For a Stateless American, Congress Is Where It’s At

By Janet McMahon

Seven years ago, I moved from Oregon to Washington, DC. I had known college classmates from the national capital—actually, come to think of it, they were from the “suburbs”—and I was vaguely aware that residents of our nation’s capital had a unique constitutional situation. I knew that, at some point, they had been allowed to vote for president, had been granted “home rule,” and had a non-voting congressional representative, or “delegate.” But if I thought that 3,000 miles was a great distance from the seat of power in this country, I was soon to appreciate the full meaning of the phrase, “so near and yet so far.”

George Bush was president in 1989, and Congress was solidly Democratic. I was, and remain, 100 percent opposed to Bush’s domestic policy: his attempt to devastate this country’s remaining wetlands drove me wild, for example. Closer to home, he used his authority over the District of Columbia to veto the use of DC’s own tax revenues—not the federal government’s—to help fund abortions for poor District residents.

And what was the Democratic Congress doing all this while? That pusillanimous body, still apparently in the habit of thralldom from the days of Ronald Reagan, failed to override a single veto until, late in the Bush presidency, it encountered the most crucial issue of all—cable TV rates. Please!!

As I became increasingly desperate, it became increasingly apparent that I had no representational recourse. Specifically, I could not call my senators or congressperson to demand that they oppose these measures, as I used to be able to do in Oregon. (Nor, of course, does this have anything to do with the quality of representation, since the District’s current, non-voting delegate is clearly one of the most capable people in Congress.)

It is the fact that I do not have voting representation in Congress that makes me a stateless American, and that has made me realize that, in virtually all areas of public policy, Congress, by right of its veto and budgetary powers, has the ultimate authority. The 1994 victory of Gingrich & Co. proves my point: Bill Clinton couldn’t beat them, so he has joined them. Thank you, Mr. President.

There is, of course, one area where the president does have significant autonomy, and that is foreign policy. Indeed, we have seen this autonomy in action in the successive administrations of George Bush and Bill Clinton.

There is no question what Clinton’s policy toward Israel will be should he be re-elected. The Israeli press hails him as the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history, and I don’t credit the idea that in a second term, he will see the light and reverse himself. Nor is there any question of congressional tendencies in that regard—at least, not to someone who has gone over pages and pages of Federal Election Commission printouts recording campaign contributions from pro-Israel political action committees to congressional incumbents.

But Americans who enjoy taxation with representation can elect a Congress that will reflect its domestic priorities, and a president to oversee U.S. foreign policy. That is an option to be fully appreciated and utilized, by electing a Congress that can get its act together. And if it doesn’t quite happen in 1996, there will be another opportunity in only two years.

So who am I going to vote for for president? Well, the last presidential election completed my political education as a stateless American. I realized that, no matter who I voted for, all of the District’s electoral votes (ah, democracy!) would, and perhaps forever will, go to the Democratic candidate. Washington, DC not being New York, NY, or Portland, OR, there is no larger entity to counterbalance this city’s political allegiance.

So I have selected my own candidate and am planning to write her name in when I vote for president. It’s my version of “none of the above.” But that’s a luxury that you don’t have.