A Tale of Two Cities, Revisited

 

Two years ago I wrote a post with this same title. I am revisiting the premise in light of this 2^nd Trump administration’s steady attack on and rhetoric about cities. The previous post was a little more abstract; this one will attempt to be a little more connected. 

Let me start by saying that, perhaps to the chagrin of everyone who reads this post regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, I’m going to take somewhat of a centrist perspective on this topic. 

It is clear to me that Trump has found political success by weaponizing the grievance of those in this country who feel they have been harmed by such things as globalization, DEI, and liberal media bias. It is difficult to not read racism into such impulses and into the president’s stoking those emotions. I condemn this line of thinking and find its continued usage and popularity to be horrifying for our republic. 

Nevertheless, I recognize that it can be infuriating when, in response to a variety of complaints, some justified and some not, folks are gas-lighted and shouted down and canceled. I believe globalization is largely good for humanity and should be encouraged, but I acknowledge it has its downsides, and to be told that to think otherwise is backwards is unkind. Similarly, I believe that DEI is critically important to heal old wounds and move towards a world that lifts up all people, but some applications of it are not without their critiques and there must be room given to express and resolve those critiques, rather than having the door self-righteously closed on any possible pushback. Finally, I believe liberal media bias exists, as does conservative media bias, so to claim that anyone is above reproach here is foolhardy, and yet no one seems to be willing to admit that they are part of the problem or have themselves been hoodwinked into only hearing half the story. 

Which brings us to a topic that is near and dear to my heart, American cities. One side vilifies cities as dangerous and uncouth in ways that are hard to not read racism into. I condemn a perspective of cities that is a caricature, and an incorrect and racially veiled one at that, since cities are complex and wonderful and important. But I also disagree with a viewpoint that must, in order to negate the attack on cities, assert that there is nothing fundamentally wrong that requires sustained action in response and that to merely suggest so is wrong.

Let me be more specific. I will say that as a city-dweller myself, I take necessary precautions but otherwise feel that where I live and raise a family is safe for me and my wife and kids. However, we live in a nice neighborhood and largely do not go out at night. In our own cities, and in cities across this country, there are millions of households that are not nearly as well off as we are, many of whom are households of color, who have felt and in many tragic cases borne the direct impact of crime and violence. To hear from President Trump that cities are dangerous and heavy-handed response is needed probably rubs a lot of households the wrong way. Such assertions come across as projecting non-urban fragility onto cities, with a not so thinly veiled racial bite to it. But for mostly white and mostly affluent progressive voices to proclaim that cities are universally safe and no changes are needed probably rubs those same households the wrong way as well. It is patronizing that those most affected by urban crime are expected to either accept current levels of vulnerability or have their very real stories of pain dismissed as false or unimportant. 

This post hasn’t been very articulate, but I hope you understand where I’m coming from. From where I sit, cities are amazing and should be invested in and celebrated, not vilified and demonized. It worries me that such anti-city rhetoric is becoming more emboldened and more celebrated. We are all worse off if our cities decline, and the frightening thing is that city haters seem to either not know this, or willfully know this and yet cruelly prefer that others suffer even if it means they do too. 

On the other hand, part of the positive attention cities should be receiving should be to take seriously the challenges of crime and violence we face, unfortunately disproportionately borne in neighborhoods with the least amount of resources and power, rather than have those challenges be swept under the rug by people who are more buffered against those challenges in the spirit of opposing a president they despise. Winning the next election and scoring political points are, for millions of households around this country, far less important than doing what is needed to make our great cities safer and better. Let's take that very reasonable desire seriously and do what we can to honor it. Let's not demonize our cities or wish them ill. Let's also not live in a fantasy world in which there is no crime problem in our cities or that somehow current levels are acceptable and don't require some intervention; we may disagree on what the right intervention is, but we ought not gaslight those who suffer the most from crime by disregarding their pain.