The Debate Over Eastern Oregon and Statehood: A Dubious Democracy?

The question of whether Eastern Oregon should join Idaho has resurfaced, with a complexity that goes beyond simple desires for political autonomy. This debate, however, is not as straightforward as it appears, often obscured by political biases and economic considerations.

Party Affiliation and Political Power

The primary reason many Democrats oppose Eastern Oregon joining Idaho, despite the sentiment expressed by some local residents, is rooted in the political landscape. Democrats prioritize maintaining their influence and voter base in Portland. The proposed merger would likely dilute their control over the electoral map, affecting crucial swing states in presidential elections.

A Closer Look at the Supporters

While the idea of Eastern Oregon joining Idaho gains support in some areas, it is important to note that the debate is primarily confined within Oregon and Idaho. The Republicans in Oregon who support this notion may have their own motivations, including concerns about state borders and potential economic changes, but they are not backed by national party committees or representatives from other states like New York.

Historical Precedents for Statehood

Statehood changes in the United States have occurred in a very specific manner, typically involving the splitting of territories or the creation of new states from previously unorganized lands. The idea of adding territory to an existing state is unprecedented and would face significant constitutional challenges. If this were to happen, it would raise concerns about the founding principles of the country.

Economic Considerations and Majority Rule

Opponents of the merger argue that the residents of Eastern Oregon, even if somewhat supportive, represent a minority in terms of wage levels and economic impact. The average household income in Oregon is $103,000, significantly higher than Idaho's average of $73,000. A merger could lead to drastic wage reductions, which would negatively affect many in the area.

The Role of Democracy and Constitutions

Democracy, as understood in the United States, operates on the principle of majority rule. However, this principle is often nuanced and subject to protections under the Constitution. State splits would require significant constitutional amendments, which could lead to arguments about political and social chaos, similar to those raised against communism. The current emphasis on adhering to the Constitution by both political parties could prevent such radical changes.

A Discrepancy in Democratic Process

The actions of the Democratic Party, especially during the 2020 election cycle, have highlighted discrepancies in their commitment to democratic processes. The party's controversial moves to deny candidates the opportunity to appear on primary ballots, such as the cases of Bernie Sanders and now Robert F. Kennedy Jr., demonstrate a lack of transparency and respect for the democratic process. This behavior suggests that 'democracy' is a tool used selectively by Democrats for their benefit rather than a universally applicable principle.

The debate over Eastern Oregon joining Idaho is thus not just about political or economic gains but highlights deeper issues of how democracy is practiced and perceived. It challenges us to reconsider what it truly means to act in the best interest of the majority while respecting constitutional limits and the rights of all citizens.

The future of Eastern Oregon remains a topic of heated discussion, with both sides presenting compelling arguments. Understanding these discussions through a multi-faceted lens can help ensure that the decisions made are inclusive, fair, and true to the democratic principles that govern our nation.