For those to whom "rapidly changing world" seems like a dismissal-worthy cliche, and who still cling to ten-, thirty-, and fifty-year-old notions of what "corporate America" is, or who "the poor" are, or what the role of government in the nation's life should be, get thee to
Real Clear Politics and read J
oel Kotkin's latest piece, "The Peril to Democrats of Left-Leaning Urban Centers."
American cities, once driven by industrial activity ranging from the big OEM plants and raw-material mills, as well as the smaller shops in their supply chains, are now hollowed-out shells populated by the hip and well-heeled on one end of the spectrum, and the feral and desperate on the other:
City dwellers have historically voted more liberally than their country or suburban cousins, but demographic trends are exacerbating this polarizing impulse. Simply put, the cities that could elect a Giuliani or a Riordan no longer exist. The centrist urban surge of the 1990s was both a reaction to the perceived failures of Democratic “blue” policies as well a reflection of the makeup of white-majority, middle-class neighborhoods in places like Brooklyn, Queens and the San Fernando Valley that featured healthy numbers of politically moderate “Reagan Democrats”—or Bill Clinton Democrats, circa 1992
Since then, these communities have been largely supplanted by groups far more likely to embrace a more progressive political stance: racial minorities, hipsters, and upper-class sophisticates. These groups have swelled, and gotten much richer, in places like
brownstone Brooklyn or lakeside Chicago, while the number of inner city middle-class neighborhoods, as
Brookings has demonstrated, have declined, to 23 percent of the central city—half the level in 1970.
This new urban configuration, notes the University of Chicago’s Terry Nichols Clark, tend to have different needs, and values, than the traditional middle class. Since their denizens are heavily single and childless, the poor state of city schools does not hold priority over the political power of the teachers unions. The key needs for the new population, Clark suggests, are good restaurants, shops and festivals, not child-friendly parks and family-oriented stores. Sometimes even crazy notions—such as allowing people to walk through the streets of San Francisco
naked—are tolerated in a way no child-centric suburb would allow.
These tendencies underscore as well the increasingly homogeneous political culture emerging in cities. In 1984, for example, Ronald Reagan took 31 percent of the vote in San Francisco, and 37 percent in New York. He actually carried Los Angeles. By 2012, a Republican with a more moderate history could not muster 20 percent of the vote in San Francisco. And Mitt Romney lost Los Angeles by more than a 2-1 margin, while garnering barely 20 percent in all New York boroughs besides Staten Island.
Economic Hubris
These changes also reflect a shift in the economic role of cities. Until the 1970s, cities were centers of production, distribution and administration. Then the industrial base of urban areas, and related jobs such as logistics, began moving away from the
traditional manufacturing cities to overseas, the suburbs or the Southeast. In 1950 New York, according to economic historian Fernand Braudel, 1 million people worked in factories, mostly for small companies. Today the city’s industrial workforce now stands at a paltry 73,000, a dramatic decline from some 400,000 as recently as the early 1980s.
A similar, if less spectacular, decline has taken place in what are still the two largest industrial metropolitan statistical areas, Chicago and Los Angeles. The one-time “City of Big Shoulders” and its environs had 461,600 industrial jobs in 2009. Today it has fewer than 300,000. Los Angeles, in a process that started with the end of the Cold War, has seen its once-diverse
industrial base erode rapidly, from 900,000 just a decade ago to 364,000 today.
In some cities, a new economy has emerged, one that is largely transactional and oriented to media. The upshot is that denizens of the various social media, fashion and big data firms have little
appreciation of the difficulties faced by those who build their products, create their energy and food. Unlike the factory or port economies of the past, the new “creative” economy has little meaningful interaction with the working class, even as it claims to speak for that group.
This urban economy has created many of the
most unequal places in the country. At the top are the rich and super-affluent who have rediscovered the blessings of urbanity, followed by a large cadre of young and middle-aged professionals, many of them childless. Often ignored, except after sensationalized police shootings, is a vast impoverished class that has become ever-more concentrated in particular neighborhoods. During the first decade of the current millennium, neighborhoods with entrenched
urban poverty actually grew, increasing in numbers from 1,100 to 3,100. In population, they grew from 2 million to 4 million.Some 80 percent of all population growth in American cities, since 2000, notes demographer
Wendell Cox, came from these poorer people, many of them recent immigrants.
Such social imbalances are not, as is the favored term among the trendy, sustainable. We appear to be creating the conditions for a new wave of violent crime on a scale not seen since the early 1990s. Along with poverty,
public disorderliness,
gang activity,
homelessness and homicides are on the rise in many
American core cities, including
Baltimore, Milwaukee,
Los Angeles and
New York. Racial tensions, particularly with the police, have worsened. So even as left-leaning politicians try to rein in police, recent
IRS data in Chicago reveals, the middle class appears to once again be leaving for suburban and other locales.
The one thing these groups representing society's top and bottom have in common is that they find the message of the party of tyranny and decline appealing, even if the results of its policies serve neither of them:
These social and economic changes inform the new politics of the Democratic Party. On social policy, the strong pro-gay marriage and abortion positions of the Democrats makes sense as cities have the largest percentages of both homosexuals and single, childless women. When the party had to worry about rural voters in South Dakota or West Virginia, this shift would have been more nuanced, and less rapid.
Yet with those battles essentially won, the new urban politics are entering into greater conflict with the suburban mainstream, which tends to be socially moderate, and even more so with the resource-dependent economies of rural America. The environmental radicalism that has its roots in places like San Francisco and
Seattle now directly seeks to destroy whole parts of middle America’s energy economy.
Such policies tend to radically raise energy costs. In California,
the green energy regime has already driven roughly 1 million people, many of them Latinos in the state’s agricultural interior, into “energy poverty”—a status in which electricity costs one-tenth of their income. Not surprisingly, those leaving California, notes
Trulia, increasingly are working class; their annual incomes in the range of $20,000 to $80,000 are simply not enough to make ends meet.
Geography seems increasingly to determine politics.
Ideas on climate policy that seem wonderfully enlightened in Manhattan or San Francisco—places far removed from the dirty realities of production—can provide a crushing blow to someone working in the Gulf Coast petro-chemical sector or in the Michigan communities dependent on auto manufacturing.
It’s more than suburban or rural jobs that are on the urban designer chopping block. Density obsessed planners have adopted rules, already well advanced in my adopted home state of California, to essentially curb much detested
suburban sprawl and lure people back to the dense inner cities. The
Obama administration is sympathetic to this agenda, and has adopted its own strategies to promote “back to the city” policies in the rest of the country as well.
But as these cities go green for the rich and impressionable, they must find ways to subsidize the growing low-paid service class—gardeners, nannies, dog walkers, restaurant servers—that they depend on daily. This makes many wealthy cities, such as Seattle or San Francisco, hotbeds for such policies as a $15-an-hour minimum wage, as well as increased subsidies for housing and health care. In San Francisco, sadly, where the median price house (usually a smallish apartment) approaches
$1 million, a higher minimum wage won’t purchase a decent standard of living. In far more diverse and poorer Los Angeles, nearly
half of all workers would be covered -- with
unforeseen impacts on many industries, including the large
garment industry.
These radicalizing trends are likely to be seen as a threat to Democratic prospects next year, but instead will meet with broad acclaim among city-dominated progressive media. Then again, the columnists, reporters and academics who embrace the new urban politics have little sympathy or interest in preserving middle-class suburbs, much less vital small towns. If the Republicans possess the intelligence—always an open question—to realize that their opponents are actively trying to undermine how most Americans prefer to live, they might find an opportunity far greater than many suspect.
For a visceral look at how these dynamics play themselves out in the real life of one city, I refer you to
Debra Saunders's latest Townhall column, "Stench and the City:SF's Summer of Urine."
How bad is the urine situation in San Francisco? This is not a joke: Monday night, a light pole corroded by urine collapsed and crashed onto a car, narrowly missing the driver. The smell is worse than I have known since I started working for The Chronicle in 1992. It hits your nose on the BART escalator before you reach Market Street. That sour smell can bake for blocks where street people sleep wrapped in dirty blankets. I talked to Mayor Ed Lee and rode around with police to find out what can be done to clean up San Francisco.
Why does the city stink so? With the drought there has been less rain to wash away the city's sins. Prosperity has produced a building boom -- so there are fewer vacant spaces where the homeless can burrow.
I asked Lee Wednesday why other cities seem so much cleaner than San Francisco. "I think they enjoy serious winters," Lee answered -- cold weather can drive street people to easier climates. Ess Eff doesn't have really cold weather: "We're a year-round attraction for various lifestyles."
Lee said things I didn't think I'd hear a San Francisco mayor ever say. Like: "I do think that people are being somewhat more irresponsible." (Remember: The first step in solving a problem is to recognize that it exists.) And: "It's not so much the urination," but "historic levels of drug use."
Changes in California law and policy mean that offenses that once rated as felonies are now misdemeanors. Police can't lock up drug users as they once did. Prisons and jails are releasing inmates who, Lee added, haven't worked through their "bad habits."
Still, the pampered pointy-heads on the other end of the Bay Area's socioeconomic spectrum cry "hands off!" when it comes to doing something about the pathology:
I have just finished reading a June 2015 U.C. Berkeley Law School Clinic report, "Punishing the Poorest: How the Criminalization of Homelessness Perpetuates Poverty in San Francisco." The authors maintain that San Francisco "is responding to homelessness with a punitive fist." Punitive? As in tough? The report cites laws against overnight camping and lying on public sidewalks, as well as drug possession or alcohol consumption in public places. Such laws are Jim Crow 2015, according to the report; the term "quality of life" is an "offensive misnomer" that works against "poor people, people of color, and homeless people who are disproportionately impacted by these laws." In short, if street people are self-destructive and anti-social, it's because of the police.
I have to laugh because Lt. Nevin sounds like a social worker. He makes a lot of the same points as the Berkeley report. You can't expect drug addicts to get clean without providing housing first, he says. And: "It doesn't do any good to cite somebody and then run into them a week later and cite them again." He wants more resources, like the Navigation Center, which take the time needed to steer the chronic homeless into the right programs.
And thus, along with stale piss, we have stale perceptions of what is going on. The pointy-heads are worried about skin color when there are sick and miserable people lying on the sidewalk.
And out in the hinterland, in the towns and smallish cities where solid family formation and genuine productivity still have at least some kind of foothold, there's a strong sense that something is very out of whack with it all.
