Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

MAKE IT RIGHT

Republicans Have a City Problem, Says Economist

But they shouldn't, considering their successful reforms

Next>

by Dain Fitzgerald

Staff Writer t

Image: Flickr

The GOP should ditch its current strategy of bypassing the city and take the fast lane direct to the heart of it, says economist Edward Glaeser.

Republicans' loss of interest in city politics risks undoing years of right-leaning reforms in places like New York City and Los Angeles, writes Glaeser at City Journal, an online mecca of sorts for urban-oriented conservatives. He points to the crime turnaround in NYC under Republican Rudy Giuliani, and to economically-informed efforts to make housing more affordable in certain cities via less regulation, among other victories informed by conservative thinking.

"The Republican move away from the cities is bad for the cities themselves," says Glaeser, "which have hugely benefited - and could benefit a lot more - from right-of-center ideas."

But Samuel Goldman at the American Conservative thinks the chances of the Republican party going urban are rather poor:

"Glaeser dreams of a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicanism that might win in New York and its inner suburbs," writes Goldman. "But there aren't enough votes to make this an appealing strategy on the national level: any gains in metropolitan areas would be wiped out by losses in the so-called base."

Via City Journal and the American Conservative.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Do you think the GOP can successfully attract more urban voters?

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • kathyparsell
    !
    Republicans have more than a city problem, they have an identy problem. However people in cities are too interdependent to be helped by true Republican values of small government and self-reliance.
  • o
    thejimbo
    !
    Good point. Here in DC, the local GOP is a mess, but they still feel hopeful that they can nab a city council seat in a special election this April. It would be their first one in YEARS!(and yes, it's been THAT long since a Republican has been elected to local office in the District)
  • o
    thejimbo
    !
    @kathyparsell On second thought, the Republican city council candidate might be able to pull one off since he's running against six Democrats on the ballot for the vacant seat so maybe a fractured Democratic vote would help him get the highest vote total but the chances of that are still very remote. Dream on, DC GOP!
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    When people in big cities get tired of being taxed to death, victimized to death, and having a poor quality of life, they will turn to the conservative Republicans. No need for us to chase them. They'll just have to learn the hard way.
  • marine1
    !
    The cities are far more heavily populated with the systems free loading non productives. Goverment hand outs is a vote buying system that truly shows itself in these areas. Have to question why so many live outside the city and commute?
  • u
    Grubby
    !
    The cities are filled with government dependent welfare takers. No way they want anything other than the welfare state and government handouts. They are incapable of breaking out of that cycle, so they must vote to keep it going. The Republicans will never attract those folks because true conservative policies would actually force them to work for a living in a real job. The cities are lost causes. We can only hope that the rest of America comes to its senses before the Liberals destroy the country with spending. Just today I was reviewing the Obama administration projection of government spending for the next 10 years. They are "assuming" substantial cuts in discretionary spending in each of the next 4 years to achieve "only" $1.2T average deficits, leaving the country somewhere over $21T in debt when he leaves office. But Obama has shown ZERO interest in cutting any discretionary spending, and no way he does it 4 years in a row. If I "flat line" the discretionary spending, and assume the Obama numbers for entitlement spending, we will see our first $2T deficits under Obama, and about $24T in debt when he leaves office. Of course, in 2016 he will still be saying that it is George Bush's fault. By the way, the debt was $10T when Obama took office. I guess Obama thinks George is still doing a pretty good job of spending money in his retirement.
  • o
    OhWiseOne
    !
    @Food4thoughts Of course they do. It's not as bad as the inner cities though where generations have grown up on assistance and still use it to this day.
  • harold_lloyd
    !
    If they want more influence in more places, all they need to do is get away from the misogynist, anti-intellectual, biblical, and fiscally crazy platform in favor of actually helping all nation's citizens.
  • JustTheFacts
    !
    Forget those people ... I think we all know who these people are and the majority of them are on the system in some form or another! It's a lost cause!
  • u
    Cheenoguy
    !
    I really hope Republican politicians, especially on the national level share the reaction of the republican members here on politix. Democrat controlled house in 2014 looks more plausible every day.
  • u
    RobertJHarsh
    !
    http://www.newgeography.com/content/003402-wh...

    Here is another article on the same issue. I read the above article last week and I think it is a lost cause in most cities. For example, in Columbus, Ohio, there is a democrat mayor and all democrat city council. The local news media claims the number of democrats to republicans are 3.5 to 1. In some studies, 5 to 1. What's the point? The only conservatives in the city don't vote and just live there for a convenience factor to their work. Eventually, they get married, have kids, realize the school are gang infested trash and haul to the suburbs. The rich people who live in the city limits send their kids to private school.

    Based on this, Columbus is a negative ROI on GOP investment. So F 'em. Now other cities such as NYC, LA, and Chicago...while are the gimmedat capitals of America have significant populations that are GOP, but don't bother. I think those area can return a sizable ROI for the Republicans.

    Oh...and the only reason Columbus succeeds is because it is the capital of Ohio, jam packed with govt jobs. The only solid growth area is government here. Health care comes in second with tech in 3rd. To steal a line from Obama, Coleman didn't build ANY of that.
  • DARSB
    !
    The GOP can certainly regain the confidence of urban voters, but it will take considerably more than just rebranding its message. This is the time for a re-thinking of the message. Unfortunately, I don't see the senior leadership making any moves in that direction.
  • u
    albert
    !
    The only hope they have left is to steal votes,they want to select their voters rather than let the voters select them ,it's the only way they can win.
  • u
    Chromalord
    !
    Currently the GOP is the party for those who are, by urban standard, isolated. It makes perfect sense that a person who lives and works in sparse areas are more reliant on themselves for survival, and thus fall prey to fear tactics by the GOP that their way of life is in peril from the Democrats. Furthermore, conservatives in general dont embrace change. People who reside and work in AND around cities, are usually transplants from rural areas, i.e., they sought out change in their lives to pursue other interest and needed to be in more densely populated ares to procure possibilities. If you are a career actor do you move to Elmore county Idaho or do you move to Hollywood? The past several election results prove this. The GOP dominates most sparsely populated regions, the Dems dominate most urban ones. This is why the electoral college is flawed. The Dems get the will of the people, the GOP gets the will of the acreage. Just look at any red/blue political map.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    Interesting note here. When NYC had Braxton as the PD chief crime went down but he wielded a heavy hammer and sooner than later he was run off. He then surfaced in Los Angeles and he brought his hammer. The cops immediately went to war with the gangs. Crime dropped. And the liberals sniveled and whined about violations of civil rights. So Braxton was run off again. I personally never felt safer in L.A,. than when Braxton was there. I never had to deal with the LAPD that whole time either. But then I didn't have rap music blaring at 220 decibels out my car, I'm not covered in Tattoos, I don't flash gang symbols out my car window and I don't have a lowrider. Seems the liberals didn't like the LAPD "profiling". Personally I could live with it. You can have lower crime or you can be a liberal. You can't have both.