Felix Salmon makes the very interesting and powerful case:
City-dwellers, as such, have almost no say in national politics, and invariably
end up subsidizing the increasingly-anachronistic lifestyles of their rural
compatriots … While
cities are nominally democratic, in reality the party-political makeup of their
legislatures almost never changes: the national parties have effectively
hijacked the local political process by using the power of their strong national
brand … Given the
opportunity to elect mavericks who will push creative and innovative policies in
the face of apathy from national political parties, the citizens of great
metropolises like San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Toronto, London, Paris,
Miami and Berlin have been very happy to elect maverick politicians as mayor.
But even the most powerful and imaginative mayor tends to find a lot of party
political opposition, both nationally and locally …In the absence of an urbanist political party, then,
city-dwellers will probably never be the political force that they can and
should be … If you live in a big city, you
will probably find yourself more in agreement with your neighbors—or even with
city-dwellers on the other side of the world—than you will with rural members of
your national political party. The big political parties are very wary
about immigration, for instance; big cities live and thrive on immigration, and
support it strongly.Cities are also vastly ahead of the rest of the
world when it comes to gay rights; they’ve elected far more than their fair
share of openly gay prominent politicians, and act as the safe haven to which
young gay people flock whenever they feel persecuted in their small towns. A
high density of gay people in turn feeds creative industries and increases the
number of people interested in revitalizing the urban centers which were bywords
for poverty in the 1970s and early 80s, and which are now the one part of the
overheated housing market which seems likely to survive the property
crash. There are lots of other policies, too, on which city residents
would tend to agree. They are generally “greener” than the population as a
whole: more environmentally aware, more willing and able to implement
eco-friendly initiatives from cycling to recycling. While they might support
local farmers, they have no time for big subsidies to agribusiness. They are
much more likely to support efforts to build and strengthen educational
institutions, especially at the university level. And in general they love
heterogeneity and freedom: they’re skeptical when politicians talk about social
norms or try to impose any kind of censorship.
The whole story is here. Can it actually happen?
UPDATE: Arnold Kling weighs in:
I think that there is a general misfit between our political institutions and the
direction of technology. Our institutions are still in the middle of the
twentieth century, centralizing power, putting more and more resources into the
same number of political hands. See my essay on the wealth controlled by
politicians, reprinted
here. Meanwhile, the rest of society is in the 21st century, featuring what
Chris Anderson calls The Long Tail (I just finished Kindling the book.
Much of its message seeped out before and after the book appeared, but it’s
still worth reading.)Salmon is correct to suggest that urban voters are not well served by the
current institutional setup. Perhaps a “horizontal network” of urban voters
would have more in common than a territorial entity that embeds a city inside a
province or a nation-state. But to me that is an argument against giving
territorial monopolies to government units, and my guess is that Salmon didn’t
mean to go there.
UPDATE II: Ryan Avent joins the conversation:
I think the constituency is there, but creating a political identity that
will resonate at the ballot box is more difficult than simply identifying a
majority with shared interests. What’s needed is a catalyst, which might
fundamentally shift the way that suburban voters think of themselves.One candidate is high gas prices. Expensive gas will likely produce an inward
migration sufficient to place a larger share of households in explicitly urban
areas. It may also align the interests of suburban and urban voters on a number
of important issues–transportation and infrastructure funding, for example.But the real game-changer may be the candidacy of Barack Obama. I’m reminded
of the fundamental shifts in voter identification that took place under Richard
Nixon and Ronald Reagan, who solidified southern Democrats and suburban anti-tax
voters, respectively, in creating large new political voting blocs. Sometimes, a
compelling politician is just a compelling politician, who comes and goes
without altering the underlying political landscape. But sometimes, a compelling
politician can facilitate the consolidation of new political identities.
He certainly has the constituency. The question is, even if he wins, can he heal the deep, deep split in the US on this issue? The geographic divide is also a class divide. Can the party of a single class, that amounts to say 30-35 percent of the workforce, effectively govern a polarized America? Seems to me the core issue is how to begin to mend the divide?
And you?
June 25th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
The problem is not with urban or rural voters, it’s that suburban voters are emotionally attached to “rural” values and like to pretend that they don’t live in a city. This is irrational, but politics is much more about emotion than reason. In the American consciousness cities are associated either with effete elites or crime-ridden poverty. Rural America is “true” America with good-old-fashioned family values. This is utter nonsense but a very powerful myth. Suburban votes comprise 50 percent of the population in many states. No political progress can be made until such voters realize that it is in their own interest to support the city. They are inextricably linked to the city and a stronger city equals stronger suburbs.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Some of the observations are interesting. But the proposals didn’t make any sense to me, especially if applied worldwide.
If so many of the world’s mayors already have a core of issues on which they find common ground — including opponents like Livingstone and Johnson — then what benefit would an Urbanist Party provide in local elections? For that matter, wouldn’t both qualify as an Urbanist Party candidate? If you want elections to be meaningful, you have to provide choice: two or more viable but competing visions for the city. So his initial observations seem more of an argument for uncoupling municipal candidates from national parties, to allow truly urbanist candidates to emerge. That’s already the case in Canadian cities — some have their own municipal parties; others don’t have party affiliations at all. (Which way is best is the subject of ongoing debate.)
He seems to also be suggesting a movement which would eventually advance an urbanist platform on national issues around the world. I think that’s a non-starter. Many of his assertions — e.g. “big political parties are very wary about immigration”, “rent control doesn’t work”, reference to the “housing downturn” — reveal a narrow focus on American problems and perspectives. City dwellers around the world do disagree about important issues. The same health care platform can’t work in Copenhagen and Chicago; the same approach to immigration won’t fly in Toronto and Miami; Jerusalem and Damascus don’t see eye-to-eye on regional matters. The mayors can sidestep many of these differences because they’re focused on local level concerns. Their ad-hoc coalitions can evolve into something more permanent and powerful — a bit like a UN of cities — without tripping over national-issue faultlines.
I believe cities are growing in importance, and I’d love to see that reflected in both political power and the allocation of public funds. But his idea of a top-down “organization which could endorse candidates for local office” is far too simplistic. The diversity within cities is best served by a full slate of urbanist candidates, and the diversity among cities calls for a bottom-up forum for exchanging and collaborating upon local ideas.
June 25th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Here’s an amazing story about an incumbant Republican Utah congressmen who lost to a more conservative Republican in a primary because he was too liberal…. in a 20 point landslide.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/25/republican-congressman-loses-primary-challenge/
To all those who think the Republican party is in trouble: Dream On. This Jason Chaffetz guy is a first-time candidate and won by saying (surprise, surprise) that Washington needs to get back to conservative principles. I am regularly astounded at liberals for thinking that Republicans are doomed. That’s just not the case…. just because the Republicans don’t have a lock on the White House this year doesn’t mean the party is in trouble.
Personally, I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I have an interest in politics and pay regular attention to the news. I see an undetected conservative movement in the United States that could create a very powerful whiplash effect, similar to what happened in the Gingrich Revolution of 1994. Remember that? It is sad to say, because progressive policies could serve our country and our cities very well right now, but the conservative movement is like a hangnail that won’t go away. If “the citizens of great metropolises like San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Toronto, London, Paris, Miami and Berlin” are not represented the way they should be like Felix Salmon says, why haven’t they organized a voter’s union to support an existing national party? This particular Salmon column represents the sappy, liberal, felt-good ideology that loses at the polls.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
I love the article. It’s time for the 2 party system to die. We think of it in America as a de facto status quo as old and indelible as our constitution. But, in fact, it’s an anomaly that has existed well beyond its realistic half life; and only in our country. Like a 20 year old cat, we love it, but it’s time to euthanize the 2 party system and put it out of its old-age suffering. It could easily be dead within 10 years. Like it or not, we’re in a new era that is more transitional than any other in the last several hundred years.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:14 am
While they might support local farmers, they have no time for big subsidies to agribusiness.
Comforting thought, but unsupported by poll data. Farm subsidies are, unfortunately, strongly supported even by urban dwellers. At the best you get indifference– an indifference that is easily bought off by pittances and claims that some of the big subsidies will go to organic agribusiness as well, as we saw in this year’s farm bill.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party, Frank McEnulty of the New American Independant Party and Ralph Nader who is independent also think its time for the two-party system to die. But combined, their support is in the single digits. The two-party cat will be around for a long-time to come.
I read Arnold Kling’s article, “Politicians’ Power Dwarfs the Rich” and had to cringe after the first few sentences. Here’s the real sticking point:
“Montgomery County, Md., has an annual budget of $3.8 billion. This sum is under the control of a County Council with nine members. On an average per-politician basis, each County Council member controls just over $400 million a year in spending.”
The city council doesn’t “control” $3.8 billion. The administrative department heads do. Even they don’t have “control” over the money. They are obligated to spend the money where needed most. The city council is oversight. Here’s another sticking point:
“At the federal level, the budget is $3 trillion. If you divide that by 535 (the number of senators and representatives), then, on average, each legislator controls over $5 billion in spending per year. That is more than even the world’s richest person could spend annually.”
Last time I checked, legislators weren’t out on the town partying on $5 billion. Once again, federal spending is allocated by administrative heads. Anybody who can get away with rationally justifing that elected officials have absolute control over public money is much more successful that I am…. and belongs in a tank of thinkers.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I don’t necessarily disagree with these assertions. However, without explicit examples listed, it looks like conjecture. Do your research!
June 27th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I don’t necessarily disagree with these assertions. However, without explicit examples listed, it just looks like conjecture. Do your research!
June 29th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Carly – What? I don’t understand who or what you are talking about. Could you please clarify? This would give the person making the assertions you reference the opportunity to unconjecture them.