Citiwire.net

For Release Sunday, November 2, 2008
Citiwire.net

A recent story in the Washington Post noted that Democrat Barack Obama is the first big city politician to run as a major party presidential candidate in many years. Yes, Senator Obama comes from Chicago–the so-called “Second City” (really the third city behind New York and Los Angeles). Yet his Republican rival John McCain lives in Phoenix, now America’s fifth largest U.S. city having just passed Philadelphia in population. While Phoenix is more famous for golf courses and subdivisions than urban neighborhoods, McCain in fact lives in a luxury high rise in the upscale and highly citified Camelback district.

Both presidential candidates are technically big city guys. But a better way to label Senators McCain and Obama is “big metro guys.” Chicago and Phoenix also rank among the largest metropolitan areas. In this way, the two candidates typify a nation now dominated by urban regions. Just over half (53 percent) of all Americans live in metro areas that exceed one million residents. As Brookings Institution research has shown, the metros dominate the country’s economy, accounting for an enormous share of its technology, venture capital, and advanced services. They are also the places where the U.S. connects to the global economy via major sea ports and hub airports.

Were just the big metros to vote, the presidential race would be a rout every time. The Democrats dominate major urban regions. In an analysis done earlier this year, the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech found that Democrat John Kerry won–often by very lopsided margins–the votes in three quarters of the nation’s biggest and most globally networked metros. And even in the regions that Kerry lost, he almost always prevailed in the core county. For instance, he battled Republican President (and former Texas governor) George W. Bush to a draw in Dallas County. Kerry blew out Bush in the city of Dallas—the place where Bush plans to retire.

But the Democratic vote in big metros is counterbalanced by Republican ballots cast in rural areas, small towns, and exurbs. In the last two elections, the Democrats counted on the votes from cities and inner suburbs while Republicans appealed to the regional fringe and beyond. The result has been a near even split in the electorate. The Republicans have won by running up overwhelming numbers in non-metro America while picking up just enough votes among suburbanites and even city dwellers to eke out narrow victories. The trick has been to energize the conservative rural base by running against big city culture and lifestyle, while not alienating typically more moderate suburbanites.

But this strategy may have run its course primarily because big metropolitan areas are growing much faster than small towns. They are also becoming dramatically more diverse. The new destination for immigrants is not found on the old gritty streets of lower Manhattan, but in the postwar suburbs that surround all big cities. In the process, the ring of “first suburbs” is now more cosmopolitan and urbanized.

The total Democratic-voting space in the emerging metropolis has likewise expanded and now reaches even recently built suburbs. Consider the case of metropolitan Washington, DC. Close-in suburbs such as Arlington County, Virginia have long been solidly Democratic areas. But a once Republican mature suburban county such as Fairfax has shifted from supporting Bush in 2000 to voting strongly Democratic in recent state-wide elections. Even Virginia’s exurban counties such as Loudoun and Prince William have been swept by dramatic demographic change and are now home to an increasing diverse and Democratic-friendly population. The Democratic invasion of Northern Virginia shifted the state from solidly red to potentially blue. A similar process is playing out in other rapidly urbanizing red states such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina.

The Republicans now face a dilemma. If they run hard to their mostly white rural base, they risk turning off increasingly diverse and Democratic-leaning suburbanites. However, if Republicans court big metro voters by dropping their message of small town values, their base vote may fall off. In 2008, the Republicans clearly believe that they can squeeze out one more victory under the old model. The choice of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee sealed the deal. This small town mayor turned governor uses her experience growing up in Wasilla, Alaska–ironically part of greater Anchorage–to prove her fitness for office. The Republican National Convention even featured former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani talking up small town values while skewering Barack Obama for his supposed cosmopolitan big city ways.

Maybe John McCain can somehow pull out one more win for small town America. But the odds look increasing long. More importantly, no future Republican nominee is likely to try another full-on, rural-based run at the White House. Or to repeat this autumn’s theme of rural places as “real” and “pro American,” using coded language to imply that big metropolitan areas are illegitimate and anti American. We are a metro nation and we do have a common stake in the success of all places–from largest cities to the smallest hamlets. Unless the Republican party grasps that, and adapts its policy approaches and messages accordingly, it will risk a long journey in the political wilderness.

Citiwire.net columns are not copyrighted and may be reproduced in print or electronically; please show authorship, credit Citiwire.net and send an electronic copy of usage to webmaster@citiwire.net.