This Wall Street Journal column looks at the death and life of Newark, N.J. Under the former, now-thankfully ended regime of Mayor Sharpe James, the city pursued a failed strategy of promoting big public projects and drowning would-be private start-ups in red tape. Add to that mix a hefty does of anti-white race-baiting and you've got a mixture for urban stagnation and decline.
The column quotes Prof. Richard Florida, who makes the case for reviving cities by attracting the "creative class" of energetic people and unleashing their entrepreneurial energies:
"There were lots of mayors like James who said, 'I'd rather keep my power base than build my city,'" says Mr. Florida. "Jane Jacobs told me the problem is that these cities are run by squelchers." By that she meant politicos who try to stamp out anything they can't control. They love big public projects, but private enterprise makes them nervous. Meanwhile the professional planners on public payrolls are squelchers of a different sort. They keep trying to remake cities in their past image.
"They're not going to bring back suburban, middle-class families to Newark," Mr. Florida says. "What you can bring in is young singles, the gay community and empty-nesters who are looking to be closer to an urban center."
It's another indication of how the interests of gays should align not with stultifying, backward-looking big-government liberalism but with the spirit of market-based initiative and dynamism. If only we hard a political party that was pro-market and pro-gay.
24 Comments for “Urban Renewal.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Don’t jump the gun. Dreadful, race-baiting Newark Mayor Sharpe James is still in office. According to the Newark Star-Ledger, Mayor-elect Cory Booker, whom James managed to defeat four years ago with the ludicrous and racist charge that he wasn’t black enough, takes office on July 1. That day cannot come soon enough.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Steve: “If only we hard a political party that was pro-market and pro-gay.”
My view is that we need a political party that supports traditional conservative principles — small goverment, fiscal responsibility, and equal treatment of all citizens under law.
A political party that embodied traditional conservative principles would be neither pro-gay nor anti-gay; nor would a pro-gay stance be needed by a political party embodying traditional conservative principles. LGBT equality would follow as a matter of course from the principles. LGBT citizens would be treated as all other citizens are treated, and that would resolve the question.
The problem is not with traditional conservative principles. The problem is that the Republican Party no longer stands for traditional conservative principles. The party has been hijacked by the Christian Right, and is hell-bent to bring the country’s laws into conformity with the moralism of the Christian Right.
Barry Goldwater warned the Republican Party about the agenda of the Christian Right and the party chose short-term political expediency over principle, begining with Ronald Reagan.
Where is Barry Goldwater when we need him?
Dead, of course.
And so are the principles he stood for, as far as modern Republicans are concerned.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“If only we hard a political party that was pro-market and pro-gay.”
Uh, you do. You just keep thinking of reasons why you cannot support it, but rather are “forced” to support a political party that is anti-market (but talks like it’s pro-market) and anti-gay.
posted by Lori Heine on
Northeast Libertarian is absolutely right. We DO have a political party that’s pro gay rights and pro free market.
The fairy-tale excuses for why you supposedly cannot support the Libertarian Party get more creative (and more lame) by the minute.
The real reason? It doesn’t yet have the clout (i.e. jetliner-loads of special-interest money) to win big elections. So the reason Libertarians claim many Americans won’t vote for them are exactly right-on. People are in love with the seductive notion of forcing everybody else to live according to their rules.
If that attitude doesn’t change, this country is over.
posted by Ed Brown on
Ok, the Libertarian Party is not going to be viable until we have free and fair elections. Richard Winger at Ballot Access News is a libertarian and if you visit his website you can learn more.
I tend to be distrustful of people that tell us that “free market” or “big government” is always the solution or always the problem.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I suspect these reasons will change soon, Lori. The LP is going to have its best election year in many cycles this November. . . two high profile election campaigns in “red states” which will repudiate the whole “gay friendly people cannot win or do well in the red states,” plus some fantastic candidates who are media savvy. And let’s not forget the Weld candidacy for governor in New York State!
It only preps us for 2008 when we’ll have even more battle-hardened veterans running focused campaigns. The real question at that point is going to be why someone would spend money promoting change within the GOP, when it’s a far better investment to vote LP and focus resources on that campaign. It will separate the issues-oriented folks who want to win on the merits of their ideas from the paid shills for the Republican and Democratic power machines.
posted by Ed Brown on
Again, you need to change the election rules before any third party is going to be viable at the federal level.
posted by Mark on
Yes, there is the Libertarian Party, but it is wishful thinking to think that liberalizing the election laws (which I support) is going to cause people to flock to it. It’s also wishful thinking to expect Republican party to morph into some quasi-libertarian party. The fact is that, sadly, most people are not libertarians. Sorry, but I’m afraid we are screwed.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
That’s the sort of defeatism which ensures that libertarians (small-l or big-L) don’t win.
The sad fact is, most people are not ANY one category. No single political philosophy forms a majority.
Libertarianism is a powerful and successful ideology and uniquely integrated into the American body politic. We can either make a persistent effort to advance it in every possible way, or we can “accept defeat” and cede our fates and futures to Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Bill Frist, George W. Bush and Joe Pitts. I know which course I think deserves energy.
The other important point is that only the Libertarians are coming up with new and innovative answers to many of the most pressing problems the country is facing right now.
Only the LP among national parties has a comprehensive Iraq withdrawal plan. Only the LP among national parties has a comprehensive health care plan which puts choices, lower costs, and freedom in the hands of the individual. Only the LP has a sensible stance on immigration and the drug war. Libertarians passionately oppose the incremental Big Brother state which “liberals” have allowed to grow since 2001 — a Libertarian caucus would shine a light on the wiretapping and phone records scandals of today.
Recent studies suggest that 10% of the population are “hard core” libertarians — in other words, natural Libertarian Party members. If they join, register to vote, run for office, and vote — absent of attracting a SINGLE independent vote, we could send 43 Libertarian congresspeople and 10 Libertarian senators to Washington. How can one argue that a vocal Libertarian caucus in Congress wouldn’t be a godsend?
posted by Randy R. on
On a local level, I think most gay people do in fact align themselves with market-based initiatives. Along with mtost of my gay friends, we make it a point patronize establishments that are NOT national chains or franchises — we like the small mom and pop stores, the independants, the unique restaurants and the boutiques. Sometimes we even pay a little more, but we consider it worth it since these businesses have the flexibility to invest their money in the local community. Plus, their are unique and give a community it’s character. We don’t like the America that exists on the interstate — all chains that make one place look exactly like another. We want to create wealth locally.
Whether this is Republican or Democrate, I don’t know and don’t care. It’s just good business. Jane Jacobs would approve. (RIP)
posted by Timothy Hulsey on
A political party that embodied traditional conservative principles would be neither pro-gay nor anti-gay; nor would a pro-gay stance be needed by a political party embodying traditional conservative principles. LGBT equality would follow as a matter of course from the principles. LGBT citizens would be treated as all other citizens are treated, and that would resolve the question.
Tom, I’m with you. Still, in our debauched political system, adhering to the basic principle of equal treatment under the law would be considered incredibly pro-Gay. At the moment, American politics seems to operate under the belief that individual rights belong only to the virtuous.
posted by Timothy Hulsey on
Only the LP among national parties has a comprehensive health care plan which puts choices, lower costs, and freedom in the hands of the individual.
ROTFL, NE Lib! What are Libertarians doing with a “comprehensive health care plan”? That’s Democrat talk, kiddo.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“What are Libertarians doing with a “comprehensive health care plan”? That’s Democrat talk, kiddo.”
Not hardly.
Our plan is to eliminate most of the regulatory barriers to providers in the private sector providing excellent, low-cost care.
Of course, I suppose you can argue health care doesn’t matter, and that will win you a vote from the sullen-n-bitter crowd. 😉
posted by Randy R. on
It’s rainy and chilly here in Washington. I think I will bake up a batch of warm breadrolls today. Mmmmm…….
posted by kittynboi on
Tom, I’m with you. Still, in our debauched political system, adhering to the basic principle of equal treatment under the law would be considered incredibly pro-Gay.
Part of that owes to the polarization of our political culture, and the black and white, with or against us terms. Thats stripped a lot of notions of neutrality from debate and discourse and can strip it from our system entirely.
I’ve seen extreme rightist totalitarian xians say as much. Some people really do think that there is no neutraility, and if the government does not OPPOSE it via legislation, then that is the same, at least “morawlly” to endorsing it.
posted by Anthony on
While I agree with many of the comments posted above, I have to dissent from the statement that Republicans veered from being conservatives in the traditional sense with the arrival of Ronald Reagan as president. To me, he represents the epitome of what the GOP ought to stand for – low taxes, less spending, a strong and strident national defense, a belief in free markets, a commitment to self determination and personal responsibility, etc. The party has strayed from his successful path in recent years, no question about that. But when you look at the alternative, what choice is there? I will stay with the GOP for a host of reasons, the most important being that Democrats haven’t changed at all in my lifetime.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Reagan as president. To me, he represents the epitome of what the GOP ought to stand for – low taxes, less spending, a strong and strident national defense, a belief in free markets, a commitment to self determination and personal responsibility”
Perhaps that’s why government spending increased by over 250% while he was in office, government employment increased by over 200%, and bailouts of the S&L and airline industries both occurred under his watch?
Reagan talked the talk but he most certainly did NOT walk the walk.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anthony: “I have to dissent from the statement that Republicans veered from being conservatives in the traditional sense with the arrival of Ronald Reagan as president. To me, he represents the epitome of what the GOP ought to stand for – low taxes, less spending, a strong and strident national defense, a belief in free markets, a commitment to self determination and personal responsibility, etc. The party has strayed from his successful path in recent years, no question about that. But when you look at the alternative, what choice is there?”
In my view, Ronald Reagan was a disaster for the Republican Party.
It was during his two terms in office that the Republican Party abandoned the three basic principles of traditional conservatism: small government, fiscal responsibility and minimal government interference with individual liberty.
Northeast Libertarian briefly addressed Reagan’s abandonment of the first two principles – small government and fiscal responsibility — and there are, as I am sure NEL would be more than happy to document for you, a lot more examples.
I want to address Reagan’s abandonment of the third principle – minimal government interference with individual liberty.
Ronald Reagan welcomed Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” — the social conservatives — into the Republican Party with open arms. I don’t know whether he did so cynically or because he believed in 1950’s moralism, but there is no doubt that he “talked the talk” and opened the door of the Republican Party to social conservatives.
Barry Goldwater, then a Senator, warned the party about Reagan’s embrace of the Christian Right in a September 15, 1981 Senate speech:
“Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism.’ And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength.”
“Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects … By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars … Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?”
“The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others, unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives … We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.”
In 1994, the influence of the Christian Right had grown to the point where Goldwater became even more blunt about:
“If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet, they could do us in.” — US News and World Report interview.
“When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.” – Washington Post interview.
Now, look where we are in terms of the third principle — minimal government interference with individual liberty.
The Republican Party has locked itself into a position where it depends on the Christian Right to “deliver the base” — “deliver the bigots” is more like it — and cow-tows to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and the rest of the gang when they demand that open discrimination be written into our laws and our constitutions at both the state and federal levels.
The Republican drive to ban same-sex marriage and “substantially similar legal status” — to use the proposed formula of the Wisconsin amendment — into our state and federal constitutions is a direct result of the party’s need to cow-tow, as is the push to ban GLBT adoption, disseminate medically dangerous misinformation through government agencies such as the NIH, as is the underhanded attempt to strip GLBT federal government employees of job protection, and so on. The Christian Right would reinstate sodomy laws if the Supreme Court — which they despise and whose jusrisdiction the Republican leadership has threatened to curtail — would let them. The Republican Party has become the tool of the Christian Right — a “religious organization”.
Ronald Reagan invited the Christian Right into the Republican Party and the result was inevitable. Reagan thought he could ride the tiger, I suppose, but he was wrong.
In 1994, Goldwater noted: ““The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they’re gay. You don’t have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that’s what brings me into it.”
Goldwater got it right: GLBT equality under the constitution and under law follows from traditional conservative principles. The Republican Party’s current positions, driven by the party’s dependency on the Christian Right, are a perversion of the princple of minimal government interference with individual liberty.
The Christian Right is a threat to us == GLBT folk — of course. But more importantly, the Christian Right has no respect for the Constitution, and that is a threat to our system of government.
posted by Anthony on
Okay, that’s all well and good. But I still love Reagan and still regard him as a terrific president. One could argue that gay people think far too much about gay issues alone and seem to forget there are many, many others out there. Reagan won the Cold War, plain and simple. NOT Gorby, not the libs, REAGAN. His persistence won the day in the end. I guess I’m more loyal to my conservatism and my Republicanism than to my sexual orientation. I guess that’s not a welcome sign here. Oh well. It’s what I believe and what I know for myself to be true.
posted by Anthony on
And while we’re on the subject of bashing Reagan, let me say that he staunchly opposed a California proposition during his years as governor that would have written discrimination into the Calif. Const. against gays. His reply to a question about the prop. was: “Let’s just say I am opposed to discrimination. Period.” Like him, I am opposed to discrmination, but we seem to get caught up in believing that unless we toe the PC line regarding sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, etc. we are somehow hopelessly bigoted (see Ed). Not so. Let’s let Ronald Reagan rest in peace. He certainly left the country in a far more peaceful place than he found it. Now, if anyone wants to analyze Jimmy Carter’s pathetic presidency, I’m all for it!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anthony: “I guess I’m more loyal to my conservatism and my Republicanism than to my sexual orientation.
We each have to make a choise, Anthony.
I’m 58 years old, and I intend to spend the 20 or so years remaining to me fighting for equal rights for gays and lesbians — equal rights, no more and no less.
I’m not about to support a party that is doing everything it can to enshrine inequakity for gays and lesbians into our state and federal constitutions.
You sound like you’ve made a choice, too. It is not a choice I could stomach for myself.
posted by kittynboi on
I guess I’m more loyal to my conservatism and my Republicanism than to my sexual orientation.
Does this also qualify as having commitment to being an individual rather than part of a group, as you said in another thread?
posted by Anthony on
Tom, you sound a little bitter. Why not invest some of your anger in a few therapy sessions? And kittynboi, you’re arrogant posts directed at me aren’t worthy of a response.
posted by kittynboi on
Well, it’s a legitimate issue. You speak of your loyalty to the GOP and you idea of republicanism. Do you not think this is even the least bit at odds with your claims that gays should see themselves as individuals and not part of a group? I mean, clearly you see yourself as part of a group by claiming loyalty to a political party.