Cities and What's Left for the Democrats?
What does a political party do when it's out of power? Go back to basics.
Surprise!
Well, that election was surprising, wasn’t it? Not Trump winning or pollster predictions being useless—opinion polls basically don’t work in a cellphone world—but I thought Harris would carry Nevada and Wisconsin and come out ahead in the popular vote.1 Yet Trump won all three. As of this writing the Republicans control the presidency, senate, house of representatives, and the courts. So where do the Democrats go from here?
If you want to create a light rail line run it where the people are already traveling. Strengthen what you have. For Democrats the only power base that is left is cities so strengthen cities. I suggest organizing in Democratic cities to make them better places with more people and a better quality of life. Let’s start by expanding Charlottesville’s city council to 14-18 members so it can’t be dominated by any one class or group, and so more citizens can get experience in real politics and knowledge of government and, well, reality. If every small and medium-sized city added democratic assemblies where decisions are made by speeches and votes, the Democratic party would end up with a bench of thousands of skilled, experienced politicians to draw from.2
Why the expanded city council? Let’s start with the election.
Trump seems to have improved his polling among Latino and Black men, and lost some white suburbanites, which left him with total votes similar to 2020. Harris meanwhile lost a lot of ground from Biden in 2020. Of course in 2020 many states—due to Covid—mailed ballots to every household, so voting became easier than ordering pizza. At least that’s what I remember. The resulting turnout was the largest since 1960. (This high turnout is the reality behind Republican fantasies of a stolen election.)3
This time people had to make some effort and many Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents simply didn’t show up. We don’t know why, but the Democratic party leaders aren’t waiting to figure out. They depend on donors and contributors so their critiques tend to immediately reassure donors and contributors that their donations and contributions aren’t being wasted: It was too much wokeness! It was identity politics! There were worldwide anti-incumbency forces that we couldn’t possibly anticipate! America is racist and sexist!
There are plenty of more fact-friendly explorations too, and I might post some later this weekend. Most seem to coalesce around the basic framework of Biden being incredibly unpopular due mostly to rising prices and partly to his unconditional support for Israeli genocide, and Harris never distancing herself from him. In the two other elections this century where a sitting president opted not to run the replacement candidate from his party also got trounced, so it’s not easy to overcome an unpopular incumbent, but the complaints about Harris and the Democrats and America have been flowing in, some more valid than others.
The Next Consensus?
Unlike 2016 Trump won the popular vote this go around. Combine that with the Democrats being rudderless and demoralized Trump finally has the chance to create a new governing consensus. But I doubt he will.
I’ve lived under two of these consensuses. When I was a child the government still operated on the assumptions and approaches of the New Deal as expanded by WWII and the Cold War:
The New Deal Consensus sought high employment levels, worker protections, an expanded social safety net, government programs, political equality, public works, cooperation between management and labor (this developed during WWII), and federal economic planning and business regulation. FDR’s Four Freedoms are a good summation of the public face… freedom of speech and worship as we have today, but also freedom from want and freedom from fear.
From the 1930s to the 1970s this remained a highly popular approach to government until the oil embargo, Stagflation, the Vietnam War, busing, and the cultural upheavals of the 60s and 70s undermined its credibility with the public.
When I was in high school Ronald Reagan was elected president and over his first term put in place what I call the Reagan-Clinton consensus. (These days this is increasingly called “neoliberalism.”)
This consensus favored low taxes, low inflation, free trade, libertarian deregulation and union busting, equality of opportunity, market-based economics, and tough on crime police militarizations such as the War on Drugs.
I call it the Reagan-Clinton consensus because president Bill Clinton wedged into the mix a commitment to professional governance that tied both parties to the finance industry. Anyway, the Reagan-Clinton consensus was never as popular as the New Deal consensus, but it was popular enough until the Iraqi War, Hurricane Katrina, and the 2008 Great Recession undermined its credibility with the public.
In 2008 Barrack Obama ran his campaign on “Change,” and the public hoped that meant a change from the worn-out Reagan-Clinton consensus, but Obama meant only that he would run the Reagan-Clinton consensus in a scandal-free, reach-across-the-aisle, even-more-professional way.4 So we got the Reagan-Clinton consensus patched up and tweaked.5
That gave Bernie Sanders his opening in the 2016 Democratic primary, and Trump’s victory in the 2016 general election. Trump’s supporters were hopeful he would lead a change from the worn-out Reagan-Clinton consensus, but after some early—and popular—changes in trade policy Trump reverted to Reagan-Clintonism all the way down.
That (and Trump’s obnoxious personality) gave Biden his victory in the 2020 general election. Biden’s supporters were hopeful he would lead a change from the worn-out Reagan-Clinton consensus, and for a year he really did! But then his bills stopped passing, his mind and words stopped working, and his attention (or the attention of his staff) turned to Ukraine and Israel.
That gave Trump his victory last week, and his supporters are hopeful he will lead a change from the worn-out Reagan-Clinton consensus, but already his cabinet picks show the same exhausted Reaganism. That means by the next presidential election our poor country will have endured 20 years of an outdated approach to government that almost no one likes.6
This zombie-like inability to be killed is an unusual aspect of “neoliberalism.” Communists and fascists back in the day may have hated one another but they did at least understand one another. From the 19th century up through the 1980s across the political spectrum almost everyone accepted that there were different practical and philosophical approaches to government, and could even more or less imagine how opponents might see a problem. On the surface Reagan-Clintonism seems so much more reasonable than anarchism or socialism, say, yet Reaganites and Clintonists can’t seem to imagine any other way of looking at the world besides their own. Anyone who isn’t neoliberal must be irrational. Reagan and Clinton obviously knew they were introducing new ideas, but their ideological descendants can’t seem to distinguish ideas from the reality ideas are supposed to describe.
The Case Study: Homelessness
The seeds of Blame Cannon started with the realization after the 2016 Election that cities will eventually be alone to cope with their own problems, and I contend that the events in Charlottesville in 2017 were the canary in the coal mine for the country as a whole. That goes several ways. The Alt-Right presaged the January 6th riots. Our police response to the protests will become a new paradigm for how police operate. And our local government collapse in confidence after the Unite the Right rally reveals flaws in the contemporary Democratic Party. Since a majority of U.S. cities are governed by Democrats, I’ll use an example from cities to show how these flaws are inherent in the Reagan-Clinton consensus.7
Let’s talk about homelessness.
Of course if Democrats were as compassionate, dedicated, professional, educated, and effective as they claim to be, why is there homelessness at all? Why haven’t Democrats fixed it?8 They can’t because the Reagan-Clinton approach to government doesn’t allow for much actual government.
The Failed Dichotomy
I’ve been living in Charlottesville for decades, mostly in the downtown area, and the number of homeless seem much higher to me now than ever before in my lifetime. I reminds me of New York in the 80s when the streets of Hell’s Kitchen where I lived had people sleeping in rows down entire blocks. Today there are massive numbers of homeless in cities all across America. Many of these people are originally from rural or suburban areas, but it is cities who must deal with them, as cities have since time immemorial.
Within the Reagan-Clinton consensus, markets and businesses are where solutions happen, and government should be run like businesses—professional businesses—so in keeping with that there are really only two solutions to homelessness:
Send in the cops with billy clubs. Since markets and economies work, people who can’t find housing or jobs must be lacking in diligence, soberiety, or loyalty. Such people are harming our communities with their sloth, drug use, and irresponsibility. Homelessness is vagrancy, and should be outlawed. Send the cops and the problem solved. Of course the actual result of this is passing the buck to the next community over, as the homeless are driven to some other jurisdiction but it gives communities the pride in not having any homeless people.
Sympathize but do nothing. Since libertarian freedom is the beautiful essence of markets and economies, what right does anyone have of judging the “unhoused” at all? They are citizens and thus are entitled to their free speech, actions, and use of public space. Why shouldn’t someone sleep in the street? What right does the state have to restrict their bodies, words, or minds? Drugs should be legal anyway. Why shouldn’t the homeless curse you as you pass by? Sure, government can meet with agencies and non-profits to try to serve the homeless but homelessness is not a problem that the government can solve.
Who is the “City”?
Many who hold views of the #2 variety would deny that they were part of the Reagan-Clinton consensus, but both arguments equally eliminate public space as space held in common by a community. Both arguments see all people as individuals only. There is no community right to dictate community behavior. All space is merely the property of the market or the government. We can do what we want as individuals but we have no rights as a community.
This lack of commonality extends to the entire model of local government. We elect a “government”—but they don’t actually govern; they hire a professional government. Some of us may assume the romantic identity of activists in order to pressure that professional government but activism is not in any sense democratic. It’s lobbying with a better public image. Activists, professional government, elected officials, homeless—all of us are individuals with no hold over one another.
Freedom in the Reagan-Clinton worldview is the suburban freedom of having personal choices, not the rural freedom of being left alone, or the ancient urban freedom of deciding collectively how our collective public space should be used. How should people behave in our collective public space toward one another? How should we dress, talk, and treat one another? Only professionals will make these decisions, appointed by other professionals who are elected, and influenced by other professionals who apply pressure.
None of us have any say at all.
I’m often struck how in Charlottesville, when citizens speak of “The City” they’re almost always talking about the government of Charlottesville. The city is doing this. The city is doing that. Right there we see that we are not the city even in our own eyes.
The Reagan-Clinton consensus has fit hand-in-glove with the rise of city-manager-type governments. Let me be clear that professional governments definitely bring improvements to many aspects of government. I don’t romanticize amateurism. But when it comes to a problem like the use of public space, professionalism breaks down.9
In Charlottesville we have a city manager. Sam Sanders. I’ve never met Sam but I’ve heard great things about him. I like him and feel that he was a great hire. I hope he stays a long time, serves us well, and is happy doing so.
But when it comes to homelessness, how can he possibly succeed?
No matter how many experts, “stakeholders,” NPOs, city employees, local citizens, homeless activists, and homeless people Sanders consults with, he will ultimately have to come up with some plan that will be a compromise between #1 and #2—because he certainly doesn’t have the authority as a non-elected official to do anything more radical—and whatever he comes up with will be displease many people. They’ll question how the decision was made. It won’t seem legitimate. It will feel autocratic, secretive, incompetent, and morally wrong (in one direction or another).10
Deliberative Assemblies
That’s why communities need deliberative assemblies. If there were a city council of 14-18 members debating homelessness, members would make all the various arguments—and add new arguments—and it would come to a vote, and then Sam Sanders would be implementing a decision with the authority of the city. That would build trust. And before you say, Well, we have a city council! A 3-2 vote on our city council with limited debate between members and a few hours of a couple dozen citizens lining up to make brief comments into fixed microphones cannot convey legitimacy. With only 5 members, no matter who they are, the city council cannot present a variety of views. It’s just five elected professionals who hire the actual government.
A 5-person city council is too small to resolve conflicting self-interest among different factions and individuals. And activists are not a solution, however noble their intentions, for they do not answer to the community as a whole.
Moreover—and this is why I’m writing this post in response to the election—a 5-person city council doesn’t give anywhere near enough Democrats real experience in the interplay of public opinion, argument, and decision making. A hired city manager doing the actual governing—no matter how wise, benevolent, or competent—doesn’t give enough Democrats a chance to see how to make their cases, understand public opinion, and answer for how their ideas play out in the real world. Think how powerful Trump’s experience of being on so many TV shows has been to his ability to speak on his feet. Think in comparison how feeble is Democratic national leadership in think tanks, NPOs, and even Congress (which hasn’t been a deliberative assembly since the 1980s) has been in talking and listening to the public.
We could be giving tens of thousands of citizens every year the chance to learn to argue in public, propose ideas, vote, and stake their reputations on the outcome of their speech and voting.
Why not start with Charlottesville?
I suggest Charlottesville needs an elected mayor and a 14-18 member city council. The council needs to be an actual assembly that is small enough for everyone to be accountable for what they say and do, but large enough for there to be different factions, so that members will have to learn to stand and speak to one another, making real arguments with all the factual, emotional, and rhetorical power they can, and see how the votes come out. Plus it needs to be large enough that it’s hard to bribe. There should be enough members for not everyone to be a professional with an advanced degree.
The goal is not for everyone to have a “voice”—we have that now. The goal is for there to be accountability. Citizens in positions of public trust making decisions in front of fellow citizens who will remember what they said and how they voted. Those who are good at it move up the ladder. Those who for whatever reason aren’t, can contribute to their communities in other ways.
Creating deliberative assemblies can even over time change the culture of the entire city. As citizens become more skilled, the council can expand to 20-40 members, and being able to speak well, craft laws, and influence the community could change how we treat one another outside of Council.
In the decades ahead cities will have to deal with a lot of problems, including problems that cannot be assigned to consulting firms in Norfolk or decided on strictly logical grounds—and the federal government is not going to care (unless we’re a city in Israel perhaps). We need experiments, we need experience, we need local skills. At first a city council of 14 members would mostly argue, true, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Charlottesville has changed its government several times since it was founded. It’s hard to imagine changing it now—that too is a symptom of Reagan-Clinton—but eventually the dam will break, change will happen, and I hope some of us grasp these opportunities when the chance comes.
Thanks for reading Blame Cannon! New posts every Wednesday, plus weekend bonus posts as life allows.
Comments welcome but please not insults or profanity!
Harris lost Wisconsin by 30,000 votes (.1%) and Nevada by much more. Trump won the popular vote by about 3,000,000 votes.
I’d also suggest adding an elected mayor, but that’s for another time.
The late 19th century routinely had voter turnout that was higher. 1860 and 1876 had turnout over 80%. From 1856 to 1900 turnout was always over 70%.
While Obama’s victory was obviously about a desire for real change, the Democratic leadership interpreted it as a victory for a new majority-minority coalition of women and minority voters. This led many to believe they did not have to deliver for everyone else and opposition to their policies must be frustration of white men with their declining status. You have to squint pretty hard to see the evidence as supporting this, but they did and so they did.
Obamacare is a good example. It’s a government-corporation hybrid not a social program like Social Security, unemployment insurance, or the WPA. Or see here how the government created long-term mortgages as a “public option” here, which was then matched by private lenders.
"In 2006, 2008, 2010, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024, voters have voted against the incumbent party.” See this post by Matt Stoller that I’ll tag in a future post of my own.
Urban centers in the U.S. are run by Democrats almost by default, since post-Reagan Republicans basically refuse to consider cities as legitimate U.S. territory. They rarely offer any urban theory or interest. So city problems are Democratic problems.
In that same light most of the controversial police departments during the Black Lives Matter protests were in Democratically-controlled cities. If we Democrats are as compassionate, dedicated, professional, educated, and effective as we think ourselves, why can’t we provide our fellow citizens with safe, effective police protection?
At least in the second or third generation. In the first generation of professionalism there are clear community standards—often unspoken—that the professionals intuitively enforce.
It’s noteworthy how commonly many people within atomized Reagan-Clinton age, including government officials, elected officials, and journalists will take pride in displeasing “both sides” as if not satisfying anyone were proof of virtue.
It must be staring you in the face. All these well thought out ideas and solutions. All manifested by Joel Jones. Who best to convince anyone to try some than you, and in person. Sure, it originated on the page. You already have carried a ton of the inceptive weight. Expanded council? There has to be enough talent inspired to develop conviction and faith and sacrifice time for possible/probable failure but an overriding dedication to achieve success. Is there enough people that would actually participate? Maybe you don’t move to NYC.