It’s a Mistake for the GOP to Shun Big Cities

Trump’s base in 'real America' is shrinking, and urban areas could benefit from political competition.

By
173

“God bless real Michigan. God bless real America. God bless the greatest president in our lifetime, Donald Trump,” Ted Nugent recently declared at a Michigan rally.

It’s ironic that Trump, the first president born and raised in New York City (or any major city) since Teddy Roosevelt, has hitched his presidency to the idea that “real America” is not to be found in urban areas.

Real America—a term beloved by Richard Nixon—tops the long list of conservative catchphrases capturing the sense of grievance dominating so much of the right these days. Real America is “flyover country,” a term used more by those who resent it than by those who actually use it as a term of derision. In today’s Republican mythology, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and other major cities are home to the elites—or, if you include the shores of Lake Michigan, the even more hated “coastal elites.”

It’s a funny definition of real America that excludes not just the bulk of the population but also the centers that define so much of our culture and history. After all, the American Revolution is a story set largely in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. When foreigners visit America, they don’t spend a lot of time checking out the grain silos of North Dakota.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
173
By
Comments (173)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Mary Stine

    Many American cities are polyglots of cultures from all over the world.. as a result they are not majority protestant Christian, white or well versed in traditional American culture. Most of our immigrants there admire America, want to become citizens and are by and large, conservative.
    It would be easy for classical liberal culture/ capitalism and conservative values to reach these people were it not for the constant Republican bullhorn of "all immigrants are inferior and bad"
    Yes, I know what the Republican party is complaining about is ILLEGAL immigrants, but that gets drowned out by the seething hostility, especially toward non-Christian groups.
    The same is true for communities of color, black, LatinX, Asian. Many of these communities are quite religious, very family oriented and mostly conservative. If Republicans really wanted to woo their support they would muzzle the bigoted voices in the party and start uplifting stories of
    individual Republicans from these groups. Then they would begin a campaign to get civics classes restored to our schools, with an emphasis on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the history of amendments, along with a fuller history of slavery, Native Americans, and immigration
    generally.
    It might take a decade or so, but by that time a truly educated base would be much more faithful to the conservative values of the founders and eager to apply them to the cities they live in.

    Collapse
    1. Mary Stine

      Uplifting should have read "lifting up", sorry

      Collapse
  2. Fatigued Testudine

    With all the rioting, looting, crime, murder and arson in many big Democrat run cities I wonder how you structure an approach to "Big Cities" when a horde of their wealthiest citizens are fleeing? I also wonder if those fleeing will continue to vote for liberal Democrats when they get to their new cities? Which, if they do vote in the same way, it ultimately brings the same problems to the place they have fled to. That is a problem here in Texas. The Californians just don't learn in far too many cases.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    MarqueG68

    The question I'm left with is, where are the potential inroads for GOPers in cities? Which constituencies are large enough that lack representation? Such groups would have to include those with significant money or property on the line, ie, skin in the game. Otherwise you don't have a support base willing to pay up or do volunteer work?

    Next to ask is how to persuade potential urban GOP leaders that representing such constituents would not result in personal destruction. That is, when the other party has control of all the levers of power, this can be used coercively. Think of how Hollywood polices its own against wrongthink: You'll never work in this town again!

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Elianna

    Great article. I know it’s taboo but moving to popular vote for president (and maybe repealing the 17th amendment as a semi-counterbalance) would likely rebalance the strong incentives keeping R’s on this dead end path. It’s started with giving up on competing in cities and has moved to states with higher percentage of the population living in high density areas than in rural. Rs in California get ignored and Ds in Kansas get ignored. Polarization ingredient #47002 of a growing list. I’m center left and I am begging for a healthy conservative party to compete again..so that my party doesn’t go off the other deep end in the vacuum. 🙏

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Azlefty

      In the event of a near-tie, a recount would be ugly since every ballot in the country would need to be recounted. Here's another idea: Californians could move to swing states. They are a lot more affordable and it would dramatically increase their voting power.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    There are more Trump voters in California than in any other state.

    There are more Trump voters living in big cities in the USA than there are in small rural towns.

    And don't even get me started about *the money*...

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    John D. Wright

    I remember watching old war pictures where the guys in a platoon would introduce themselves and you’d have people from everywhere. Cities, suburbs, and the country. Each brought a perspective, all were Americans, and each had something good to contribute. We need to get back to that way of thinking.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      The military makeup has changed. Largely rural and southern, fewer from urban areas.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Jen

    It is interesting to ponder what the Republican Party should be post-Trump. Henry Olson argues the cities and suburbs are gone and Republicans should embrace losing college educated whites and re-brand as a blue collar party (pulling in blue collar minorities as well). The problem with that strategy is there isn’t enough of them to win elections. Trump barely won in 2016 but that was in large part to suburban, middle class voters. Many of those voters fled in 2018.

    I live in a suburb about 20 miles west of Minneapolis. It’s part of the 3rd congressional district. This district is about 95% urban with a median income of around $90K. I’d say it’s a bit similar to Pennsylvania’s 1st (which includes Bucks County and narrowly went Republican in 2018) and Georgia’s 6th (Atlanta suburbs; the district Republican Karen Handel lost). In 2018 the 3rd district flipped from Republican to Democrat. Prior to 2018 last time a Democrat represented this district was 1961.

    These are the places Republicans are bleeding voters in the Trump era. I’d love someone to tell me why that’s a good thing. Why is it a good thing for Republicans to shed middle and upper middle class voters...the type of voters that are most likely to be married with stable families, that are most likely to attend church. Instead of turning off these voters shouldn’t we be trying to keep them while also appealing to blue collar voters explaining how Republican policies are better for them? The Republican Party strategy right now baffles me. Driving out people like Will Hurd and Justin Amash (and I’m sure Trump would drive out Ben Sasse if he could) so we’re left with clowns like Matt Gaetz, frauds like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz and stick his finger in the wind to see which way it’s blowing Marco Rubio. Plus more illiberal types like Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton. And most depressing of all is young people in the party are the Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, Madison Cawthorn types. What demographic are they attracting to the party? The GOP future is incredibly depressing.

    Collapse
  8. Zack

    The twist on this is that 'cities' are not just the urban core, but the surrounding suburbs as well (the metropolitan statistical area). Most of the high-earning professionals that make cities economically dynamic live in nearby suburbs vs the city center. The majority of people over 35 making six-figure salaries have kids, a house, and a yard. They're past the stage where they feel compelled to live in a high rise on top of the Cambodian-Peruvian fusion restaurant.

    The scariest thing about these last 4 years is that the GOP has lost the suburbs. These suburban residents aren't radicals - they're usually center-right especially on economics. It's just gotten to the point where lower taxes is not enough to offset the stupidity of the far right.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ms. SSM

      I don’t think this is completely accurate and it smacks of the same rural urban divide the GOP needs to overcome except you have replaced it with a city/suburbs divide. Most of the high earners that make a city dynamic live in the suburbs?High earning professionals live both in the center and in suburbs. Who else could possibly afford it? The housing in urban centers is insanely expensive and small. People move out to the suburbs for more space and a yard. But they also move to the suburbs because it’s much cheaper than living in an urban core. The median income in the center is likely higher than in the suburbs. Six figure earning single professionals such as myself live among other mostly 6 figure earning professionals just fine here in the center. The fusion restaurant is great and I can walk there! My kids have there own rooms and plenty of entertainment. I walk pass families pushing strollers all the time when walking to my local coffeehouse for my daily smoothie. The city dwellers are just as “dynamic” as everyone else.

      Collapse
      1. Zack

        Oh I know there are plenty high earners who live downtown (I'm one of them, and love my fusion restaurants), but most of my peers live in the nice suburbs. Any big city - New York (Scarsdale, Northern NJ), LA (the whole place is a suburb), Chicago (Winnetka), Dallas (Park Cities), Houston (Woodlands), San Francisco (Atherton) - has the majority of its big shots in the near burbs. Sure, people live in the Upper East Side or Pacific Heights or the Gold Coast but it's a small minority.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    Its amazing to me that Trump is considered the friend of real Americans. He is the quintessential coastal elite. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth. A millionaire at 5 yrs old. He has a reputation of stiffing tradesmen who work for him which is why 9 out of 10 New Yorkers voted against him. Little do they know the contempt he really feels for them.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Bel

    Republicans only talk about zoning when it's local & they are going full NIMBY; one of the dreadful bipartisan tendencies plaguing cities & close in 'burbs

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      All zoning is, and should be, local. It is about neighborhoods.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bel

        I absolutely agree zoning should be local. What I observe locally is Republicans and Democrats embrace NIMBY regulations that drive up costs for individuals & businesses while complaining about those cost. It's popular to say "the police that serve us should be able to afford to live here", but zoning for new homes is only approved if the homes are over $750K. We get the downsides of increased density, and little upside

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Bill Nelson

          Typically what you will see is the initial permit will be for 20 homes, and later the builder applies for a change to 50 homes. Every neighborhood wants higher end builds, only natural.

          Collapse
Load More