Find Myself a City to Live in

I've been reading and thinking about an article at the Stranger entitled The Urban Archipelago. The basic argument of the article is that the blue areas of America are in the cities. Even those states traditionally thought of as Blue are generally blue in the cities and red elsewhere.

It's time to state something that we've felt for a long time but have been too polite to say out loud: Liberals, progressives, and Democrats do not live in a country that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Canada to Mexico. We live on a chain of islands. We are citizens of the Urban Archipelago, the United Cities of America. We live on islands of sanity, liberalism, and compassion--New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, St. Louis, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and on and on. And we live on islands in red states too--a fact obscured by that state-by-state map. Denver and Boulder are our islands in Colorado; Austin is our island in Texas; Las Vegas is our island in Nevada; Miami and Fort Lauderdale are our islands in Florida.

. So what does this mean for a long term Democratic strategy? Well their suggestion is that we focus our energies on improving the cities.

We're going to demand that the Democrats focus on building their party in the cities while at the same time advancing a smart urban-growth agenda that builds the cities themselves. The more attractive we make the cities--politically, aesthetically, socially--the more residents and voters cities will attract, gradually increasing the electoral clout of liberals and progressives. For Democrats, party building and city building is the same thing. We will strive to turn red states blue one city at a time.

. . . You've made your choice, red America, and we urban Americans are going to make a different choice. We are going to make Seattle--and New York, Chicago, and the rest--a great place to live, a progressive place. Again, we'll quote Ronald Reagan: We will make each of our cities--each and every one--a shining city on a hill.

The authors have some specific ideas on how to improve the cities, as well as plenty of abuse for the red counties in America.

I can certainly empathize with the anger. For decades if not longer we've been telling ourselves that people who love in the country are good honest hardworking loyal Americans, and people who live in the cities are ethnic cheats and liars and bad people. So turning the tables a little, well, I can understand it. But I'm not certain such hostility towards other Americans is good for America in the long run. I don't like it when it is the red states telling me I'm not American because I'm urban, and so I have to say it's not the best when such attacks go the other way.

The strategy is good but problematic. Certainly for the most productive parts of our nation, American cities do get dumped on a lot. Both Rhetorically and in other ways as well. How much money flows out of our cities to help those parts of the country who despise them? Quite a bit.

This strategy won't do much for short term. The electoral college will see to that. Long term, I agree strongly with the goal. The best strategy might be a combination one. Building up the cities while also pursuing a national strategy. As I implied above, I don't think Rural America is a lost cause.

This may be naive of me, but I don't think any part of America is a lost cause.