It's the self-interest, stupid.
Goddamn, finally people [liberals, though not necessarily those with power] are embracing a doctrine of self-interest. The Stranger has an interesting feature this week, The Urban Archipelago. It's an impassioned, revolutionary, though ultimately myopic, argument for screwing the heartland and looking out for our own overpopulated selves. I'm speaking of course as the former city-dweller I was and still identify myself as.
First, some housekeeping: the article purports to have been written by "The Editors of The Stranger" but I found this article, by Dan Savage at the Portland Mercury (The Stranger's sister paper). That is to say, I found the first page of the article in a Google cache, which appears to be identical to the one written by the editors of the stranger. The thing has been stricken from the Mercury site itself. Not sure why. Thought I'd point it out because I really like Dan Savage. Credit where credit is due and what not. I'll leave it at that.In any event, thanks to In My Room for pointing the article out. Thanks to him/them also for recognizing it as a "bile-[spewing] . . . screed." It is that exactly (which further makes me think Dan Savage wrote it). There's a lot about the article that's dreamy and under-cooked. Most notably, I have a suspicion that it pretends a more homogenous liberality in and around major cities than actually exists. In those places, we have a majority. Often, it's an overwhelming majority, [Washington DC], but often it's a fairly narrow majority. In at least one case, it's not even enough of a majority to win the larger county for Kerry.
The Stranger boasts that Democrats won every city whose population is above 500,000. According to this, there are 27 such cities. I'm sure that's true, but the article ignores a few things. For example, Houston, population 1,953,631, is one such city. I couldn't find records for Houston itself, but we'll assume, as the Stranger said, that Kerry won it. However, whatever Pro-Kerry majority existed within city limits, it wasn't even enough to win Harris county for the Democrat, where Bush won 55% to 45%. Now, if you have 2 million people in your town, a town which leans Democrat, but you can't even pull your county Kerry's way, there are a number of possibilities, and all of them suggest that it's not really blue city.
First, we're going to speculate that Houston proper is the largest set of votes for the county. Houston goes Kerry, the county goes Bush by 10%. Either: Kerry slimly won in Houston or there's a huge percentage of suburban voters who don't qualify as Houstonians but live in the same county. That makes them, for all intents and purposes, Houstonians that didn't get examined when Dan Savage/Stranger editors were writing this up and makes Houston at large more purplish than either red or blue.
For the record, I didn't spend hours finding a 500,000+ city to fit my argument, Houston was the first I looked at. Admittedly, I looked at it because it's balls deep in Texas.
The point remains, merely having a majority in a city isn't enough to claim it as part of the archipelago.
From the Stranger: "According to the 2000 Census, 226 million people reside inside metropolitan areas--a number that positively dwarfs the 55 million people who live outside metro areas. The 85 million people who live in strictly defined central city limits also outnumber those rural relics."This pretty much makes my point for me. 85 million. 226 million. 55 million. Assume for a minute that Savage/editors are correct, and that those 85 million uninhibited, metrosexual, compassionate downtown dwellers are liberal enough and get out the vote enough to beat the 55 million countrified, closet segregationist, fag-hating, mean-Christ loving farmhands (to use the Savage/Stranger oversimplification). Fine, but what about the other 226 million? The people that live in Redmond, Bellevue, Renton, the little pocket communities and suburbs that aren't even really towns, they're just flattened expanses of land.
Here's the problem I see. While a city proper may be overwhelmingly liberal, their outlying areas are often not. These areas have lots of single family housing, lots of big back yards, lots of privacy. The Sammamish Plateau, near Seattle, where lots of Tech industry middle-managers and big-wigs make their home, is very conservative. It doesn't match up with Seattle's numbers, but they're significant.
In Harris county, this kind of voter in this kind of enclave was enough to swing the overall metro vote away from Kerry.
I'm saying this: Before we go off half-cocked about our islands in the assylum, we need to look at the demographics of the surrounding reef. From our mountain peak fortresses of sanity, we need to keep keen eyes focused on those camping at the foot.
Overall, I think the Savage/Stranger article has some very prescient points, especially about embracing states rights. It's just practical from the viewpoint of the narrow-minority party to divide and conquer. If a majority of Americans don't trust us to fix the whole goddamned she-bang, then lets focus on fixing Seattle, Portland, LA, SF, NY, DC and all those other congestion-riddled abbreviations. There we'll find less resistance.
It's a shame that counties aren't afforded the same autonomy as states are, or I have the feeling King, Multnomah, and all the other counties who take on the names of their large, liberal cities, would already be much better places.
But more than that, it's nice to see my cynicism [realism] rubbing off on people. Not that I can claim credit for the rubbing . . . so I'll say it's nice to see people like me being vocal on a [semi-]national stage.
Eat that Sheffler.
posted by Luke @ 11:06 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Touché, Luke, but this is the type of cynicism I eat with a spoon -- myopic liberal rants that angrily make points that aren't totally on solid footing. What gets to me is jaded hopelessness masquerading as apathy.
You -- correctly -- made the point that the article is rife with errors of generalization, but I think we both know that a rant like this is designed to stir up sentiment and highlight specific issues more than it is to designed to suggest policy or reveal truth.
And it stirs things up like a blender. An MRI of the reptilian self-interest center in my brain when I was reading it -- oh, and, yeah, it's definitely Savage. It would've been more obvious only if he had mentioned how GGG the red states would be if they let us pee on Rick Santorum while lubing up for some serious alternative-lifestlye-brand love making -- would've revealed some pretty high levels of activity. Red states soak up federal dollars from blue states like a sponge. Blue states produce 110% of this country's culture (measured in movies, art, plays, and literature. International understanding of American culture as homo/xenophobia, the desire to tote guns, ignore the poor, and swell to epic proportions has more basis in Red states than in Blue states, though we're far from perfect in those categories). We're the ones trying to keep the environment hospitable in the Red states so they can produce flour, enrich it, and sell it back to us in Little Debbie snack cakes. We're the ones trying to push truly equal rights for all. We're the ones driving the international economy. The list goes on and on. I think Savage -- and isn't he an editor of The Stranger anyway? So, I guess the byline isn't that far off -- can be forgiven for a little back-patting of liberal America, which happens to be over-represented in large cities.
Of course the article is short-sighted. But it sure is fun and self-congratulatory. I think the most value to come of it is the value of localizing politics. Republicans have traditionally been the champions of states' rights, but perhaps this article reveals the value of what Democrats can -- and, occasionally, do -- accomplish by focusing on cities.
As for me, I try to stick to cities, but my overriding rule of thumb is to never be more than a couple hundred miles from a major body of water, such as an ocean, great lake, or the Mississippi river (obviously, the Great Salt Lake doesn't count). Oh, and to never, ever go anywhere near the gulf of Mexico.
--Mike Sheffler
... turning to the 3-D map, we see an unmistakable cone of ignorance
A few other things:
1.) Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has some commentary on the flip side of this issue -- conservatives who wail about cities tipping elections and mucking things up for the honest, decent, hard-working folk of middle America -- framed in terms of Electoral College reform.
2.) I have a suspicion that it pretends a more homogenous liberality in and around major cities than actually exists. In those places, we have a majority. Often, it's an overwhelming majority, [Washington DC], but often it's a fairly narrow majority.The fact that Savage over-estimates liberal representation in cities is the crux of your criticism and is the exact reason why Savage is a little off the mark here. However, it is not at all correct to classify Washington DC as a haven of liberal thought. What is true is that Democrats clean house in DC, usually receiving upwards of 90% of the vote. Washington DC is full of poor-ass black people. That's not commentary or criticism, it's the truth. What's special about the economically depressed people of DC is that they -- unlike the majority of [white] members of the lower class -- have learned to vote in their economic and social interest. The Democrats are far more likely to institute programs and spending friendly to the people of DC than Republicans and they [citizens of DC] know it. What is not clear is that DC residents would classify themselves as liberals. Maybe, but not necessarily, and certainly not in the sweeping majority envisioned by your implication.
Hmm, that sounds really combative and stand-off-ish. I totally agree with you about the article, I'm just trying [in my first comment and, to a lesser extent, in this one] to point out some of the redeeming points, and the DC thing -- your point being oft-repeated by members of the media as well as other bloggers -- is just a pet-peeve of mine.
--Mike Sheffler
... turning to the 3-D map, we see an unmistakable cone of ignorance
Post a Comment
<< Home