MB Civic

Although I have admittedly not given this in-depth consideration, I find myself agreeing with the first and third writers.

To the Editor:

In “California Split” (Op-Ed, Feb. 10), Gar Alperovitz raises a serious question that our increasingly tense and polarized national politics may soon be forced to confront. Is the United States just too big?

Americans who want to see meaningful political action on any number of problems are frustrated by a Congress that is totally captured by elites that govern from the center, or, worse yet, ideologues who use slim majorities to force their agendas on a public they cannot persuade through political dialogue.

Why should millions of people in the Northeast or California be prevented from moving in the direction of other developed nations on issues like global warming and international human rights because voters in Texas and Tennessee disagree?

If the structure of the political community is undermining the democratic values it was designed to promote, then perhaps it is time for the structure to change.

Vincent D. Rougeau
Notre Dame, Ind., Feb. 10, 2007
The writer is an associate professor at Notre Dame Law School.

•

To the Editor:

Before we get swept up by Gar Alperovitz’s enthusiasm for decentralization, let’s remember two centuries of American history.

Democracy was delivered to the disenfranchised not by devolving power to local authorities, but by expanding central government powers. Similarly, economic development across the continental United States was given a major boost by federal stimulation and regulation of interstate commerce.

California is a powerhouse because it is part of the largest and most dynamic national economy in the world.

The vibrancy of any federal democracy (regardless of size) lies in its continuing ability to stimulate local dynamism and innovation while empowering a central government to safeguard the whole against the vices and parochialism of its parts.

Edward L. Gibson
Evanston, Ill., Feb. 10, 2007
The writer is an associate professor of political science at Northwestern University.

•

To the Editor:

The morning after the 2004 election, my daughter, then 8 years old, asked, “Did Kerry win?” We said no. Then she asked, “Did Kerry win New England?”

Yes, he did. After some thoughtful silence, she then asked, “Well, can he be president of New England?”

Consider these historical inevitabilities: Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union had to break up. Iraq was defined by Britain. Ireland will be united. Palestine will achieve statehood. Had the Union let the Confederacy go, more than 600,000 lives would have been spared — and the South wouldn’t dominate national elections today.

In 2008, it is exceedingly difficult for one presidential candidate to appeal to the entire nation. We are half a dozen or so distinct regions. The Northeast could have elected John Kerry. The South could have invaded Iraq without us.

Who would have thought that it would be Arnold Schwarzenegger leading this new rebellion?

Burt Cohen
New Castle, N.H., Feb. 10, 2007
The writer was a New Hampshire state senator, 1990-2004, and a candidate for the United States Senate in 2004.