Democrats have been the urban party for a long time, haven't they?
I don't know that being equipped with this knowledge really accomplishes anything. A party that admits to being The Cities Party will never get a majority in either house of congress, and really pushing urban-centric ideas will just alienate the vast fields of people who identify with "the white, Christian, rural, and suburban identity".
The ideas in the article just sound like serious degeneration of powers to the states, which just seems like a prelude to the United States turning into something as useful as the United Nations, i.e, not incredibly.
If things are allowed to go to complete shit in non-urban areas, it seems like this just means that the people willing to sing along with the new urban democracy and pay lip service to being a good and nice liberal will be able to make some serious profit from raping the hell out of the environments and populace of the places that are too uneducated to vote for self-protection. Virginia will become the new Southwest China, or random country in Africa, only with less potential and closer to home.
I guess this all comes back to the argument over whether 'enlightened' people should be intervening in other cultures in order to save people from hurting themselves, the environment, or third parties. Should the cities turn their back on the rural populations just because they piss us off?
Anyway, now that I've babbled, I realize a problem that is much more important: "Kerry won urban areas by a whopping 60 percent--that actually represents a 15 percent drop in urban support from 2000". So, cities voted 75% for Gore and he still lost. The electoral college system prevents cities from solely determining the presidential election, which is sort of what it was designed to do. It won't help if "yay, urban rights" means that people in NYC and Seattle and San Francisco and Los Angeles and Chicago and Boston and DC vote 100% democratic. They're already in blue states.
Maybe it'll work, if we can attract the medium-sized cities, too; in Iowa and Ohio and places like that, but it seems iffy. There's still the congress problem.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I don't know that being equipped with this knowledge really accomplishes anything. A party that admits to being The Cities Party will never get a majority in either house of congress, and really pushing urban-centric ideas will just alienate the vast fields of people who identify with "the white, Christian, rural, and suburban identity".
The ideas in the article just sound like serious degeneration of powers to the states, which just seems like a prelude to the United States turning into something as useful as the United Nations, i.e, not incredibly.
If things are allowed to go to complete shit in non-urban areas, it seems like this just means that the people willing to sing along with the new urban democracy and pay lip service to being a good and nice liberal will be able to make some serious profit from raping the hell out of the environments and populace of the places that are too uneducated to vote for self-protection. Virginia will become the new Southwest China, or random country in Africa, only with less potential and closer to home.
I guess this all comes back to the argument over whether 'enlightened' people should be intervening in other cultures in order to save people from hurting themselves, the environment, or third parties. Should the cities turn their back on the rural populations just because they piss us off?
Anyway, now that I've babbled, I realize a problem that is much more important: "Kerry won urban areas by a whopping 60 percent--that actually represents a 15 percent drop in urban support from 2000". So, cities voted 75% for Gore and he still lost. The electoral college system prevents cities from solely determining the presidential election, which is sort of what it was designed to do. It won't help if "yay, urban rights" means that people in NYC and Seattle and San Francisco and Los Angeles and Chicago and Boston and DC vote 100% democratic. They're already in blue states.
Maybe it'll work, if we can attract the medium-sized cities, too; in Iowa and Ohio and places like that, but it seems iffy. There's still the congress problem.
Anyway, neat article. Thanks for linking it.