Home › Blogs › jmumich's blog ›

Republicans Need to Reclaim the Cities

Submitted by jmumich on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 13:42

The coming days will certainly be days for looking inward.  There will undoubtably be considerably discussion in the coming days and weeks about what went wrong, and what can be done to put Republicans back in the majority in this country.  

One thought that has crossed my mind several times before, and is especially permeating today, is the question of why Republicans have lost the cities.  Look beyond New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.  Republicans have lost Cincinatti, Louisville, Salt Lake City, and Grand Rapids.  McCain won a strong victory in Texas, but lost Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio.

There is no north/south split, no east/west split.  There is an urban/rural split.  Yesterday, Republicans won in rural areas across the country, from upstate New York to downstate Illinois.  But we were creamed in the cities, from the reddest to the bluest states.  

It doesn't have to be this way.  Republicans can make inroads into the cities.  Rudy Guiliani served two terms as mayor of New York.  The same with Richard Riordan in Los Angeles.  Yes, both of these men were moderate Republicans, and liberal on social issues.  

However, both were fiscally conservative and tough on crime, platforms that won over in their overwhelmingly Democratic-leaning cities.  

This question isn't easy, and I don't have the answer, but it is one we must face.  We cannot write off just about every city over 100,000 and expect to win nationally.  We have to figure out how we can sell conservatism and Republicanism in the cities. 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Wal-mart Moms

Submitted by MnK on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 15:17.

Remember the comment about Walmart moms, the idea that this "group" would bring rescue to McCain?

This group was defined as women who are white, married with kids, without a college education, in a family that earns a total of 35 to 60 K per year (eg, either a single income family or a low-wage, two-income family).

The key there is the "without college education" - and as I'm sure you'd find in any demographics study, you find a lot more people without college educations in those rural counties.

That's the real travesty, that the GOP was pinning its hopes on the less educated segment of our population.

Now, to be certain, you find plenty of people without college educations in cities, too - but you also find plenty more people WITH college (or higher) degrees. Cities are bases for universities, cities attract larger employers that demand higher education qualifications, etc. etc.

So in one sense, the GOP needs to appeal better to those with higher levels of education. Polling in this election bears this idea out - in general, people with higher levels of education tended to favor Obama, and the higher the education level, the more likely someone was to have supported Obama.

So if the GOP wants to win cities, make the GOP appealing to the educated. (Hint - NCLB is one of those things that repels the educated.)

And of course, cities tend to have higher proportions of "minority" ethnic and racial populations - who aren't such a minority now, are they?

That was huge. Look at the voting breakdown of places like California and Texas. Notice that Obama won Dallas and Harris counties in Texas - that is, he won Houston and Dallas the cities. He also won Austin, but that's no shocker. Look at Los Angeles and San Diego counties. Obama not only won LA county, he did so in excess of 70% of the county's popular vote. LA is no "white" county for certain - and the numbers show it.

That's the second part - to win the cities, the GOP must win over minorities.

Used to be that the GOP could rely on some minorities like the Hispanic population, based solely on social issues. But minorities are in no sense a one-issue demographic. They came out against the GOP this time around because of the party's ludicrous proposals to fix illegal immigration. Democrats have at least floated the principle that the corporations that hire illegals, knowingly and willingly, must be punished for doing so - that is, cut the demand for illegal migrant workers at the source (much like the best policy for combatting drug trafficking is to cut the demand for drugs in the first place). What did the GOP offer? Punish the migrants and spend a ton of money on a few miles of high-tech fence - talk about a spending boondoggle!

Even the GOP's few prominent minority members have as much as said that the GOP really is no longer offering anything to minorities. In pandering to the anti-minority parts of the party, they alienate those minority constituents that might otherwise ally with them.

So there you go. GOP must rebrand itself to appeal to the educated and the minorities.

(Will that happen? Not as long as the Limbaughs, Coulters, Malkins, and Huckabees have their way...)

talk to buckley

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 15:45.

well, read what he had to say, since he's dead.

he'd tell you it's not cutting off the demand for drugs, it's making them too cheap to cause problems like crime and international smuggling (there will still be smuggling from canada, it's cheap to do that)

In other words...

Submitted by MnK on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 15:57.

.. legalize and regulate them.

 

You know, the drug problem is

Submitted by jmumich on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 16:30.

You know, the drug problem is an interesting angle.  I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't think there is anything Obama will do to improve America's inner cities.  There are going to be a lot of disappointed people in the bronx, the south side of Chicago, and Detroit after four years of Obama.  It is not that Obama will be any worse on these areas, it's just that the expectations there will be so high.  

While the drug problem has fallen off the radar screen over the past 10 years, it still exists, and it is still tearing the inner cities apart.  Violence is down, but it is still there, and it is only suppressed by a combination of better policing and the diminishment of turf wars over the past 15 years.  In other words, the drug dealers are still there, and they still violently defend their turf, its just that the turf is better defined than it used to be.  The residents of the inner cities are still under seige.  

Legalization, in one step, destroys the black market, and liberates these neighborhoods.  It's not without its problems, of course, and it should only be done with a clear, workable plan to make sure that usage doesn't skyrocket.  I don't know whether that is even possible.  But, this could be one issue that is rooted in limited government principles that Republicans can take ownership of.  And it would be a big step into regaining the cities as well as the trust of minorities.  After all, after four years of Obama, the inner cities will probably still be in bad shape, and will have had their expectations crushed.  That will be an incredible opportunity to do something positive, and do it without compromising our principles.

Balance of payments

Submitted by johnson springs on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 16:52.

An interesting analysis would look at the cost of the drug war as currently prosecuted vs. legalization + treatment, etc.

The Economist magazine went for legalization in the 90's I think and has written some interesting things on how that policy shift could change the drug game.

I agree that the GOP must

Submitted by jmumich on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 15:55.

I agree that the GOP must focus on the more educated.  I also agree on minorities, of course, but I think that will come with time, and the more immediate focus should be to stem the tide of educated voters from the Republican party.

During the Clinton years and even to a lesser extent the Bush years, the rule seemed to be that the more educated one was, the more likely they were to vote Republican, with the exception of those with post-graduate degrees.  Now, it is still the case that the least educated Americans vote democratic, but the GOP has bled white collar voters with college degrees.  That has to stop.  

I do think that the recent focus on cultural issues is somewhat to blame.  The Republican Party should leave it to the broader conservative movement to fight battles like the one on gay marriage.  We need to be more accepting of politicians who are more culturally liberal, but are still fiscally conservative.  We do not have a single house seat in New England.  We need to stop chasing away culturally liberal Republicans.  

That's one way, but I agree, the cities are more educated, and the Republican party has started to loose its educated base.  We'll never be the party of the ivory tower elites, but we should be the party of the college educated, white collar worker, who by and large are fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and tolerant of those unlike themselves.  That should be the first step back into the cities.  

Can we do this without offending the "base" of culturally conservative rural voters?  I think so.

Without offending...

Submitted by MnK on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 16:08.

"Can we do this without offending the "base" of culturally conservative rural voters?  I think so."

It will be a matter not of dropping the culturally conservative issues, but changing the party's approach to them.

Like, the party's platform on abortion. This year the party tried adopting the "no abortion for any reason whatsoever" platform. Yeah, that'll play to a small base - but will not appeal to a much broader demographic.

ya used to be the party of ivorty tower elites!

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 16:12.

Hell, i'd have voted for goldwater or ike, I may be a liberal, but I ain't stupid!

Cultural conservative and religious fundamentalist

Submitted by dr. snacks on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 16:19.

Doesn't have to be the same thing anymore.  It wasn't always.

Objection!!

Submitted by Rensen on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 16:20.

Please don't include Huck in your list of deterrents. He has immense appeal in the minority communities, especially black. he won 48 percent of the black vote in deep red AR during his tenure as governor. Reaching out to minorities is in fact one of the passions of his heart politically for the GOP.

Now, granted he will not neccessarily appeal to the 'highly educated' as his niche is blue collar/populist in nature, but pair him with a running mate who might appeal to those city types and you'd have a winning combination.

Huckabee is definately strong vp material for a conservative ticket. And with a little spit and polish on presentation and some policy issues, I don't see why he could not broaden his appeal to the top of the ticket. If only the GOP would stop undermining its strongest assets to play favorites!

Huckabee would be a fairly good fit for some parts of Obama's 'New America' coalition.

I also think Jindal has trememdous potential in this environment as well.. latte libs would love to help break level two of the 'color barrier' with an East Indian.

The GOP bigwigs have to think long and hard when they go into their huddle this week. They cannot let 'establishment nepotism' dictate the strategy with which they emerge. The need to examine the landscape identify the potential candidates who will work for the niches they target for turnaround, and start working TODAY to get that person set up for 4 years from now. It worked for Obama. He was president elect the moment he finished his 04 convention speech.

I'd like to see a Huckabee/Jindal, or Jindal/Palin combo in any ticket order in 2012. We need to secure our three legged base, and appeal to blue collar, and latte lib dems looking to make history again.

JMHO

The problem is population density

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 16:50.

Stating the obvious: cities mean high population densities, and as the PD increases, so does the need for government involvement. A gathering of 50 people can look after itself; a gathering of 50,000 needs policing, crowd control and provison for emergency services.

So: how to reconcile the Republican belief in limited government with the demands of high PD areas?

There is a reason why Republicans are so strong in rural area; I believe this is at the heart of it.

Republicans believe in

Submitted by jmumich on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 17:16.

Republicans believe in limited government, though, not lack of government.  Perhaps people who live in big cities and are accustomed to more government interference in their lives, even if it is trivial and passive government interference, inherently have a greater trust in government, and are less likely to be convinced that small government policies are the best solution.  

But nobody is confusing Republicans' call for limited government with calls for elimination of policing, crown control, emergency services, or even public transportation.  If anything, Republicans have been associated, positively I would argue, with better policing that led to the dramatic decrease in crime over the past 15 years.  

The problem with the cities runs deeper.  It exists in both the inner cities, and in affluent neighborhoods.  More ominously, the problem is extending to "border" suburbs, that is suburban areas that are essentially extensions of big cities.  In California, for example, while Orange County went for McCain, it did so barely.  Bush got 60% of the vote in 2004.  

We have to stop defining our party as the party of rural, culturally conservative voters.  Instead, we need to rebrand our party as the fiscally conservative, limited government party.  We need to be the party that encourages family and religuous values without seeming intolerant to those who do not believe a particular brand of religion.  We need to remain a pro-business party, that isn't blindly against regulation, but suspects regulation, and even encourages limited smart regulations. 

when you support advanced liberalism

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 17:24.

i'll be a happy camper.