Subsidiarity is the All-American Way

In a previous letter, I identified the matter of library accountability to the Warren County taxpayer. Since that time, the Warren County Board of Supervisors (BOS) decided to appropriate only 1/4 of the requested funding made by Samuels Library, Inc. (SLI), presumably to provide time for SLI and the BOS to come to acceptable terms on how to deal with the issues identified by the grassroots Cleanup Samuels Library (CSL).

In response, the opinion letters continue to flow. In my observation, three general themes have emerged among writers that object to CSL: use of caricature, appeal to majoritarianism and appeal to freedom of speech.

Caricaturist responses reveal the weakest thinkers in any debate. That is not to say it’s not at least somewhat effective to call people bigots, zealots, fanatics, haters, hypocrites, un-American, book banners, etc., for this will keep at least some people from getting anywhere near a controversy. However, it is so commonplace in today’s culture clashes that it is diminished as an effective strategy, and an ever larger number of people have acquired immunity to caricature from repeated exposure. Among all groups, parents (and grandparents) of young children are least likely to be distracted by name-calling, so intent is their focus on the well-being of their children.

Majoritarian arguments are also common among letters that object to CSL. It has been repeatedly stated that a mere 53 people, or a small group of religious fanatics, are such a tiny minority in relation to the population of Warren County that the BOS should pay no heed to the issue that CSL has brought out to the public view. Majoritarian arguments do have merit. Majoritarianism essentially (not absolutely) characterizes American local government, including Warren County’s government. It is an open question whether the anti-CSL people will stick with this majoritarian line of argument for the long haul. I doubt it. As soon as it becomes evident that it is either not working or it is demonstrably false (as in an election), the anti-CSL will be switched to the “minoritarian” argument.

Freedom of speech is an easy thing to agree with at face value. The 1^st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a bedrock value of the American system of government. Why then, is there so much disagreement about it over the matter of removing library books with pornographic content from the juvenile section of the public library? I think the answer lies in the fact that such “free speech” claims are very, very far from the face value upon which free speech is commonly understood and agreeable. I have not yet seen an Op-Ed letter explicate how the absence of such a thing on a shelf for a child to happen upon violates a right to speech. The further one gets from the simple, intuitive understanding of free speech, the weaker the hold on the concept. On the contrary, I think it is simply and intuitively understood that compelled speech is un-American. Furthermore, it is relatively simple and intuitive to connect the dots between spending taxpayer funds and compelled speech. Proactively buying books containing pornographic content with taxpayer money, and placing them in a public space, especially for juveniles to see, is seen by many taxpayers as compelling them to purchase the “speech” that they object to and place it in front of the juveniles.

The more people awaken to the direct impact they can have in their own community despite their misgivings about the direction of the country, the more likely it is that they will be able to see and realize the fruits of their civic participation. This is subsidiarity in action. Subsidiarity is a defining characteristic of the American federalist system of government.  Healthy local communities should be engaged in managing their own affairs to the greatest practical extent. This may well necessitate unhitching the local library from national “expert” organizations such as the American Library Association. “Like many national organizations, the American Library Association has long been captured by the Left. It postures as a champion of free speech rights, but in fact, it twists the ideas of censorship and free speech to meet the ideological requirements of left-wing activism.”. Warren County is far from being unique in having citizens wake up to what their ALA-following library has been doing. Anyone with interest, internet, and search engine can educate themselves.

The Samuels library staff have heavily cited the ALA in this controversy, and they clearly view that as an asset to their position. I don’t believe it is because I don’t think Warren County’s largely rural, principally conservative-leaning population aligns with the ALA to understate the matter. Warren County voters didn’t elect the board of the ALA. For that matter, Warren County voters didn’t even elect SLI’s Board of Trustees. Who has the inherent right to determine “local community standards” in Warren County? If we’re all on the majoritarian page, it is the community itself, the voters. Certainly, it is not a national association of activist experts that presents itself as the only option for having a professionally run library. The best available reflection of the community’s standards is the leadership that voters place in the elected Board of Supervisors offices. The BOS members are responsible for knowing their constituency, and if they are wrong, they won’t long be in office.

Richard Jamieson
Warren County

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the Royal Examiner the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.