Although i do not expect to change the mind of the several list members who so vigorously oppose the idea of the Minneapolis city council discussing any issue that is not completely confined within city boundaries, i will point out several flawed assumptions:
Flawed Assumption #1 - Taking positions on foreign policy issues means that city council members are not focusing on problems directly affecting the city. The two are not at all mutually exclusive. There is no reason why a hardworking city council member cannot spend full time on traditional city issues while also weighing in on momentus national and international issues that concern constituents. (Dean Zimmermann certainly does all of this. Barb Lickness' diatribe appears to be based on differences in political ideology, that leads her to disapprove of a council member balancing concerns about police abuse with singleminded concerns about crime. This is the same sort of ideological difference that would lead to hostility to connecting local issues to global problems). It was Minneapolis residents after all that urged the city council to pass a resolution on Iraq. Some residents are concerned with issues other than crime. Do we count? One of the Green Party's key values is Personal and Global Responsibility, which recognizes the connectedness of local and global issues. Flawed Assumption #2 - Federal issues should be addressed by federal officials. The point that federal policies affect what happens in the city, which was addressed in my previous post, and will be addressed again in response to Flawed Assumption #4. In addition, we also have the problem that federal elected officials are elected through a system that is dominated by money, and therefore have limited accountability and do not represent the views of many constituents. The emporer/president was not even elected but installed by a court. The city elected officials, who have smaller constituencies than any of the federal elected officials and are more accountable to grassroots interests, are more likely to be representative and responsive to constituents than Congress people and certainly non legitimate president. Although the city officials do not have any direct influence over military and foreign policy, they are the often the only elected officials who might actually be responsive to grassroots activists. It is also interesting that Patrick Peterson cited the Green value of decentralization as a reason why the city council should not be involved in foreign policy. A belief in decentralization requires the opposite counclusion. It means that more policy decisions of any sort should be made by more local units of government that more closely represent their constituents. This means that local units should have more of a say in foreign policy. (It may be a problem for a staunch DFLer to try to interpret Green values. Problematic Assumption #3 - When the city council passes a resolution on foreign policy, the federal government will not pay attention and it will just look silly. I will not argue with RT that Dick Cheney probably could care less what the city council thinks. It is unlikely that an administration that was not even legitamately elected will care much about the opinions of average voters or their elected representatives. Peace activists have a difficult time getting influencing any federal officials to pay attention, given the dominance of military interests at the federal level, and therefore must try whatever methods are available. In the context of the grassroots disempowerment on these issues, a statement by the governing body of a major city is one of the more powerful statements available. If some Minneapolis city council members were not so narrow in focus and caught up in procedures, it would not take much time or cause much harm to simply vote on whether to make a statement to oppose war. At the same time, it would be prefereable to go beyond symbolic statements. I suggest that the city council research the ways in which Minneapolis participates in the war effort or war economy, and take action to cease that participation. Baseless Assumption #4 - The suggestion that urban crime problems are caused by policies in Washington is out of touch with reality and/or an effort to distract public attention by those who have a business interest in perpetuating the problems. [This is my best effort at summarizing Jim Graham]. This characterization is a classic attempt to impugn personally impugn others' competence and motives in order to avoid dealing with fundamental ideological disagreements. My previous post responding to the suggestion that city council members should be concerned about crime rather than foreign policy, stated that there is indeed a connection between the huge waste of money and resources on war that could and should be spent to address the poverty in the inner-city that leads to crime. Graham focused on my reference to the "disenfranchised teenager," responding that the only problem "is in organized crime and a "local" City government that is unwilling to address the drug-crime problem." Ok Jim. And what causes the problem of organized crime? Is it the exclusively the city government? How can the city government singlehandedly address crime and drugs short of setting up a complete police state? The "reality" (which apparently Jim thinks he has an exclusive handle on) is that the people in the inner-city involved in organized crime, whether adults or teenagers, do so in large part because of societal facors, such as the lack of viable economic opportunity due to racism and inequality, the large proportion of fathers being incarcerated, social alienation and marginalization, etc. A middle class college graduate can get a well-paying job with a cigarette company or arms manufacturer, help kill a lot of people, and be considered respectable rather than an organized criminal. A inner-city youth might have a choice between earning $6-9 per hour as a retail service worker, joining the military to kill people for low wages, or engaging or being recruited by "organized criminals" get invovled in the drug traffickinb business for much higher pay. Although it might feel better to find reactionary police solutions to the crime in Phillips, the "reality" is that is part of a national systemic problem that demands solutions that are out of the exclusive control of the Minneapolis city government. Yes, a much bigger source of the problems are in Washington where the national policies are to redistribute wealth from poor and working people to the rich, and distract attention from the devastating economic effects by spending any remaining public money on war. The only way to change what is happening is far more people to be aware. If the City Council expresses some awareness, how will it hurt? except to the extent that people actually support what is going on. Jordan Kushner (Just moved from Minneapolis after 14 years in central city neighborhoods) _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
