Last Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives voted 241 to 177 on H.R. 1905, a bill that would give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House, putting the District one step closer to enjoying the full benefits of American democracy.  In the video clip below, the District’s current Delegate to the House, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who can vote in committee but not on the floor, spoke in passionate defense of the bill.  While controversial and even inflamatory at times, Ms. Norton provides one of the best arguments I’ve heard for giving Dictrict residents Congressional representation when she is briefly interrupted by another member. In a speech reminiscent of such fiery American rhetoricians as Samuel Adams and Martin Luther King, Jr., who argued with equal force for equal representation in their own eras, she bases her argument on the fundamental, foundational right of representation we enjoy in this country.

I will not yield, sir.  The District of Columbia has spent 206 years yielding to people who would deny them the vote.  I yield you no ground, not during my time.  You have had your say, and your say has been that you think that the people that live in your capital are not entitled to a vote in their House.  Shame on you.

Congresswoman Norton’s remarks highlight one of the fundamental shortcomings of democracy in this country, and one that severely limits our credibility when we try to promote democracy abroad: that close to 600,000 U.S. citizens are legally disenfranchised because they live within the borders of our capital city.  The U.S. is the only democracy in the world in which citizens of the capital city lack representation in the national legislature.  But here’s the real hypocracy: the Bush administration strives to enshrine the promotion of freedom and democracy as a fundamental pillar of U.S. foreign policy and an important rhetorical justification for the global war on terror, yet they have shown at best a casual indifference toward efforts to secure democratic representation for those disenfranchised American citizens residing in the nation’s capital.

 While I believe promoting democracy is an important tool of U.S. foreign policy (probably for different reasons than many members of the Bush administration, however), with such glaring democratic deficiencies in our own backyard, literally right outside the President’s window, how can we possibly justify the time, effort, and now lives spent fighting for freedom abroad.  In this light, President Bush’s argument in his second inaugural address, that “[t]he best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world,” seems hollow and self-serving rather than principled and magnanimous.  As Americans, we need to take a hard look in the mirror so we know what face we’re presenting to the world when we promote democracy abroad.  Maybe then, we’ll know how silly we can look.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV3k8nERUOQ]