This is the sort of low-life that the conservative Republicans need to chase out of their party with the sort of righteous fury that Jesus chased the money changers out of the Temple:
Since the Supreme Court's notorious 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allowed that municipality to seize private property on behalf of the Pfizer Corporation, 43 states have passed laws protecting property rights against Kelo-style eminent domain abuse. Mississippi is not one of those states.
But that nearly changed in March 2009 when the Mississippi legislature voted overwhelmingly in support of a proposed law which would have guaranteed that "the right of eminent domain shall not be exercised for the purpose of taking or damaging privately owned real property for private development or for a private purpose; or for enhancement of tax revenue; or for transfer to a person, nongovernmental entity, public-private partnership, corporation or other business entity."
In addition to enjoying strong bipartisan support in the statehouse, this piece of long-overdue reform was backed by groups as politically diverse as Americans for Tax Reform, the Southern Christian Leadership Council, and the Mississippi Forestry Association.
But none of that mattered to Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, who promptly vetoed the bill, claiming it would cripple his ability to lure large corporations into the state. As Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, admitted in his veto statement, had he not promised Toyota that he would use eminent domain to secure a piece of contested land for its Blue Springs facility, "Toyota would have broken off negotiations with us and chosen one of the other states competing with us for the project."
From a conservative point of view, there is virtually nothing that Barbour could do as governor that would make up for what he did by vetoing a bill aimed at protecting private property from eminent domain abuse. Eminent domain abuse, made very easy by Kelo vs. New London, is a cut-and-dry issue for the right. If you support taking someone's land in order to give it to a private party to develop for a non-governmental purpose, you are not entitled to ever call yourself a conservative or a libertarian because basic security in one's property rights is the keystone on which the entire edifice of economic conservative depends.
This issue is also a moral issue. It is hypocritical for Barbour and his supporters to take a moral stand against armed robbery while they use the power of the law to force people off of their own land so as to benefit a third party. They may hide behind the excuse that they are merely trying to create more jobs, but the only way for conservatives and libertarians to forgive Barbour for that motivation in taking such a strong stance in defense of systematic injustice is to reduce all civil rights down to utilitarian calculations.
Mississippi Republicans need to not only stop supporting Barbour, but do everything they can to end his political career. They need to treat him just about like how they'd treat one of their own who suddenly came out in defense of a bill subsidizing partial birth abortion. There are certain philosophical issues where political expediency is unforgivable. This is one of them.
Leave a comment