Cory Heidelberger's Madville Times blog recently covered the split vote of South Dakota's Senators on SB 3310, which designates about 75 miles of grassland as national wilderness - that is, land under Federal management.
There are already 30-plus comments on his blog post, arguing for and against the bill. It is a great example of civic engagement and debate.
That brings me back to Cory's headline, "Johnson Good on Grassland Wilderness; What's Thune's Problem?"
Why is it a problem that Thune is against the act? So are several of Cory's commenters. That's our political system: all sides get a hearing and have their advocates.
If Cory is right, it sounds like the act has a pretty solid coalition of area residents and interests in favor, and Senator Tim Johnson (D) voting their position.
So Sen. John Thune (R) is arguing what seems to be a minority position - albeit a significant minority including the South Dakota's Governor and Legislature, ranchers and, to judge from the comments, folks who just like the land the way it is without a new layer of "management."
So, what's the problem? The Founders' complaint was not "taxation," but "taxation without representation." It is vital that all interests be represented when there's an issue. There does not have to be unanimity and no political decision can generate 100% satisfaction. There will be "winners and losers." But if the "losers" get a fair chance to make their case, and have their advocates in the legislature, that's about the best we can do - certainly preferable to bureaucratic fiat or shopping for a biased judge to force an outcome.