Shorter Lefty Blogosphere Reaction to Kelo
Matt Welch | June 24, 2005, 1:08pm
- "hoyapaul," on The Daily Kos*: Thank God we stopped the property-rights extremists in their tracks!
- Atrios: It could have been worse -- conservatives could have written a majority opinion.
- Matthew Yglesias: It's not the end of the world, therefore I'm angry that people are outraged about it.
Taking the cake (or should I say "razing the house"?) is this
nauseating New York Times editorial, which begins thusly:
The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations.
Yesterday, Julian Sanchez asked, in the wake of Raich and Kelo, "will some court-watchers on the left begin to question the wisdom of having let economic freedom become the red-headed stepchild of modern jurisprudence?" A preliminary answer -- some may have, but several of the more influential ones have concluded that the unchecked government power to bulldoze your home and sell your property to Wal-Mart is the price we all must pay to avoid the scourge of "property rights extremism." Rarely are public policy issues so stark, in terms of revealing whose side you're on. If it's a mainstream liberal idea that defending the rights of an individual human against the zillion-pound hammer of government is "extremism," then mainstream liberalism is sicker than I thought.
* Originally said "kos." Damned group weblogs!
UPDATE: Like I said, "stark." Yglesias comments on my Wal-Mart scenario: "Pejorative rhetoric aside, that's absolutely correct." Then adds:
Matt, Julian, and co. down at Reason have an extreme and pernicious view of property rights that, if implemented in full, would have disastrous consequences for the country.
You heard it right: If our nation's city halls didn't have the ability to seize your property any time they thought a new owner could produce more sales-tax revenue, the result would be "disastrous." It's a wonder how we made it through those first two centuries....
MikeP | June 24, 2005, 2:19pm | #
To be cynical, this decision is a win-win for outlets like the
Times. If the government can now carry out missions of redevelopment in the public interest, the
Times is happy because they feel they can shape them and support the result. If the government locally abuses the power, then the
Times can run investigations, exposes, and editorials and sell papers to the outraged masses.
To be more analytical, there is an underlying truth here about why the media is more often liberal than not. Most media really want to improve the lives of the populace, and they see their outlet in a strong position to suggest and motivate those improvements. It appears obvious to them that the government is the best mechanism to make those improvements happen. After all, they think, if only the government did the right thing, the right result would surely occur. So they see their mission as making the government do the right thing.
In taking this position -- that government is by its nature a good thing whose levers are the media's to pull -- the media abandon all hope of principle. In fact they really care about only two freedoms: the freedom of the press, so they can influence the people and the government, and the freedom to vote, so the people can change the government at the media's behest.
Other freedoms -- like, say, the freedom of private property -- are to be sacrificed to the first government to come forward and say, "We have an idea to improve the lives of the populace."
joe | June 26, 2005, 9:58pm | #
Lisa Marie,
"If the government can exercise eminent domain power at any time, for anything they define as public use, and the only question is how much money they're going to pay you for your property, what due process recourse do you have?" The government CAN'T exercise ED any time for anything they define as public use. The majority pointed to the existence of an adopted redevelopment plan as determinative to whether the takings were being done for a public purpose or not. You argue due process by going after the plan. I, as a city planner, have no problem with the idea that someone above the level of a city council could nix a plan - in fact, I'd welcome it, as it would give me some hand if I ever have to tell a city council or mayor with a bad "edifice complex" that his scheme is a load of crap, and won't stand up.
"How are the same legislative bodies that take contributions from developers going to craft protection for people from eminent domain abuse?" You don't think the people who drew up the Constitution in the first place had lucrative personal and professional relationships with the big money interests whose power they were limiting or protecting? Libertarians love this argument, but it goes nowhere. Did the actions of the cops in the Rodney King video demonstate that all police forces need to be disbanded? Of-bloody-course not! You fight corruption, by fighting corruption.
"Hoping the government will protect people from the government taking their homes seems a little naive." Our government(s) put checks on our government(s) all the time. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches check each other, and the federal, state, and local governments check each other.
"It's just that many liberals I encounter define caring about people as agreeing with every viewpoint they personally hold, which are unquestionably right, even if they can't explain why." As oppose to libertarians, who never define intelligence, reasonableness, or respect in terms of conformance to their preferred policy outcomes? Or to, say, a libertoid blogger who hurls accusations of "not caring about the little guy" at everyone who doesn't subscribe to a theory of Eminent Domain jurisprudence that brings about the outcome he wanted in a particular case?
It's a human failing. People feel strongly about these things. Decent people who want to protect the discourse try to set those presumptions aside, rather than giving them free reign when it's politically expedient to demonize a certain segment of the political spectrum.
