That said, Rachel does make very good points and I especially appreciated this analysis:
What's new here is that this state has decided that local elections, locally elected officials are a problem that has to be done away with, that democracy is in the way of fixing problems in the United States now, of making things more efficient, particularly in poor places. Not that democracy IS the way we fix problems but that democracy IS the problem and it therefore needs to be side-stepped for efficiency's sake, for our own good. Governor knows best.
Good point. An argument that one would think would appeal to Americans of all ideologies. Whether you're liberal or conservative, we do all tend to share a common belief in our right to choose our leaders.
And, beyond that, the actual impetus for doing a post on this subject was from watching Fareed Zakaria GPS over last weekend; Fareed's guests included conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks to discuss his latest book, The Social Animal.
The book is about how humans interact with another and how the ability to relate to people is a determining factor in how one does in life. The relevant part to the EFM for Benton Harbor story was when Mr. Brooks said his research indicates:
Groups are smarter than individuals (and) groups that meet face-to-face are a lot smarter than groups that meet electronically.
Hmmm... that would certainly lead one to conclude that putting one individual in charge of "fixing" Benton Harbor (or any other troubled city, municipality, organization, etc) would not be an ideal solution.
Of course, that is science. And we know how how most conservatives feel about science.
