Packing or clever politics?

In "The D. C. statehood power grab" op-ed of April 29, Pat Buchanan argues against DC statehood without considering the several arguments in its favor. For the affirmative side, please see statehood.dc.gov/pages/why-statehood-dc. One recent matter stands out: The District does not control a National Guard. During the January 6 assault on the Capitol, only the White House could activate a National Guard unit. Despite numerous appeals by city and Capitol police, President Trump waited hours too long to activate it. First, Mr. Buchanan claims that the District is too small. There is no law about a state's size, and DC has more people than Vermont and Wyoming. Then he speculates that Texas and other very large states could subdivide, making many more states. He does not give any likely consequences. Bigger states have not split in over a century. The Dakota Territory split in two despite fairly small populations in 1889-90, when the Republican Party brought not only North and South Dakota but also Montana, Idaho, Washington and Wyoming into the Union. One Republican politician predicted that his party would thereby gain a permanent Congressional majority. This creation of new states came before the 1890 census, which would show the six new states lacked the populations required for statehood. The "power grab" slur would not have occurred to a Pat Buchanan of that era. It would have been termed an opportunity taken. (Source: historian Heather Cox Richardson, "Letter from an American, April 22, 2021.) Finally, Mr. Buchanan says, too briefly, that statehood for the District would assure it two Democratic senators, with whom it could "pack the Supreme Court." Shame, some would say, but isn't that what Republican majorities did in the George W. Bush and Donald Trump terms? These two presidents did not win the popular vote, and appointed five justices to the high court. Recall how, arguing that the year before a presidential election could not allow a Supreme Court appointment, Senator Mitch McConnell invented a rule denying even consideration of Merrick Garland, President Obama's moderate nominee, eight months before the 2016 election. Then, four years later, McConnell pushed Amy Coney Barrett to her seat eight days before the 2020 election, thus creating a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court. Mr. Buchanan ignores these facts. Packing or clever politics? George Marsh Tiffin