Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Quimbob

Republicans Won’t Compete in Cities

Recommended Posts

Unfortunately, most the policies that were proposed are your typical slash-and-burn rent-extraction that would hinder further urban development.  Outsourcing assets, like Cincy's parking meters, will only divest control of cities from the peoples' government to corporate overlords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Contrary to what many conservatives believe, urban policy is not necessarily a transfer of wealth from makers to takers. Metropolitan areas are the country’s economic engines–and good policies will make them even more productive."

 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/republicans-wont-compete-in-cities/

 

The lack of attention to urban issues is one of the most defining failures of the modern GOP, and the conservative movement more generally.  Glaeser and Renn and others have been banging on that drum for a long time, unfortunately, with minimal success; their concurrence in the article's point is unlikely to move the needle within the conservative movement because it hasn't done so for years.  It's not new at this point.  Of course, perhaps the GOP's recent electoral humbling will prompt some reevaluation, but I think it may be early for that, especially while they still hold a good share of the governors' mansions out there.

 

I almost think that many conservatives want, or at least don't mind, dysfunctional cities.  Perhaps they see them as useful foils in their argument for suburbia and exurbia--object lessons in the economically smothering consequences of the Byzantine regulatory state and the socially corrosive consequences of the welfare state.  Maybe it's simple neglect; they haven't turned their minds towards developing urban policies just because urban centers occupy such a remote place in their mind.  Or maybe they simply see any resources expended in the lands dominated by Democratic political machines as wasted.  I don't pretend to fully understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Of course, perhaps the GOP's recent electoral humbling will prompt some reevaluation

 

Yes, they have re-evaluated the way Presidential elections are determined and have decided that they should change the way electoral votes are allocated.  Basically changing the rules of the game to fit their needs.

 

And then there is the issue of gerrymandering which has kept them with disproportionate numbers of seats in Congress and in the individual Statehouses.  More rule changing to keep them in power.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's a really interesting article but I don't think the title aligns with the article's content.  It asks more questions than it answers.

 

The third paragraph in, the author states "The ideas Glaeser identifies as especially promising include data-driven policing, school choice, contracting out city services, congestion pricing for driving and parking, and the removal of regulatory obstacles to housing construction."

 

I think those ideas can find common ground with most any conservative.  At the same time, I think most big cities would be hard pressed to find liberal/progressive leaders willing to take up the charge of implementing any of those policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Of course, perhaps the GOP's recent electoral humbling will prompt some reevaluation

 

Yes, they have re-evaluated the way Presidential elections are determined and have decided that they should change the way electoral votes are allocated.  Basically changing the rules of the game to fit their needs.

 

And then there is the issue of gerrymandering which has kept them with disproportionate numbers of seats in Congress and in the individual Statehouses.  More rule changing to keep them in power.

 

 

 

I wonder where Republicans got the idea of "changing the rules of the game to fit their needs."

After Bush v. Gore, Obama, Clinton wanted Electoral College scrapped

By Mario Trujillo - 10/27/12 05:00 AM ET

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/264347-obama-clinton-backed-reforms-to-electoral-college-after-bush-v-gore

 

 

"Here’s a snapshot of where top lawmakers have came down on a controversial issue that’s once again in the political spotlight.

 

SUPPORT REFORM

President Obama — Obama said he supported eliminating the Electoral College as a Senate candidate during a WTTW television debate against Republican Alan Keyes in 2004.

 

When asked, “Yes or no, eliminate the Electoral College?” Obama responded, “Yes … I think, at this point, this is breaking down.”

 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — Shortly after the 2000 election, as a newly-minted Senator-elect, Clinton called for direct elections of the president. She argued the country has changed since the Electoral College was put in place.

 

“We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago,” Clinton said at a news conference.

 

“I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Popular election of the president would be more democratic.  Republicans have been trying to make the process less democratic.  By using congressional districts which they've heavily gerrymandered in their favor to determine how electoral college votes are distributed, they would make it even more likely that the loser of the popular vote becomes president.  This gerrymandering is the only reason that the Republicans have even held onto the house, as they lost the actual popular vote there, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"We can quantify this effect using three different methods. First, Democrats would have had to win the popular vote by 7 percentage points to take control of the House the way that districts are now (assuming that votes shifted by a similar percentage across all districts). That’s an 8-point increase over what they would have had to do in 2010, and a margin that happens in only about one-third of Congressional elections.

 

Second, if we replace the eight partisan gerrymanders with the mock delegations from my simulations, this would lead to a seat count of 215 Democrats, 220 Republicans, give or take a few."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^Huge difference between eliminating the electoral college nationally and going to a pure popular vote (as Clinton and Obama supported) and selectively eliminating the electoral college in states in which the change would benefit your party (as many Republicans today support).

 

In federal elections every state should play by the same rules, IMO.  If Republicans get there way and change the rules in selective states and a Republican candidate wins the 2016 Presidency while losing the popular vote by more than a couple points there will be absolute anarchy.  That kind of electioneering would not be good for the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's more referring to the possible attraction of such policies to urban residents, which might allow for conservatives to offer some competitive ideas in areas long oversaturated with leftist orthodoxy.  Obviously, if urban citizens have no interest in those things, so be it.  But I think you'd find a large number of conservatives who don't even know what congestion pricing is.  (And, of course, specifically with respect to Ohio cities, almost none of our cities' downtowns are so congested as to make congestion pricing necessary or efficient.)  They might support it if they knew about it, but they've simply never bothered to take the time to learn.

 

Likewise, I think there are many conservatives who cannot get more specific than "less regulation" when it comes to urban issues.  "Less regulation" is just an ideological framework absent specific content.  There are very few conservative urban candidates who can actually walk through the permitting process for a new development or business and ask whether the particular steps are necessary.  And many conservatives forget entirely about their limited-regulation philosophy when it comes to zoning, since they often support anti-density regulation in the suburbs.  That puts them at a significant disadvantage in any discussion on nurturing the physical and financial growth of a landlocked community, which many Ohio cities are (and certainly urban downtowns are).

 

I think that the reimagining and realignment of our built environment is one of the most critical steps towards restoring the social fabric, particularly the urban social fabric, that modern conservatives often lament as deteriorating.  There is also a vibrant strain of the conservative movement (albeit not necessarily the majority when set against the tough-on-crime faction of the GOP) that is absolutely willing to challenge excesses of the criminal justice system, including prosecutorial overzealousness and the pernicious collective-scale effects of the drug war, particularly on poorer urban populations (largely African-American ones).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^If you think reforms designed to move further away from popular will are the same as those meant to better reflect it, I don't think you'll find a lot of common ground here.  Just sayin'  [EDIT: late to  party responding to EVD]

 

At the same time, I think most big cities would be hard pressed to find liberal/progressive leaders willing to take up the charge of implementing any of those policies.

 

Actually, I don't think this is true anymore, if it ever was.  Whether it's Bloomberg (whose former R affiliation was an electoral gimmick) or Cleveland's own mayor Jackson, most of those policies are embraced by many "progressive" mayors. A more significant divide in most big cities now is between technocratic/innovative mayors and older machine types, and because of electoral realities, that is mostly within the progressive/liberal political communities in these places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^If you think reforms designed to move further away from popular will are the same as those meant to better reflect it, I don't think you'll find a lot of common ground here.  Just sayin'  [EDIT: late to  party responding to EVD]

 

I say we should just stick with the original plan of the Founding Fathers! (something about the tryranny of the majority, right?) It seems to have worked okay for all these years. It seems even Obama must have changed his mind, unless I missed his most recent statements opposing the EC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...