The District’s flag is based off the coat of arms of the Washington family, a rather aristocratic choice of symbolism.
The British-American version of ((((Jon Leibowitz)))), John Oliver, recently used “his comedic sway with the American public to shine a light on Washington DC’s fight for statehood.” And what a fight it is. The federal district of some 650K people, plurality black (~49%) and majority Democrat (obviously), has no voting representation in Congress and as such is a form of institutional—I can already hear the catladies clamoring for justice. The Founding Fathers (PBUH) never intended for the capital to have representation in the government, as that would essentially mean the government had a seat in the government, which would be weird. It would also cause incentive problems since many if not most voters would be government employees. But those are just the concerns of evil aristocratic dead White male oppressors and therefore null in 2015, right?
What now matters, according to John Oliver, is that Washington, Dindu City does not have representation and that Congress has de facto control over the district’s laws by putting riders on them. [Because it’s not a state].
Thankfully, this is an issue on which Republicans are actually useful. Since adding DC to the Union as the 51st state would add two Democrats to the Senate, there is absolutely no reason for them to support it, something even the most cuckservative Republicans can wrap their heads around. A similar situation would unfold should Puerto Rico become a state, Granting statehood to “New Columbia” would directly threaten their majority in the government, and they understand this.
So long as you aren’t a decline accelerationist, it remains a good thing that DC is not a state. Having more representation in the government would embolden the left and shift the Overton window their way, since passing liberal policies would be more feasible with more of them in the government. As useless as establishment Republicans are at conserving Anglo-American civilization, the left is much more active in deconstructing it. Republicans can at least muster opposition to this to save their hides, if nothing else.
The issue of DC statehood, however, is a good opportunity to hammer Republicans on why exactly they are opposed to it. Proponents of statehood are correct in saying that DC has no representation in the federal government, that they have “taxation without representation,” and that it is undemocratic for this situation to persist. Here is where conservatives should be standing up for the principles that created and guided the United States, if they actually believe in it. The Founding Fathers did not believe in universal suffrage and expanding the franchise to all people or even all citizens—that leads to political degeneration via rule by lowest common denominator. This is especially true of those living in the seat of the government. Today—with universal suffrage for everyone 18 and older who is a US citizen—our democracy is an engine of rent-seeking and White dispossession. So tactically, to say nothing of deeper neoreactionary concerns about democracy or aristocracy as a better system, “conservatives” should kinda sorta probably be against expanding democracy. Unfortunately, the narrative that democracy is good a priori is deeply ingrained in the civic nationalism of the United States, and something that both left and right agree on. So in standing against DC statehood proposals, Republicans are fighting against democratic principles and the entrenched narrative of steadily increasing “progress” each generation..
As such, Republicans never oppose DC statehood on such nakedly self-interested terms. They find other dog whistle ways of doing so, which is fine as long as it keeps their political rivals from getting more seats. Implicitly, they are opposing democracy—they are drawing a line between those who have the franchise and those who do not. And they should. Universal-suffrage democracy has indisputably proven to be the greatest enemy of conservatism. Giving the vote to people who aren’t conservative, i.e. people who have a stake in overturning the established order to reorder in their favor, is not a smart move. Conservatives are in need of smarter motions.
Here’s the gap that really needs to be bridged: if you oppose giving DC or Puerto Rico statehood because it would create more Democrat seats in the government, why aren’t you opposed to immigration? Immigration creates more Democrats than Republicans because the majority of immigrants are non-white and the majority of non-white people vote Democrat. Immigration inflates the non-white population, which means more Democrats. When the White majority goes, so goes conservatism and the Republican party. This isn’t hard. Figure it out, you cucks.