 |
| John W. Adkisson for The New York Times |
The rural town of Little Mountain has a population of 292, a number that has been declining over the years. No one participated in the November election for mayor, and the two write-in candidates refused the job. Despite the $100 a month salary, Snoop Dog and Mickey Mouse, who also received a number of votes, will most likely decline the role as well.
According to this article by Robbie Brown, the job has no takers because "politics has lost its luster," a statement with which Marty Frick (one of the write-in candidates) agrees. In fact, "The biggest dispute in Little Mountain lately has been over whether to serve alcohol at the annual Little Mountain Reunion," says the article.
Frick and Brown have a point. As state and federal governments deal with issues that determine the fate of individual states and the country, this small local government must decide between the inclusion or exclusion of alcohol at a family event. However, does this mean that the town should not have a government at all? America's government is complex and multifaceted, going beyond federal and state to include bureaucracies and local governments. Is this a positive aspect of the government, as it contributes towards the decentralization of power and allows for more individual focus in separate spheres, or does it simply lead to triviality and confusion? Should local governments take on more responsibility, or will any increase in power lead to trouble with state governments? Let me know what you think.
1 comment:
While I can understand that governments may seem unnecessary and useless at times, I feel that there should be some form of centralized power to take action during a crisis. Should a hurricane crash through this town anytime soon, a jumble of chaotic and disorganized groups rushing to fix the damage would do little to help the situation. A local government would be necessary to organize the various support groups to help the people.
America's government is indeed a very complicated institution. However, the people require one to face the problems ordinary citizens would be unable to. Whether a local government should take more responsibility would depend on how powerful the state government wants to be. We learned in class that local governments may derive their powers from the state constitutions.
I find it disappointing that no one is seriously interested in participating in the government at that town. While Congress may give a bad reputation to governments (especially with the current fiscal cliff crisis), that does not mean that all governments should be abhorred. Governments should bring positive benefits to the people. For example, no one really complains that having a post office to deliver services is a bad idea.
In conclusion, I believe that the town should try to maintain a government because they are valuable to the institution of democracy and should usually be beneficial, even if the confidence in government is depressingly low. If all else fails, elect a cat. It's been done.
Post a Comment