the Reform Party is largely centeredrnover the issue of property.rnBut then he said that we agree thatrnwe don’t want this issue decided byrnthe national media or by nationalrnpolihcians. And that, I thought,rnwas a ver}’ profound comment.rnThe things we disagree on do notrnnecessarily have to be decided atrnthe macro level. We can work outrnour own arrangements, we canrnhave our ow n debates, and that’s arnlot healthier.rnOn his own micro level. Smith enjoysrnlife in Washington, D.C. —not the officialrnWashington of lobbyists and lawmakers,rnbut the pleasant backwater belowrnit: “this has been a wonderful citv’ forrnme. It’s been a wonderful place to raisernkids…. It’s got a nice pleasant pace to it,rnas long as you’re not striving to get toornmuch power or striving to make toornmuch money.” And if you are? “One ofrnthe things I nohce about people in powerrnin Washington is how roodess many ofrnthem are. It’s been said that they’re thernsort of people that when they’re in arnroom by themselves, there’s no onernthere.”rn”One of the things I do these days,” herntells me,rnis talk to groups of younger activists.rnAnd one of the things missingrntoday is the idea that seemedrnnonnal to me, as a child of the existentialrnperiod and a product of arnQuaker education, that you have tornmake choices, whether the timesrnarc good or bad. . . . I was talking inrna bookstore in Maine, and a guyrnwho was about ^0 came up to mcrnafterwards. He said to me, “I camernin late to your talk, and I heard yourntalking about choice. And I assumedrnyou were talking aboutrnabortion. You know, you realK’rnought to be careful using thatrnword, because people might misunderstandrnyou.”rnI interject: “And you said, ‘No, I was talkingrnabout school vouchers.'”rnHe laughs, politely, then returns to hisrnstory. “But that really set me off thinking.rnAnd I realized, choice for young peoplernis a choice of consumption, a choice ofrnassociation; the idea that it is a constantrnmoral activity is not very strong. . . .rnMatthew Arnold talked about living inrnhvo worlds, one dead and the other notrnable to be born. That’s the sort of sensernyou have of this time.”rnJesse Walker writes from Washington,rnD.C.rnGOVERNMENTrnTerritorial Blissrnby Joseph E. FallonrnOne consequence of the Cold Warrnhas gone unnoticed. Before thernBerlin Wall fell and the Soviet Unionrncollapsed, the United States had alreadyrnceased to exist. To fight the Cold Warrnand in the name of national security,rnWashington had destroyed the politicalrnstructure created by the U.S. ConsHtutionrn—the well-defined union of states,rnwhich regardless of territorial size, population,rnor date of admission, possessedrnequal powers—and replaced it with anrnambiguous political system composed ofrn50 states and a hierarchy of eight cthnic/rnrace-based territories.rnHistorically, a territory was a temporaryrnpolitical status granted to land administeredrnby the federal government asrnlong as the population was too small andrnscattered to govern as a state. Under thernNorthwest Ordinance of 1787, statesrnwere to be carved out of existing territoriesrnand admitted to the union on the basisrnof political equality with the originalrn1 ^ states. This occurred with the NorthwestrnTerritory, Southwest T’erritoH’, LouisianarnTerritory, Oregon Territory, andrnthe Mexican Cession.rnSince territorial status was temporary,rnthose which did not become states becamernindependent countries or wererntransferred, in whole or part, to a foreignrnpower. Examples of the former arernCuba in 1903 and the Philippines inrn1946. Examples of the latter are thernnorthwest portion of the Louisiana Territoryrn(1818), the northeast portion ofrnMaine (1842), the northern half of thernOregon Territory (1846), and a third ofrnthe Alaskan panhandle (1903)-all ofrnwhich were transferred to the UnitedrnKingdom; Okinawa, which was transferredrnto Japan (1972); and the PanamarnCanal and Canal Zone Territory, whichrnwere transferred to Panama (1978, to berncompleted by 1999).rnBeginning with the establishment ofrnthe “Commonwealth” of Puerto Rico inrn1952, all this changed. Citing the “doctrinernof incorporation” (a theory promulgatedrnby the U.S. Supreme Court betweenrn1901 and 1922, according tornwhich the U.S. Constitution does notrnfully apply to a territory until it is “incorporated”rninto the union) and Article IV,rnSection 3 of the U.S. Constitutionrn(“Congress shall have all power to disposernof and make all needful Rules andrnRegulations respecting the Territory orrnother Propert- belonging to the UnitedrnStates”), Congress radically altered thernpolitical structure created by the Constitution.rnUnlike states, territories becamernde facto ethnic-based polities that exercisernpolitical powers denied to the states.rnIn descending order of official status,rnthese territories consist of: three “free associations”rn(the Federated States of Micronesiarnand the Marshall Islands, bothrnestablished in 1986, and Palau, establishedrnin 1993), hvo “commonwealths”rn(Puerto Rico, established in 1952, andrnthe Northern Marianas, established inrn1986), two “organized” territories whosernstructure of government was created byrncongressional legislation known as an organicrnact (Cuam, established in 1950,rnand the U.S. Virgin Islands, establishedrnin 1936, revised in 1954), and one “unorganized”rnterritory whose structure ofrngovernment was created through localrnlegislation (American Samoa, establishedrnin 1960).rn”Free association” is officially recognizedrnby the United Nations as anrnalternative to independence for a trustrnterritoH’, and this status allows the localrnpopulation the maximum degree of selfgovernmentrnwhile insuring that the formerrnadministrative power continues to financernand defend that territory. Thisrnstatus could only be conferred upon thernFederated States of Micronesia, the MarshallrnIslands, and Palau because they arernthe successor states to the United NationsrnStrategic Trust Territory of the PacificrnIslands, which the United States administeredrnfrom 1947 to 1993.rnThe term “commonwealth” as appliedrnto a U.S. territory, however, is devoidrnof any legal meaning. In the ExaminingrnBoard v. Flores de Otero (1976), thernU.S. Supreme Court acknowledged thatrnthe commonv’ealth status of Puerto Ricorn”occupies a relationship with the UnitedrnNOVEMBER 1998/45rnrnrn