Who Owns The Capital?

As I was scrolling through Facebook, I came across a post by the Department of Homeland Security. It featured idyllic-looking lawns crisscrossed by roads lined with cars. The caption read:

"We Can Return."

'View from the Hotel Continental, Washington D.C.' - Circa 1943

The comments section was full of sarcasm and frustration. People calling back to the problems of WW2, or Trump bashing.

It's a nice picture, even if it may be inaccurate. From a historical point of view, I can appreciate it.

President Trump recently ordered the removal of homeless encampments from D.C.'s streets. He threatened to deploy federal law enforcement to compensate for the city's supposedly inadequate job at tackling violent crime. This order came after an alleged assault on a young administration staffer.

Trump cited the city's inability to control crime and called D.C. a "crime-ridden embarrassment to our nation."

Washington, DC is a strange place in terms of administration and governance. Under the D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973, residents can elect a mayor, a council, and commissioners. However, Congress controls the city's budget. Legally, the president has jurisdiction only over federal land and buildings, and forces.

Some D.C. residents concerned by what they see as a power grab are pushing back. The Free DC movement exists precisely because many feel the federal government treats them like tenants in their own city.

Now, Trump is reportedly considering federalizing the city, a move that would strip power from its elected officials and place it under direct federal control.

But not without the approval of Congress.

Washington, D.C., has been wrestling with this tug-of-war since its founding. The city was built to be separate from any state, a neutral seat of federal power.

And the problems? They're not unique to Washington. Crime and homelessness are realities in most major cities, whether or not they are capitals. So is bickering between the government, the people, and other institutions.

My city is no different. There's a big crime and homelessness problem. There's also constant drama between the city, state, county, and even higher education institutions.

But it raises a question: if this city had problems, would I want the governor to take it over, even if he could? In an extreme situation, and only temporarily. But even then, I'd be cautious.

There are certain situations that the president may need to federalize Washington, D.C. in the case of a significant threat to national security.

And here's another question: do we even need a District of Columbia anymore? If it's going to be treated like a territory rather than a state, why not put the capital in a city like Philadelphia, where it once was?

After the War of 1812, the capital nearly moved back there.

I'm thinking out loud here, and there are probably lots of factors that I'm not considering.

Here's my take: If Washington, D.C. is going to be federalized, then it should be federalized. However, if it's going to keep the current arrangement under the Home Rule Act, then it should consider the voices of the people there and work with Feds to address issues.

In the case here, I think the president has every right and responsibility to protect Federal property, personnel and assets. If the city of Washington D.C. hinders that, then there should be repercussions.

This kind of struggle between local identity and central control isn't unique to America. Ancient Israel had two capitals, one for Israel and one for Judah, until King David united them in Jerusalem. Even then, the challenges didn't vanish. There was conflict between the kings or rulers of the nation, the priests and Levites, and the people. On top of that, there were always outside forces trying to take or influence the city.

That's why "Peace For Jerusalem" was as much of a cry in ancient times as it is now.

This brings me back to the Facebook post.

What do the people in power want us to see? A clean, orderly, postcard-perfect capital or a return to the vision of one.

What actually exists behind the frame? A complicated, messy, very human city. No different now than it was in 1943.

That might be the real takeaway, not just about Washington, but about ourselves. We all have a public "postcard" version of our lives. We know how to make the skyline look good. But inside the walls, there may be streets in disrepair, districts in neglect, or neighborhoods we don't want anyone to visit.

Here are some ways we can keep our own 'cities' healthy:

Do regular self-audits. Take time to honestly assess the "neighborhoods" of your life — relationships, habits, responsibilities — and note which ones need repair.

Address small cracks before they grow. Don't wait for a crisis to fix what's broken. Address issues promptly or, at the very least, create a plan to do so.

Ask for outside perspectives. Trusted friends or colleagues can often see what you can't.

Match your presentation to your reality. Don't over-polish your public image at the expense of private integrity. Try to be consistent.

Scripture says, “Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” God sees past the postcard. He walks every street. He knows where the truth doesn’t match the picture.

The postcard is easy. The real work is keeping the city healthy — and making sure the picture matches the truth. Because if it doesn't, sooner or later, people stop believing the postcard.

Live Free!

Enjoyed this article? Feel free to share it!

Want more? Click Here to read more articles from The Freeman Wire!