Why Chuck Should Start a (Local) Tea Party


Erik Kain

Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the contributor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

13 Responses

  1. Avatar ThatPirateGuy says:

    And people wonder why I find localism to be evil.

    Everywhere I look the local politicians do so much more harm than the national because people look at the national politicians.Report

    • Avatar North says:

      @ThatPirateGuy, We must be thinking of different definitions of localism.Report

    • @ThatPirateGuy, Might this not be a good argument for localism, though? In other words, a devolution of power from the federal to the local would give people reason to focus more on their local officials than on national officials, and thereby hold local officials more accountable.

      To be sure, I remain a strong skeptic of localism, but I think there’s something to be said for a system that deemphasizes national elections in favor of local ones.Report

      • Avatar ThatPirateGuy says:

        @Mark Thompson, ‘

        I don’t think that people have that capacity. When am I supposed to find out about these local candidates? Local elections are so invisible that I often don’t even know what party the candidate is for. I don’t think I could find 1 person that could name a councilman or board-member of any sort in my social circle. But I can find so many that have quite intense views about national ones.Report

        • Avatar North says:

          @ThatPirateGuy, Yes Pirate, but here’s the question. Are local politicians invisible because of something inherent to local politicians and thus are able to pass all these choking regulations by benefit of that invisibility?
          Are local politicians invisible because all the high profile stuff is in state and national politics and thus no one pays attention to the locals and this lets them get away with all of this kind of crap?

          If it’s the former, then of course putting power more into local hands (localism) would be a bad thing. If it’s the latter then localism would actually improve things by drawing scrutiny to local politics.Report

        • Avatar RTod says:


          Still, that seems to be almost a matter of personal choice. I may be living in a dream world, but I have a sense that if I were to push hard enough with a better solution, I could help initiate change in my neighborhood, city and even county. But on a federal level, there’s no way I could even be given a change to talk to the guy who knows a guy who’s ever worked for a guy that actually has a seat at The Table – and even if I could, I couldn’t counteract the millions of dollars from status quo interests I’d be fighting to overcome.Report

        • Avatar JosephFM says:

          @ThatPirateGuy, You know, Pirate, it’s not like it’s especially hard to pick up a friggin newspaper. If your circle are ignorant of local politics, it’s because they’re not paying attention. Now, I’m on the record as believing a certain amount of corruption is endemic to all politics, so I definitely would not argue that decentralization would reduce the total amount by that much. But it’d help somewhat, I’m sure.

          (Of course, in saying this I’m totally self-interested, as I’ve worked a lot in local politics).Report

  2. Avatar Plinko says:

    I think the core problem with local issues is largely that most of us elect way too many local and state officials. Whatever bucket of attention people are willing to devote to politics is going to largely be devoted to national issues, then after that to their major state elections. What little is left has to be divided among a cavalcade of local and state officials. The unintended side effect of all this electing is that no reasonable body of citizens can keep track of how all these officials are doing. It’s easy for rent-seekers to influence the elections and the office holders when so little attention is paid to their elections and actions in office.

    This is why I’ve always abhorred the the concept of Federalism as a cure-all for our national ills. Shifting more decision-making power to the state level just spreads responsibility across even more elected state officials and bureaucrats that necessarily receive less scrutiny than national ones and therefore must be even more susceptible to corruption.

    In my dreams we eviscerate state governments to the minimum in favor of more powerful local governments with the ability to do some regional cooperation as needed, narrow the scope of local elected officials and let the national bodies handle whatever is needed beyond that.Report

  3. Avatar TKOEd says:

    Here we have a great example of “all politics is local.” So many people talk about how they hate govt and/or hate having to interact with govt, but almost never realize that the govt that’s there biggest problem is their local one. Folks rail againt the fed gov for all sorts of things the the fed gov doesn’t control. Tea Partiers march on Washington when they should be marching on their City Hall.Report

  4. Avatar Barbara says:

    I realize that the suggestion of starting a nonprofit was tongue-in-cheek. But I’d like to point out that starting a nonprofit is a regulatory nightmare. It requires a pile of paperwork three feet high, very tricky disclosures and mission statement (get it wrong and you are cooked; there’s no way to fix it later), and a whole lot more. This is not a do-it-yourself project, and it’s generally necessary to hire a lawyer. The process often takes about a year.

    If somebody finds the process of starting a for-profit business burdensome, starting a nonprofit is absolutely not a reasonable option.Report

  5. Avatar Bruce says:

    Um, just going with the first example, Milwaukie — would you want your next-door neighbor in a residential neighborhood to be taking and making commercial deliveries from his garage? Zoning exists for a reason.Report