Why Republicans need the cities
It’s well past time for Republicans to take cities seriously again. This starts with valuing urban environments, and respecting (or at least taking time to understand) the values of the people who live there. For example, urban dwellers expect and indeed require a higher level of public services than many suburban residents. The suburbs might not need quality street lighting, for example, but cities do. The rural area I grew up in can rely on people passing by in pickup trucks with chain saws to clear away trees that fall on the road. Cities can’t. Thus, Tea Party-type policy prescriptions in which basically everything the government does is considered bad, and in which cutting taxes is the main political value, aren’t likely to sell. Urban dwellers actually want to know how you are going to deliver services more effectively. Similarly, just bashing transit as a waste of money, lashing out against location-appropriate density, opposing all environmental initiatives, and shrill anti-immigrant rhetoric only turn urban dwellers off.
If Republicans took urban concerns seriously, they would find that they have much to offer urban residents and voters. For example, Democrats pay lip service to transit, but much transit policy in America today (heavily shaped by Democrats) is more oriented towards protecting entrenched constituencies than it is towards actual effectiveness. A serious Republican-led effort to reform the federal process and reduce the insane construction price premium (effectively a transit surtax) for American transit versus overseas systems would be welcomed, as long as it was not a Trojan horse for undermining transit. Republicans have so abandoned transportation (other than highway spending), that ideas which Republicans invented, like congestion pricing, have been claimed by the left as their own.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Straw man much?
Wethal on January 24, 2013 at 10:05 PM
Most conservatives would be more than happy to support money for these types of services and more besides. The rest of the freebies, not so much.
sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 10:09 PM
The cities are as dead and dying today as the Roman Empire was in the 460′s
They produce nothing.
They leech EVERYTHING.
They are nothing more than welfare centers.
wildcat72 on January 24, 2013 at 10:15 PM
What does federal spending have to do with any of this? I don’t care if NY or LA want trains. As long as they’re willing to pay for it, it’s fine with me. These are state and local issues.
ReaganWasRight on January 24, 2013 at 10:16 PM
The cities house most of America. I’m sorry conservatives, but if you think you can win with only the rural voters you are not only mistaken but you’re outnumbered even if amnesty doesn’t pass.
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM
Well, start by geting rid of public sector unions. That will help increase the effectiveness of public service. Not to mention reduce the cost.
Wethal on January 24, 2013 at 10:22 PM
If you look very closely at Democrat policies, they are designed to depopulate Republican areas. California cuts off water to Central Valley farmers causing unemployment and business failures. The population of these areas go down, the areas are absorbed into Democrat districts. That is just one example but there are several. If you take a close look at most policies you will notice that they impact jobs where Republicans live and act to further depress and depopulate those areas.
Yes, the Republicans do need to get involved in the cities.
crosspatch on January 24, 2013 at 10:24 PM
If you mean by cities, the greater metropolitan areas, that’s true. Cities themselves might be another issue. People moved to the burbs to get away from cities.
Wethal on January 24, 2013 at 10:24 PM
Dwhoops! Yes I did. Thank you.
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 10:26 PM
Actually, you have it backwards. Most cities produce far more in wealth and tax revenue than they consume.
But, given that the kind of irrigation projects that Central Valley farmers profit from (and the subsidies they consume and the illegals Dems tolerate and farmers hire) are classic liberal programs, wouldn’t you say that Democratic policies are designed to subsidies unproductive rural people who’d go broke without them?
Name them.
Like the interstate highway system, rural electrification and housing projects, farm subsidies….
Come on ’round.
urban elitist on January 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM
Then lets seal them up and City State Of New York City and Los Angeles can go their own way and the rest of the country can go theirs. Everyone wins.
sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 10:50 PM
When the currency crashes the cities will de-populate themselves. I figure by the time any of them make it out to where I live, the democrat party will be reduced by about 95%.
Problem solved.
trigon on January 24, 2013 at 11:04 PM
One of the reasons for the supposed tax-sucking of red states comes from the fact that most red states have large parts of the state through which FEDERAL highways run that are not urban or suburban. Blue states are mostly a bloated set of suburban counties around large metropolitan areas.
Bugtussle County can’t afford to support both itself, maintain the highway, and staff 24-hour patrols on their stretch of Interstate 2112. And a red state is more likely to have Bugtussle Counties in between their highway-connected cities than a blue state that is almost all urban and suburban.
And as for cities producing so much wealth, how come super-urbanized blue states are circling the drain financially? HINT: It has a lot more to do with making sure Fatty McFatterson has enough left on her EBT for a manicure and a trip to the All-You-Can-Eat Buffet, so she keeps voting the “right” way, than paying for a graveyard shift State Highway patrolman in Ihearbanjos County.
Sekhmet on January 24, 2013 at 11:22 PM
Example from today, Obama kills nearly 4,000 Texas jobs with regulations:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-epa-kills-power-plant-3900-jobs-in-texas/article/2519575
Live in California for a while. No, sorry, we can’t repair that bridge to that agricultural area, it will “encourage development”. Development in Republican areas much be discouraged at all costs. I see it every year. No, we can’t put in a water desalinization plant in that area, it will “encourage development”.
No, Republicans built those projects and the Democrats fight them tooth and nail. They managed to get the Central Valley project stopped about halfway to completion in the 1970′s when Jerry Brown was governor last time. You have no idea what you are blabbering about.
crosspatch on January 25, 2013 at 12:06 AM
Really? I guess that depends on what you mean by “cities”. You surely aren’t talking about Detroit, Milwaukee, Oakland, etc. Oakland California started its spiral into hell when federal funding into the city exceeded tax revenue and it has never recovered from the death spiral that situation has caused. Federal funds do NOT fix problems. I have a friend who is a civil engineer for a California city. They bend over backwards to AVOID federal funding on a project because it greatly bloats the costs (agricultural town must pay Los Angeles union scale for labor on the project, for example) and greatly slows down progress and ties up resources in audit after audit and they MIGHT actually get their money some number of years after the project is finished. It just isn’t worth the hassle so they avoid it if they can.
crosspatch on January 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM