Over the last year, my roommate and I have embarked on a crusade to run to the farthest reaches of the metro area. We began with modest adventures of four to five miles. With Forrest Gump-like zeal, we decided to run some more — and more, and more, and more. Last Monday night, we journeyed east through the city and into other parts of Maryland. Our destination was FedEx Field in Landover, nearly 14 miles from campus. Along those many miles, I was reminded of the depth of this city’s poverty and urban decay. While the discouraging sights of that run will remain with me for a long time, there’s hope for a better future.
Sixteenth Street runs north to south between the District’s northernmost corner and the White House. It also cuts a figurative divide between those living in relative comfort and others struggling to stay afloat. Our route to Landover took us down Florida Avenue past Gallaudet University, across the Anacostia River and up Minnesota Avenue in the Northeast sector of the city. I wish I was kidding when I say we saw more liquor stores than food markets. Fast food chains outnumbered library branches and school buildings combined. Park space was overgrown, the equipment outdated and the basketball hoops rusting away. Streets were noticeably darker and abandoned lots multiplied as we progressed deeper into the city. Traffic was thin and signs of vitality were rare.
For the first time in American history, a man with a truly urban background resides in the White House. Barack Obama is well aware of the environment that surrounds him, having sharpened his political teeth on the streets of Chicago. Nonetheless, I question the ability of his major domestic initiative, health care reform, to bring about tangible change in America’s inner cities. Expensive national programs will not reinvigorate communities desperately in need of policies tailored to their specific problems. Federal aid would be better suited for public housing projects, infrastructure improvements and small business development. Don’t underestimate the power of new streetlamps or refurbished playgrounds.
If Obama really wants to make a difference with federal dollars, he should create the modern equivalent of the Civilian Conservation Corps that existed under Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. The CCC was a work relief program that employed workers to develop and protect public land. The Urban Renewal Corps would reward members of inner cities who work to improve their own community. The immeasurable qualities of self-esteem and neighborhood identity would gain an instant boost through tasks as simple as removing graffiti, collecting trash, planting gardens and clearing vacant lots.
As a former community organizer, Obama understands the importance of the bottom-up dynamic. Dictating health care plans to an uneasy nation is the essence of the top-down model of governance. Obama can return to the grassroots nature of his political upbringing by helping inner cities help themselves, for there’s nothing more influential than personal empowerment.
Michael Stubel is a junior in the School of Public Affairs and the School of Communication and a moderate libertarian columnist for The Eagle. You can reach him at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
9 Comments
Miss Hockey Mom
Nov 19 at 3:25 AM
Write about campus issues!
Ian
Nov 19 at 6:15 AM
“Michael Stubel is [...] a moderate libertarian columnist for The Eagle.”
Libertarian, huh? What part of advocating for increased government programming, specifically asking for a New New Deal, sounds consistent with a philosophy of small government and individual decision-making?
In the words of a great man, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
Perhaps you meant to call yourself a liberal.
Jake
Nov 19 at 11:31 AM
Ian,
You’re right on the surface, but I think it’s probably more important that Mike’s being consistent with reality that with libertarian ideals (which he still does not abandon). The column is proposing that money that will already be spent on initiatives like healthcare be redirected to urban renewal projects.
The government is not small, and it would be somewhat useless to reiterate a small government argument in this column, because most readers probably know the argument and also know that the government is not going to get smaller under this administration.
Spending money on urban renewal has a lot of long term benefits that would eventually promote smaller government and individual decision-making, as you say. Perhaps you should read up on social theory (like the broken windows theory) to see how a revitalized environment can contribute to the community’s well-being. A prosperous community means a more respectful community, and that is certainly in line with libertarianism.
Think about it before you jump at the next opportunity to say that you’re smarter than someone else.
Ian
Nov 19 at 4:58 PM
Jake,
Please get off your high horse. Your post communicates no more understanding of libertarianism than does the author’s original piece.
Writing a column which can be summarized as saying, “the government should spend money here instead of there,” and then calling oneself libertarian is nonsense. It’s like Bill O’Reilly calling himself “an Independent” despite his partisanship: it’s inconsistent.
There’s a difference between being a moderate libertarian and being mislabeled as such.
Jake
Nov 19 at 5:22 PM
Ian,
My point is that while the column might not exemplify libertarianism, I think it does demonstrate a practical application of “moderate libertarianism.” It’s not nonsense, it’s a moderate and sensible opinion.
It’s fine if you want to consider yourself a purist libertarian and proclaim the values of small government and individual freedom. You’d be completely right in my book. But that kind of thing doesn’t really work on the level of practical political engagement. I was proposing that this kind of agenda would move towards creating a society which respected personal freedoms while working within the political system we have today.
I believe that’s what the moderate in front of libertarian means. If you think “moderate libertarian” means something else, I’d like to hear it.
Ian
Nov 19 at 5:29 PM
This isn’t about ideological purity, it’s a about ideological consistency and accuracy. If it were not for the italics below his piece, no one would be remotely tempted to label Mr. Stuebel as libertarian, moderate or otherwise.
Point to me a single instance in the column where it is clear the the author believes that government is the problem, people are the solution, or even that liberty as a broad concept is valuable.
While you search, notice the many, many instances when he advocates ideas directly in opposition to even the most generous definition of liberty.
I can’t know the workings of the author’s mind though. Perhaps he really is a libertarian who is just trying to pander to AU’s overwhelmingly liberal audience. Regardless, the end result is a column which is far from any sort of libertarianism.
(A new New Deal? Seriously?)
Jake
Nov 19 at 5:56 PM
I disagree that it’s far from any sort of libertarianism, because I think the “moderate” distinction is important in this case.
The column does not “advocate ideas directly in opposition to the most generous definition of liberty.” I would say it accepts the current state of liberty in the United States as something that must be worked with for the moment. That’s a moderate stance, and in no way is it _advocating_ opposition to liberty.
If you’re concern is really with the labeling of the column perhaps you think it should say “Mr. Stuebel is a moderate libertarian who writes a column for The Eagle.” Maybe you’re right, but I think you’re missing the importance of the “moderate” part.
Ian
Nov 19 at 9:25 PM
There is nothing moderate or libertarian about the New Deal, public works projects, and the central planning of urban neighborhoods.
For all I know, Stuebel really is a radical anarcho-capitalist opposed to all forms of coercion. Perhaps he’s an extreme agorist undermining the state through black market operations. He could even be a devout Objectivist, reading “The Fountainhead” each night before bed.
Or he could just be a moderate libertarian.
Unfortunately, I have no idea, because not one shred of argument resembling a case for liberty can be found in his article.
If Stuebel’s goal was to masquerade as a liberal, he has succeeded. Any attempt of his to inject a (moderate) bit of liberty into the debate has failed.
Alex Knepper
Nov 20 at 12:50 AM
What am I, Ian?
Post a comment
Comments are reviewed: inappropriate, off-topic or offensive content may be deleted.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.