There are many disagreements among us right-wing nuts about how the demographic picture looks, but one aspect of it has rarely been up for debate: Urban areas suck. Heck, if it wasn't for those inner-city areas, the Democrats would be dead in the water. Can this be changed? Well, probably not, but we can still try.Why are the cities so bad for Republicans? The most obvious answer: They're full of black people! (This is where I say "Come on, everybody was thinking it, I just said it!") But seriously, American large cities commonly have populations that are minority-majority, low-income, and welfare-dependent: in short, they are reliably liberal voting blocs. And in many cases, such as Newark, Baltimore and America's favorite example of leftist failure, this is a fairly sufficient explanation. But what about other cities, such as Indianapolis or Nashville, which have significantly different compositions and yet tend to vote blue as well? What's the deal there?
Here's the thing. The GOP has, for a very long time, been a party of suburban and rural voters, not of the big cities. Being a rural guy myself, I can't complain too much; but being so composed, I think conservatives have forgotten that urban constituencies have different interests and concerns, especially given the grassroots activism of late. Not that such activism is a bad thing, don't get me wrong; when you're focused on big issues like liberty and faith, though, that doesn't leave much time for the municipal-based issues that determine city slickers' votes. Matters like public transit and gentrification may sound boring to a lot of us--and, okay, they are--but that doesn't mean they're irrelevant. And since these issues seem to imply an expanded role for government, even if on the local level, it's no surprise that the Right's rhetoric leaves urban voters a bit cold. As Russell Kirk put it, so much of conservatism "withers upon the pavements."
So does this mean the cities are tone-deaf to any and all conservative ideas? Well, no, because otherwise I'd have to stop writing, and this article is still pretty short. There are some things that we could do to win support in urban areas. Here's a few.
-Highlight a law-and-order platform. Largely self-explanatory: Run municipal candidates who pledge to push for tougher sentences, letting the police do their job, etc. This is no small concern in many large cities, of course. But don't just offer platitudes; propose specific measures. For example, NYC cut down on crime during the Giuliani era thanks in part to new police structures that devoted resources to high-crime areas and gave more responsibility to local precincts. One could also point to policies of allying with community leaders to improve the cops' image in minority neighborhoods, which has worked in Boston and L.A. Look, I don't actually know what I'm talking about--I read all this in an article somewhere--but the point is, a GOPer running in the city shouldn't just say "I want to get those criminals off the street!" Give actual ideas on how to bring crime down. If nothing else, it shows that conservatives are serious about the problem.
-Public works are your friend. The Republican platform for 2012 attacked, among other things, the government's "exclusively urban vision of dense housing and government transit"--the clear implication being that those are bad. There are good reasons to hold this position. Also, stop saying it. I haven't lived in cities much, but I know that residents like having their bus and train lines and their high-rise apartments. Again, this just makes it sound like conservatives don't care about urban voters. Besides, consider the logic of federalism; a nationally-subsidized Amtrak is one thing, the city-operated subway....not such a big deal. This doesn't mean you can't critique the city services being offered, though--as with policing, the name of the game is how you do it. For example, most people know that transit lines, garbage disposal, etc., while fairly reliable, can also be woefully inefficient and low-quality. Propose letting private companies bid on these services; if they can do better, great.
-Rebuilding the communities. Remember, cities are rarely a sheer mass of people; they're collections of neighborhoods, each with a life of its own. Regardless of political affiliation, the folks who live there care about maintaining them against blight and crime. A conservative agenda can help with that. Encouraging activity in the private sphere gives a spur to all sorts of civic associations and neighborhood organizations, who understand things on the local level better than higher official bodies--this should be pointed out. Also, emphasize the importance of doing away with rent controls. Not only would this go a long way toward solving the housing problem in many cities by freeing up the market, it encourages gentrification and rising property values, acting as a bulwark against decay and giving residents (especially landlords) a stake in the maintenance of their neighborhoods. And civic pride can be a strong rebuke to the liberal policy of victimhood.
Look, I'm not saying that there's ever going to be a day when Chicago and Pittsburgh and Seattle and so on are going to even be purplish. Democrats have a lot of cards to play to keep their voters loyal, and until or unless we see changes in large voting blocs, such as the black population, most large cities will not be in play. But it is possible to build a respectable conservative minority in these blue islands. And when they happen to be located in critical swing states, that could make all the difference.
Other suggestions?
43 comments:
For the record, this is not affiliated with Andrew's "Agenda 2016+" series, even though I put it on the label at the bottom. Frankly, I was hopped up on DayQuil part of the time, so it seemed like a good idea then.
my main thought in reading your post, Rav is most of that stuff rarely seems to last long. Liberal governance has long been great at throwing money at urban problems, and it hasn't worked. If a neighborhood doesn't have a well rounded skilled work force, it isn't going to support much other than government assistance, and I haven't yet figured out how to really get the public education system working better because so many homes have broken families and don't do their share in the education process.
Easy.
Make small sub-kiloton nuclear weapons available on the black market. This would require the evacuation of large cities and the institution of small 50,000 person population centers which could be easily policed and where the neighbors, by the nature of a small city, would be far more vigilant and nosey than in a big city.
Naturally, this would also be fertile ground for small town conservatism where you give your neighbor a helping hand or kick their butt when they need it.
Problem solved. :)
Jed, very true. I didn't list education because I figured that went without saying around here, but support for charter and private schools would undoubtedly resonate with much of the population. As for the family issues, I agree there too but I'm not sure how to go about it. The law-and-order platform would help some with that, but a genuine move from the population would be needed as well. I guess we could emphasize the benefits of a traditional value system: Avoid unprotected sex, graduate from school, keep a paying job, etc. But as long as the prospect of falling back on welfare programs is there, who knows how successful this would be.
K, I think your suggestion in its broad outline has in fact been tried before.
Seriously, though, I love small town conservatism as an ideal as well. But I think within limits, this can function within urban neighborhoods too, for the reasons I've given. Heck, even Greenwich Village was at one time a somewhat insular middle-class community. So why not give it a shot?
I agree with you completely. Cities used to be a GOP stronghold. Conservatives need to realize reaching out to Urban areas is a must. I've been saying this for a while now. I'm glad a lot now are finally waking up and smelling the coffee.
Not all us city folk are pretentious hipsters, hardcore Leftists, or welfare bums! (Okay, I live in Oakland, so we a larger amount of those than in most cities!) There are actually a lot of rational, hard-working, and yes even religious people. Thanks to poor outreach, most of them vote for the Dims.
"The GOP and the City" by
Now, the Law & Order thing may soon be a moot point, however:
LINK
"The GOP and the City" is be Edward L. Glaser, by the way.
Kit actually beat me to it with the link.
And as a guy who lives in the suburbs but would prefer to live in the big city (yeah, that's right!), I agree. The crime prevention angle is one that could be explored.
Here's another article on the subject discussing the article Kit linked to above... the author points out:
a.) "...the social conservatism that defines the Republican Party is anathema to urban voters."
b.) another area worth exploring is removing the regulatory obstacles that prevent new housing and businesses from starting up
Snape, well, I wouldn't say they used to be
GOP strongholds. Many, such as New York, have always skewed Democratic, often for reasons completely unrelated to ideology (the Dems' political machines have been good at winning over new immigrants, for example). But they were certainly more up-for-grabs in the past than they are today.
My apologies on Oakland and everything about it.
Kit, and as you can see, that's where I got a lot of my material from. Excellent publication, by the way.
As for those rulings, that is a shame but it isn't entirely bad for us. Clearly, there are a lot of people who like the presence of the police and their tough stance on crime; if I were a GOP city candidate, I would point out that this hamstringing is being done by a liberal judiciary and beat that drum for all it's worth.
Scott, I think I like the countryside too much to ever want to live in the big city, but I can definitely understand the appeal for some people. And frankly, I would much rather live there than in those soulless exurban subdivisions. Yuck.
On your link, while the cities are clearly more socially liberal, that's not the case for all inhabitants--many black or immigrant neighborhoods are very religious and morally conservative, with priests or preachers acting as community leaders. So in limited cases, an appeal of that nature wouldn't be a lost cause. In general, though, I would agree that to be competitive in the cities, GOPers need to focus more on showing they can manage day-to-day affairs better than Democrats.
Okay, right off the bat, I must say I am so NOT in favor of the sub-kilaton bomb idea. Just sayin'.
Yeah, I'm with Bev. I'm not in favor of the nuclear idea.
T-Rav, You makes some good points. As a lover of cities (and someone who has spent a lot of time in cities of different sizes), let me tell you that Republican issues really don't resonate in cities.
This is something I've noticed a lot lately -- Conservatives still treat the world as if it were 1950s suburbia. They presume that everyone is married with 2.5 children, wants a small house with a white picket fence, cares about things like parent/teach conferences and church, and has the general values of Leave It To Beaver or My Three Sons. That is not even close to reality in the cities.
And the problem is that conservatives wrap this image in a patriot flag and then denigrate everybody else. That's a huge turn off to single people, minorities, and urbanites. Then you add on the things you're talking about like mocking public transportation and you end up with an ideology that is doing its best to tell urban voters: "we don't understand you and we don't like you."
This is bad since the country keeps getting more urban with each generation.
I think the things you mention are a good start. But I also think there is still the more fundamental problem that we just don't stand for anything -- gays, abortion, back to 2008... that's it.
If conservatives develop an actual platform that addresses "people issues" then it will win in the urban areas just as it will in the suburbs -- an areas we are increasingly losing now too.
I agree with Scott's point about social conservatism. That's a killer in urban areas.
Let me add one thing, which you see around here. CO Springs isn't a dense city like NYC or DC, but it is a large city. And one of the problems conservatives have had for a long time around here is that they are basically a party of "opposition"... anything the city wants to do, they oppose -- except hiring more cops.
The result is that in a city of conservatives (most conservative county in the country), liberals keep getting electing on issue like adding green ways to the city or using money to build new roads, clean up parts of town, or build a new airport... because people don't trust conservatives to run a city.
Then you add side issues. We have conservatives who run on stopping any tax increases or bonds ever. We have conservatives who run for things like school board with the sole intent of imposing a religious curriculum. We have conservatives who run on national issues like illegal immigration. They all fail. None of them understands that city voters want competent management... that is their primary focus.
Bev and Andrew, I'm not either. If you're going to go that route, you'd need a much higher yield. ;-)
Really, though, there's nothing that says city dwellers have to be liberals. It's just a matter of how you approach the issue.
I must say I am so NOT in favor of the sub-kilaton bomb idea. Just sayin'.
Luddites.
T-Rav, There isn't any reason city dwellers need to be liberal, but we haven't given them a reason to be conservative either -- that's the problem.
And you're seeing that in suburbia now too. The numbers are telling us that the GOP is becoming a totally rural party and that spells doom.
T-Rav: I think your suggestion in its broad outline has in fact been tried before.
Yes, but here we tend to moderate genocidal urges. We wouldn't actually kill people, just forbid them to miss church (of their choice) and ban all dancing and lollygagging after hours.
Andrew, you don't have to tell me. I've spent time in St. Louis and Memphis, and I've been to a lot of other cities, and the difference between the political culture at home and in those places is...well, striking, to say the least.
I think the idealizing of suburbia is a large part of why Republicans have a hard time caring about urban issues; I think it's also partly that so many of these large cities have deteriorated so much that they tend to be seen as less and less relevant. Which is a mistake, of course; the inner core might not be doing so hot, but urbanization itself keeps spreading and spreading. So yep, a more effective platform is needed.
As for social conservatism, like I said, it's not a killer for all urban residents. There will always be some people receptive to such a message--but given their clustering in certain neighborhoods or wards, probably an election for alderman is the only case where you could get away with expressing such views. For citywide elections, certainly a platform focusing on education, housing, etc. would be the only viable route.
Besides what's been discussed so far, what issues would you add?
K, define "lollygagging." This doesn't include, like, card games, does it?
The GOP has largely pushed themselves into this corner with the prevailing internal ideology that if small government at the highest levels is good, then it so must be at the lowest levels, as well. That thinking absolutely does not suit the urban environment, which by it's very nature needs a greater government presence. Of course this does not mean in the way of regulating sodas and such, nannyism is bad at any level. But the purpose of law and its administrator, government, is to sort things out when people bump into one another. Where do people do that more than in dense urban areas?
tryanmax, I agree. I don't much like activist government at any level, but that's why we have federalism--it delegates a lot of power to local authorities, who can use it or not use it. And like you say, some degree of administration is obviously needed in a city.
This doesn't mean that all services have to be publicly operated--see my comments above. But if they are, it's not the end of the world.
T-Rav, I think one of the key problem is that conservatives misunderstand who lives in the cities. In my experience, urban votes fall into three categories (excluding the rich):
1. Hard core welfare types. These people cluster in low/no income areas. They live on the government and are all the things conservative fear -- welfare leeches, uncaring single mothers, drug addicts, criminals.
2. Working class people. These are poor people who don't fall into category No. 1. They are basically minorities (often immigrants). They are hard workers who aren't professionals. They tend to do the labor and service jobs, with most working two jobs.
3. Professionals. These are white professionals and college students who live a middle class existence in the cities. They earn a ton of money by national standards, but they have very modest apartments, less than one car per person, and are typically single or married with no children (they also have huge student loan debts). When they finally start having kids, they usually leave for the suburbs.
The problem is that conservatives assume that cities are packed with No. 1. They are blind to No. 2 and No. 3. Thus, most conservative rhetoric is off putting because No. 2 and No. 3 get pretty offended to be told they are living in zombie-land and all their friends are crackheads.
Moreover, when conservatives do talk about "solutions" for cities, they wrongly assume that the things city dwellers want are all related to No. 1. But the truth is that the No. 1 crowd keeps to themselves and the No. 2 and No. 3 have very different issues... issues to which conservatives are blind. In fact, most often, conservatives mock their issues -- like public transportation.
Conservatives need to focus on No. 2 and No. 3. BUT here again arise problems. We can't win No. 2 because they're scared of us. Not only are many of these people illegals, but even those who aren't get lumped into that category by conservative rhetoric. So these people are terrified that white conservative America wants to deport them. Moreover, conservatives keep grousing about the safety net these people actually need because they really are one pay check away from disaster, i.e. falling into category No. 1. No one is going to vote for us if they feel we are a threat. So until we stop attacking those two issues, forget wining these people.
On No. 3, the issue really is social issues. These people are well educated and tolerant of other people behaving differently. They tend to know gay people and they know they aren't monsters. They often know young women who've had abortions for whatever reason (often because of rape) and they understand how difficult the issue really is, and it truly outrages them that the Religious Right keeps telling them their friends are going to hell and trying to use the force of law to impose their religious beliefs on their friends. It offends them MUCH more than socons realize. Moreover, these despise the attempts by fundamentalists to impose religious indoctrination through public schools in the form of Creationism or prayer in schools... hello Kansas... hello Texas. That's why these people will vote for a Giuliani locally, but won't support the party nationally because they despise the Santorums.
(continued)
On issues, assuming we can overcome the problems I mentioned, then you can win group No. 2 with a jobs program and a reworking of the safety net. Find ways to ensure these people that if they continue to work hard, they will never fall through the cracks. That means: (1) better paying jobs, more upward mobility, (2) safe ways to save for retirement, (3) better schools for their kids, (4) less police harassment, and (5) guaranteed healthcare. It would also help to clean up more neighborhoods to push the No. 1. group further back as that will open more spaces and make rents cheaper.
The No. 3 crowd has slightly different needs. They need something done about the debt burden they are under. They want higher paying jobs and more choices. They want less cronyism because it affects their assets. And beyond that, they have "yuppies concerns," which the GOP despises -- green spaces, public transportation, gentrification to get more upscale neighborhoods (though they want cheaper rents too), better internet service, better phone service, a better reputation abroad so they don't face the "ugly American" stereotype when they travel, safer consumer product particularly including healthier foods.
As an aside, I've been trying to get the Agenda 2016 stuff done so I can get it at Amazon before talking about it here, but it's been slow going for other reasons. I think I may start putting it here in pieces.
Andrew, you know my hugest interest is in the language of political persuasion. Thanks to an initial misreading of your last post, I came up with what I think is a rather clever turn of phrase for what Republicans ought to be selling in terms of social safety nets. We need to restructure the safety net so that it will ensure the success of hardworking Americans and not ensnare them in cycle of poverty. Eh? LOL
tryanmax, Honestly, that is GREAT! I'm going to steal that. That is exactly the way the GOP should be selling itself to the No. 2 group! :D
On that same note, Republicans need to stop talking about "deregulation." The term in inherently unsexy. What they need to talk about instead is bringing down barriers to entry in the marketplace.
Reagan spoke about freeing up the power of the free markets. When they started pushing privatization, they talked about harnessing the power of the free markets.
I think the new millennium version of that ought to be "open source solutions."
T-rav:As long as the card games don't involve, you know, gambling with money or the removal of clothing, it's okay.
I don't have time to get to all this at the moment, so for now I'll suggest that all of this be directed to Bev for compiling the "Commentarama-nary." :-)
Okey, dokey - Let's add to the C-nary. Now what am I adding?
T-Rav
One problem with the law and order debate is that in the minority areas it can come off as supporting those racist cops. Thus even though the mibnorities are worried about the crime inn their neighborhood they rally against "white" people that talk about it.
A local owner of Woody's BBG joints was fed up with being robbed and the criminals getting off and he had a unique approach that turned the issue around. He started a free monthlyu newspaper called the Victims Rights Advocate. he started an organizaation that attackerd the issue by saying that victims were not being given their due by the courts.
He started grading judges on whether they let the victims speak at sentencing hearings and whether they were fair and published the scorecards at election time. In florida judges come up as Should we keep so and so circuit as judge Yes/No.
He also highlighted the horror stories of women who were raped and the rapist got two years and now lived in their neighborhood. Victims that were not allowed to speak at sentencing heaqrings. Cops that did not help the victim etc.
This was a uniaue way to approach this issue because instead of saying "We need to do more to get those crooked so and so's which liberals would then talk of code words and dog whistles" they said we need to make sure that the rights of Victims are being upheld by the system. It was much harder for the Progs to marginalize.
Um...."harnessing," "ensnare," "open source solutions," and probably some other stuff. You'll have to check with the word wizards up top.
I thought we were enshrining "tryanmaxing"? :P
Indi, that's an interesting approach. Given the obsession with rights that seems to be driving people, legitimizing the law-and-order platform through victims does make it much harder to attack.
Convincing urban minorities that the police are not out to get them will obviously take time. Like I said above, one of the most important steps is probably winning over community leaders in some of these neighborhoods to build bridges between the two sides.
Andrew, maybe that can be a special section in the Commentarama-nary. Most dictionaries have a thesaurus attached, ours has a "tryanmaxing." ("tryanmaxisms"?)
Okay, so now we need to add a Commentarama-sarus..
tryanmaxing - v. see alsooooo....?
Bev, Nice!! :) Yes, we should have Commentarama-sarus. LOL!
We could also get a Commentaramapedia.
Post a Comment