The Stranger has an interesting (and a bit pissed off) editorial recommending the strategy for the Democratic Party: become the urbanist party. Lay out some solid strategies for urban renewal and livability, like affordable housing and transit, focus on municipal government, and grow the cities. The 2004 results are clear: it's Metropolis against Ruralia, and it's very nearly tied.
If Democrats and urban residents want to combat the rising tide of red that threatens to swamp and ruin this country, we need a new identity politics, an urban identity politics, one that argues for the cities, uses a rhetoric of urban values, and creates a tribal identity for liberals that's as powerful and attractive as the tribal identity Republicans have created for their constituents. John Kerry won among the highly educated, Jews, young people, gays and lesbians, and non-whites. What do all these groups have in common? They choose to live in cities. An overwhelming majority of the American popuation chooses to live in cities. And John Kerry won every city with a population above 500,000. He took half the cities with populations between 50,000 and 500,000. The future success of liberalism is tied to winning the cities. An urbanist agenda may not be a recipe for winning the next presidential election--but it may win the Democrats the presidential election in 2012 and create a new Democratic majority.
[...]
We won't concern ourselves if red states restrict choice. We'll just make sure that abortion remains safe and legal in the cities where we live, and the states we control, and when your daughter or sister or mother dies in a botched abortion, we'll try not to feel too awful about it.
In short, we're through with you people. 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.
The piece is long and I had trouble not quoting huge passages of it, so it's very much worth your time to read the whole thing.
TrackBackHere's the plan: We persuade the thousands of liberals who reside in the deep red states (Alabama, Texas, etc.) to move to the purple states that went red this time (Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico0, thereby assuring a Democratic victory in 2008. Oh boy.
Alternative plan: Grass roots revolution.
Oh, great. Ignoring jobs for the moment, all Democrats need to do is make cities more attractive to people who don't like cities. Yeah, I get it.
Posted by: Tripp at November 17, 2004 11:28 AMI'm not sure I buy the ruralia vs. ubanian claims that so many are making. Five to the largest cities in the U.S. (Huston (4th), San Diego (6th), Pheonix (7th), San Antonio (8th) and Dallas (9th)) were red. Outside the ten largest, you will find several cities that were red. Young cities, cities that exploded with the move to the burbs, seem to be red.
Of course, it's notable the the phrase 'ruralia vs. urbania' just leave the burbs out.
Posted by: lenhart at November 17, 2004 02:10 PM