Cities? Never Mind

I was glad during yesterday's debate to see Bill Richardson mention the idea that getting serious about global warming "means being sensitive to mass transit, to air-conditioning, to the way we live." But of course mass transit isn't a great subject to talk about in Iowa. And thus Clyde Haberman's lament that urban issues haven't been discussed at all will be repeated every four or eight years until we adopt a nominating process that's not so heavily dependent on Iowa and New Hampshire, whose combined population is a good deal smaller than New York City's.

It does occur to me, though, that one nice thing about a Barack Obama presidency (or, though I shudder to say it, Rudy Giuliani) is that it'd be the first time since JFK that we had a president with a background in city politics.

Comments

Am I the only one who didn't find the women in knocked up to be at all "shrewish"? I thought the scene when Leslie Mann explained to Paul Rudd's character that just because he didn't yell and scream all the time didn't make his character any less mean to be one of the best lines of the movie. Rudd's character especially was unnecessarily contemptuous dismissive of his own wife, who came off much more sympathetically than him.

Posted by mad6798j | December 14, 2007 2:41 PM

This is all true, but it also deserves to be pointed out that like most of the large, squarish mostly-rural states in this country, Iowa has several decent-sized cities with voters who worry about things like public transportation. Said voters are perpetually screwed by the majority in their state who live in smaller towns and refuse to pay taxes to support an urban infrastructure.

Then the national parties come to Iowa to pander to rural and exurban interests, downplaying the concerns of urban voters all over the country to win votes in the Iowa Caucus, and the voters in cities like Des Moines get doubly screwed.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 14, 2007 2:43 PM

? How did I manage to post that to the wrong topic?

Posted by mad6798j | December 14, 2007 2:43 PM

I am so glad Matt posted this. I seem to get nowhere simply pointing out that as a Californian, my vote shouldn't count less than someone in a small state. Everyone is so interested in romanticizing the caucus system, with its town hall meetings and small gatherings (even though they bombard the airwaves with 30 second ads there just like they do in big state elections).

It happens, though, that an election process that skews against big state concerns is one that will result in bad political outcomes, precisely because problems of big-city dwellers affect more people than problems of residents of rural areas, and should therefore attract more attention, not less.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 14, 2007 2:49 PM

Here, at least, the tide seems to be running in the right direction. The Dems did the right thing by moving up Nevada, and without our 18th century Sacred Text to protect it this particular anti-democratic feature of our political system is a lot more vulnerable than most of them. There's no reason for other states to accept such a fundamentally irrational system and with so many states moving up on their own the dam is clearly cracking. I predict this is the last cycle in which Iowa and New Hampshire will play such outsized roles.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 14, 2007 2:49 PM

Matt:

It is true that Iowa's position in the primaries gives it an outsized influence in the nomination process of both parties, but is it really true that the concerns of urban areas don't get addressed? Candidates have to raise money, after all, and whatever Iowa's importance in the primaries, there just ain't that much money lying around Des Moines. Candidates need money, and they head to urban centers to get it - New York, Los Angeles, Chicago - which brings them into contact with urban voters with urban priorities.

For most of this year, the Democratic frontrunner was the junior Sentator from New York and the Republican frontrunner was the former Mayor of the Big Apple. Running second among the Dems is a Senator from Chicago and running second for the Republicans is the Governor of Massachusetts. Can anyone say with a straight face that urban concerns aren't being adequately represented in American politics?

Posted by Nate W. | December 14, 2007 2:56 PM

Funny you should mention that. There's a new website dealing with that very topic: www.mayortv.com

Posted by Matt | December 14, 2007 3:12 PM

" but is it really true that the concerns of urban areas don't get addressed? Candidates have to raise money, after all, and whatever Iowa's importance in the primaries, there just ain't that much money lying around Des Moines. Candidates need money, and they head to urban centers to get it - New York, Los Angeles, Chicago - which brings them into contact with urban voters with urban priorities."

True, but people in urban areas often have interests that are diametrically opposed to the sources of money in urban areas.

Posted by Njorl | December 14, 2007 3:20 PM

Candidates need money, and they head to urban centers to get it - New York, Los Angeles, Chicago - which brings them into contact with extremely wealthy urban and suburban voters with wealthy people priorities.

Made a couple of corrections there.

I find the notion that the political fundraising process benefits the people who care about bus service to be utterly laughable.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 14, 2007 3:23 PM

I was about primaries today. I think front loading the primary season is unproductive. A decent length primary season with 3 or more viable candidates can be a great boon for a party. It causes issues important to the party to be pushed to the forefront. 3 or more candidates cause a decrease in the value of negative attacks, since the one slinging and the one being slung at can both lose (Gephardt Dean). If the primaries can be arranged to allow for a pronglonged inexpensive path followed by about a month of super days it could allow all candidates, and by extension the eventual nominee, a chance to get face time with voters.

Also, since the earlier contests would benefit from media exposure you'd want them to count less at the actual convention. Set a month up as the optimal month for primaries, primaries in this month will count more than any before or after it. The farther you get from the optimal month the less the delegates you send are worth. Then states have to balance media relevancy to convention relevancy. It would lessen the blow of not competing in early primaries, but allow candidates to try and get some momentum from the early states.

Just a thought.

Posted by crack | December 14, 2007 3:26 PM

Mass transit isn't just unlikely to go over well in Iowa, it's also unlikely to be useful. It's not like farmers can backpack the fall crop to market on a Greyhound.

Posted by Shinyk | December 14, 2007 3:34 PM

I really like the primary idea Hendrik Hertzberg wrote about (not his idea, but that's where I saw it): have a national primary day (say, June 30); allow people to vote early (say, beginning Jan 1); and announce monthly totals. It would reward the candidates who can inspire the most enthusiasm (as measured by early voting), and it wouldn't disadvantage any particular region (or give any state disproportionate power).

And given that there are a lot more urban dwellers than corn farmers, you could expect more about mass transit and less about the wonders of ethanol.

Posted by Tom Hilton | December 14, 2007 3:46 PM

Mass transit isn't just unlikely to go over well in Iowa, it's also unlikely to be useful. It's not like farmers can backpack the fall crop to market on a Greyhound.

Response

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 14, 2007 3:52 PM

T'other day, one a them thar candydates said they's gonna bring one them new-fangled buses to our little ole town. Didn't say wuther er nut we coulds bring our livestock on it. I told Ma I's gonna ride it but no big city slicker's gonna make me wear those foot coverings (chews, I thinks they call 'em) to getton bord.

When the UA flight (232?) crashed in Sioux City, Iowa, back in the late 80's (I think), some "moran" from out of state actually asked me if we had hospitals in Sioux City. I said, yeah, but they were like the tent hospitals you see on M.A.S.H. What a fucking maroon!

"But of course mass transit isn't a great subject to talk about in Iowa."

Really? It isn't? Might I ask, "How the fuck would you know?". I rode the bus constantly (Mumsy and Dadsy must a forgot to buy me a car), to work, to the mall, downtown to buy porn (yes we had both downtowns and porns), frickin' everywhere. Suprisingly enough, there were actually other people in my (actually my parents) income class that did the same thing (well, maybe not the porn). Also, suprisingly, the citizens and the local and state governments were willing to provide the tax dollars because they understood the importance of providing public transportation. Now sure, you can argue you get more bang for the buck global warming wise with public transportation in large metropolitan areas, but please don't assume that people in Iowa don't care about it or don't discuss it because you'd be wrong and would be acting "moranic".

Posted by Rihilism | December 14, 2007 4:25 PM

Response

As my colleage of Minnesotan origin would be likely to ask me when shown that image, "Where are all the pigs?"

(Then again, Minnesota has been better on factory farm management that Iowa has, so I never had much room to retaliate. Fargin' corporate hoglots.)

Posted by mds | December 14, 2007 4:25 PM

Njorl and Lafayette Progressive make a valid point. If candidates head to urban centers to raise money, the people they'll end up talking to are people with money. And there's no guarantee the concerns of the urban wealthy will dovetail with the concerns of the urban working class.

Still, it's important not to overemphasize this distinction. First, The concerns of the urban wealthy and the concerns of the urban working class aren't mutually exclusive. Living in urban areas tends to engender a cosmopolitanism that extends across socioeconimic class. Urbanites, regardless of class, tend to be more tolerant of immigrants and more supportive of gay rights than those living in rural areas. So if Democratic candidates adopt, say, a pro-gay stance so as not to offend Hollywood bigwigs with deep pockets, in doing so they adopt a stance that better reflects the views of the urban working class. Or, since Matt specifically mentions traffic, it's important to remember the constant nightmare that is Los Angeles traffic is a problem for everyone. Steven Spielberg may be rich and have different priorities than your average Los Angeles dockworker, but they both have to sit in traffic for two hours to get to work.

And finally, it's not true that politicians only come into contact with the rich when they head to urban areas. Politicians fundraise in urban areas for the same reasons that we build sports arenas there: it's easier to fill seats. The high population density of urban areas make them good places to fundraise, full stop.

Posted by Nate W. | December 14, 2007 4:39 PM

"Living in urban areas tends to engender a cosmopolitanism that extends across socioeconimic class. Urbanites, regardless of class, tend to be more tolerant of immigrants and more supportive of gay rights than those living in rural areas."

Are you certain about this? Studies? Not trying to make a big argument about this, but it's been my experience that some larger cities (i.e., Chicago) are VERY segregated, with distinct neighborhood/ethnic/racial/religious boundaries and a less than tolerant attitude towards "others" (including gays and immigrants).

Posted by Rihilism | December 14, 2007 5:08 PM

Or, since Matt specifically mentions traffic, it's important to remember the constant nightmare that is Los Angeles traffic is a problem for everyone.

Not really. The rich person's solution to the traffic problem is to build more lanes on the freeway-- or to do nothing at all and cut taxes, because the wealthier you are, the more likely that you have a driver and a flexible schedule, so you avoid rush hours and get stuff done when you get stuck in one. The poor person's solution is to build more transit.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 14, 2007 5:26 PM

the first time since JFK that we had a president with a background in city politics

Does representing an urban district in the House of Representatives, as JFK did, really constitute a background in city politics? If it does, well, Gerald Ford represented Grand Rapids. I'm not sure what California's 12th district included when Richard Nixon represented it for two terms, but it's certainly urban now.

Posted by Herschel | December 14, 2007 5:36 PM

I rode the bus constantly

Well, sure, Rihilism, but you're a degenerate porn addict. Real Iowans stick to their tractors.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 14, 2007 6:21 PM

"Real Iowans stick to their tractors."

I see a double entendre in there somewhere...

Posted by Rihilism | December 14, 2007 7:01 PM

There's a "solution" to "global warming": Get rid of air conditioning.

Sweat a lot.

Is HIS office going to give up air conditioning?

Fuck no, it isn't.

Moron.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 14, 2007 7:06 PM

Here's my plan for the primaries:

25 weeks - 2 primaries a week (one Tuesday, one Saturday)- everybody gets their moment in the sun. The campaign should go at least a couple of months unless some one builds serious momentum - but there should be enough time (and delegates) late in the game for candidates to jump in once the primaries have started

The first time out, each state's order is picked at random - do it way ahead of time, and make it a big deal, like the NCAA pairings.

In succeeding years, the states are divided into two pools for their random picks - the first pool at the front end of the calendar consists of all those states who held primaries AFTER the previous nominee mathematically clinched the previous cycle - this gives them the chance to be in play the next time around. Once those states have thier primary dates, the remaining states (those whose primaries actually counted the cycle before) get put into a pool to be randomly picked for the remaining primary dates.

Each state is thus pretty much guaranteed to periodically have the chance to influence the nomination - if not every cycle, then most cycles. There's no reason why certain states should alway have their importance inflated.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | December 14, 2007 7:11 PM

Charlotte, NC, just opened a 9 mile light rail line. At the last moment the anti-transit people tried to pull the plug, but 70% of the voters said they wanted the rail line.

For some reason this has become a very emotional issue for the right wing and when Seattle recently opened a trolley line somebody actually tried to sabotage the trolley.

Posted by serial catowner | December 14, 2007 8:01 PM

Rihilism-
You drive to a *store* to buy porn? Damn dude, you are a hick ;)

Posted by Kolohe | December 14, 2007 9:35 PM

"Rihilism-
You drive to a *store* to buy porn? Damn dude, you are a hick ;)"

Keep in mind, this was a while back when porn consisted of charcoal smears on papyrus (two p-shmears for a half-penny back then, or a dozen eggs if you was short on cashola)...and when boarding the horse-drawn bus I made sure I wore an onion on my belt....which was the style at the time...

Posted by Rihilism | December 15, 2007 9:36 AM

Riffing on Herschel, Lyndon B. Johnson's district included Austin, and I think maybe part of San Antonio. Both of which are actually cities and have been for centuries, although I recognize some people believe all Texans live on farms and ride horses to work.

The much smaller 10th district today runs from suburban Houston to Austin.

The same can be said of both George Bushes -- they're perfectly aware of how the cow eats the cabbage in Houston (and Junior figured out how to get suckers to approve bonds in Arlington).

Posted by Jim D | December 15, 2007 11:27 AM

response

Showing me an oil rig doesn't mean the Atlantic Ocean's made of metal.

I've been to Iowa. I have family in Iowa. Corn farmers. I've driven through Iowa. It's one big field. Encouraging mass transit, presumably as a means to cut down emissions, is not useful or plausible in Iowa at large.

Posted by Shinyk | December 15, 2007 2:56 PM

"I've been to Iowa. I have family in Iowa. Corn farmers. I've driven through Iowa. It's one big field. Encouraging mass transit, presumably as a means to cut down emissions, is not useful or plausible in Iowa at large."

Well, I've lived in Iowa for 41 years and I can assure you that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Mass transit busing is ubiquitous in larger cities and some regions of Iowa are reaching a sufficient population density and have commuting patterns that could make passenger train routes viable (it's discussed frequently in the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City corridor in addition to expansion of other Amtrak routes in Iowa).

http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=80979B97-A0EE-DF20-E0D5080AE3E7028F

Most of Illinois is farmland and to suggest that, because of this, mass transit "is not useful or plausible in" Chicago, or any other large city or any population dense area is just silly. The same goes for rural New England and rural New York and the corresponding metropolitan areas in those regions or anywhere for that matter. The mere existence of large areas of low density does not negate the usefulness of mass transit in the denser regions.

Perhaps you should consult with your relatives in Iowa before you make such an uninformed statement.

Posted by Rihilism | December 15, 2007 5:35 PM

Perhaps you should consult with your relatives in Iowa before you make such an uninformed statement.

Called my cousin to wish him a happy Birthday. On a lark, I asked him if he could fit a harvest on a public bus. He said 'no.' He's also not sure why you seem to think the state you've "lived in for 41 years" is wall to wall with highrises and crammed with people, unless it's because you're hallucinating.

Posted by Shinyk | December 17, 2007 7:09 PM