they recognize the value of a dollar and are not in thrall to More and Bigger Gummint.
WTMJ-4 reports that Washington County, faced with budget troubles, is “thinking out of the box [including] dissolving county lines and completely merging with Ozaukee County.
“I know that if we go down this path, that guys like me don’t have a job but I’m good with that,” the Washington County administrator said.
His County has already saved $300,000 by merging its health department with Ozaukee and another hundred grand merging with the Waukesha County medical examiner.
The Washington County Administrator sent a letter to four of its neighboring counties, letting them know about their fiscal health status.
Of Wisconsin’s 72 counties, 71 had been formed by 1901 when most people moved by horseback. The Menominee reservation was carved out of Oconto and Shawano counties in 1959 to create its own county, in an experiment that failed. It was intended to wean it off reservation status but 35% of the 4,533 population are mired in poverty. Florence County (population: 4,423) and Menomonee (population: 4,232) are the two-least populous counties and have not a single incorporated village or city. For comparison purposes, Dane County is home to 531,273 (2010 Census).
The stickler is that all counties must provide the same array of services: law enforcement, roads, courts, health, general welfare, property records, etc. It’s a matter of economy of scale.
No county has ever merged, but they can
State law, specifically Chapter 59.08, provides for “consolidation” of counties, which is put to referendum. Let’s explore consolidation in low-population southwest Wisconsin, now divided among Grant (population: 52,214), Iowa (population: 23,654), and Lafayette (population: 16,753) for a combined 92,621. Lafayette was cleaved from Iowa County in 1846. You could argue: leave Grant alone. It’s large and fairly populous, but let’s go with the three-fer for this example.
County boards would take the lead. But if Lafayette’s county board remained silent, for instance, voters could petition for a referendum in their county. If its board still dragged its heels, a judge would appoint five citizens to work out the details with the merger partners. If the referendum on consolidation fails in any one of the counties, the whole deal goes down. Although long state law, no county has ever merged. Instead, most of our counties were cleaved from existing counties — originally just three in 1818: Crawford in the west, Brown in the east, and (encompassing the far north and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan) Michilimackinac.
The hard, cold numbers may argue for consolidation but emotions could scuttle the whole thing. First, what to call the new, consolidated county? Nothing wrong with “Iowa-Lafayette” county unless the Lafayetters insist on “Lafayette-Iowa.” You see the problem! But the three-county merger we have imagined includes Grant County. That calls for a completely new, neutral name. “Driftless County”? “Lead County”?
Who gets the courthouse?
But it raises the question even more likely to sabotage merger than the consolidated county’s name: which city gets the county seat?
That question is particularly poignant in our three southwest county seats. Lancaster, Dodgeville, and Darlington have glorious old courthouses and, frankly, not a whole lot else going for them. Could some functions continue in each courthouse? The law specifies that the courts be consolidated at the county seat. But could the referendum specify all three as county seats? Our reading of 59.08 does not seem to rule out that possibility.
Existing sheriff’s facilities could continue as precinct houses. Dane County has three such sheriff’s precincts outside of Madison. If new, modern jails would required, the merged county would need build only one, not three.
We could find no authorization to carve up one county between two neighbors, even though it would seem to make sense in some cases.
i am a resident of one of those indigo-colored counties (or is that periwinkie?), which, I was told upon full-time arrival 29 years ago, was larger than the state of Rhode Island. Since Blaska concedes that maybe Grant County shouldn’t be part of Tri-Indigo County, reuniting Iowa and Lafayette counties (the latter was created from the former before statehood), that would create a county larger in land area than Grant County, and yet would be smaller in population.
An outstanding weekly newspaper carried Blaska’s column and the editor’s brilliant response. (Beginning with the possibly surprising fact that Wisconsin has fewer counties than all our neighbors.) Whether or not you like Blaska’s idea generally or map specifically, certainly this state needs fewer, not more, lines between providers of government services. My favorite (if you want to call it that) example is the Fox Cities, which runs roughly from Neenah to Kankauna and includes parts of three counties, four cities, four villages, seven towns and several police departments and fire departments, despite the fact that two houses next to each other in the same neighborhood could be in different municipalities. The Fox Cities is a demonstration of how, if not why, this state has 3,120 units of government, second only to Illinois.
Somewhere in the mists of time is probably evidence that I once proposed merging towns that include cities within the original town boundaries — such as the City of Ripon and the Town of Ripon given that the latter has a police department whose purpose is only to generate town revenue by writing speeding tickets. Of course, people live in towns instead of cities because the former has something the latter lacks in their opinion. Usually, lower taxes.
The tricky subject is getting politicians to voluntarily merge their units of government and thus lose some of their political power. It’s not very federalist to mandate, for instance, Blaska’s map(re)making. But having 3,120 units of government fits no one’s definition of good government.
-
Today in 1962, the Beatles replaced drummer Pete Best with Ringo Starr. Despite those who claim Starr is the worst Beatle musically, the change worked out reasonably well for the group.
Today in 1970 was the second day of Woodstock:
-
A group of vile racists in Charlottesville, VA, planned a rally for Saturday, “Unite the Right,” in part to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. The protest was met predictably by a counter-protest, including by members of the “Antifa” movement, the left’s violent protest wing.
The Charlottesville newspaper, The Daily Progress, has the best description of the events of Saturday. We strongly recommend everyone read it to learn how both sides were prepared for violence. It’s still unclear how the violence broke out, although by most accounts the police were inadequate to the task of keeping the two sides separate. Given the desire for both sides for a confrontation, it was probably expecting too much of the police to keep order completely, and the city did try to change the venue to make the rally safer.
As the violence escalated, a state of emergency was declared and the rally, comprised of the KKK, Nazis, the “alt-Right,” and other racists, was canceled. Unfortunately, the violence didn’t end.
A young man from Ohio, James Fields, allegedly intentionally drove his car into the crowd of demonstrators, killing at least one person and injuring 19 others, an act of terrorism similar to terror vehicle attacks elsewhere. He is currently charged with second degree murder.
The day’s tragedies continued with the crash of a helicopter containing two state troopers who were monitoring the events on the ground. Both were killed.
The lesson some would draw from the events of Saturday is that free speech is too high a price to pay, that Nazis and other racists should not be allowed to have free speech, or for that matter anyone that the left deems unacceptable. Glenn Greenwald has an article in The Intercept defending the ACLU and its defense of the rally planners in Charlottesville after the city council tried to move the rally. As the article points out, the ACLU is no friend to the racist organizers of the rally, but they recognized (just as they famously did in Skokie, IL) that defending the right to unpopular, even racist hate speech, is defending the right to all speech. Unfortunately, that understanding, always fragile in America, is rapidy becoming lost.
And, on cue, groups like One Wisconsin Now (OWN) are already using the violence in Charlottesville to attack a bill in the Wisconsin legislature that would protect free speech on college campuses by punishing those that would disrupt the free speech of others. Of course, OWN is mischaracterizing the bill, claiming it would punish people for protesting. It does not. It only punishes those would try to prevent others from speaking.
Republican legislators should not be cowed by this tactic of a political left that wishes to preserve their ability to decide what speech can and cannot be protected, expressing that power through mob violence. As liberal writer Peter Beinart in the Atlantic points out, “Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state. But in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation.”
The real lesson of Charlottesville is that racist speech should be condemned loudly and often, but confronting the racist organizations with violence is not the answer. Because, as Beinart also points out, while attempting to suppress racist speech through violence, the left is becoming racism’s greatest ally in spreading the hate. The “alt-right” will just attract more adherents convinced that their speech needs to be defended by violence, too. In the escalating political fire, the First Amendment freedoms we cherish are those that will be at risk.
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 