Challenging piece on generations and the city (Pittsburgh, York: crime rates, schools)

[BrianTH]

I am recommending this not just for the piece itself, but the following discussion in the comments:

The Urbanophile » Blog Archive » The Rupture

For my part, I will say that I do think there is some truth to these notions on the statistical level, which has relevance when thinking about things like the future course of politics.

But on the individual level, there is a practically infinite variety within a group as large as a generation. And some people even change their minds. In other words, it can be a fine line between a statistic and a stereotype, but we should make sure to avoid the latter.

[Craziaskowboi]

Generational dynamics are part of why I've told people not to expect great things from the United States in the 2010's, and also to be patient when it comes to Pittsburgh politics.

Sometimes time is the only thing that will make a difference. The losers who have been in power at the federal level since 2000 are still in power today, and won't begin to lose it until 2020, after they've bent and broken as many rules as they possibly can.

In Pittsburgh, the current political status quo is being preserved by a group of people who are literally dying off as we speak. Expect a lot of political turnover in Pittsburgh in the next 10 years, with much more progress and much less myopia to come, reflective of subsequent generations.

Oddly enough, don't expect much "Baby Boomer" influence in Pittsburgh politics since they were the generation that got cast to the wind back in the 1980's. Of course, the way Baby Boomers are running the country, it's probably a good thing that they won't get to run Pittsburgh.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

Generational dynamics are part of why I've told people not to expect great things from the United States in the 2010's, and also to be patient when it comes to Pittsburgh politics.

Sometimes time is the only thing that will make a difference. The losers who have been in power at the federal level since 2000 are still in power today, and won't begin to lose it until 2020, after they've bent and broken as many rules as they possibly can.

In Pittsburgh, the current political status quo is being preserved by a group of people who are literally dying off as we speak. Expect a lot of political turnover in Pittsburgh in the next 10 years, with much more progress and much less myopia to come, reflective of subsequent generations.

Oddly enough, don't expect much "Baby Boomer" influence in Pittsburgh politics since they were the generation that got cast to the wind back in the 1980's. Of course, the way Baby Boomers are running the country, it's probably a good thing that they won't get to run Pittsburgh.

??? Pittsburgh has a mayor who is barely older than my oldest daughter, and I'm a Boomer.

[MeinGlanzendMotorrad]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

The losers who have been in power at the federal level since 2000 are still in power today

You mean the democrats, right?

[Faer]

Originally Posted by MeinGlanzendMotorrad

You mean the democrats, right?

Demonstrably inaccurate.

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by MeinGlanzendMotorrad

You mean the democrats, right?

I mean everybody. I'm a registered Republican, but I believe that the vast majority of Republicans with any clout at the federal level are full of **** too. The only difference is, the Republicans are only full of **** up to their necks, as opposed to being compressed full of **** like the Democrats. There are two things the Republican Party can do in order to be taken seriously again:

1. Tell the backward-thinking religious zealots and "culture warriors" to pound sand. Those issues are a matter of personal policy, and have no business being debated at the federal level.

2. Learn the difference between being pro-business and being a corporate ass-kisser. Workforce development is pro-business. Bailing out banks and subsidizing foreign automakers is kissing corporate ass.

Unfortunately, I have little faith in the Republican powers that be, so I have no choice but to wait for the Republican powers that will be. Take this to the bank: the next worthwhile Republican will not come from a Southern state. Southern states produce exactly those Republicans that have marginalized the party, the ones who win elections by advertising what good Christians they are, and who pretend that being from a right-to-work state and giving hundreds of millions of state tax dollars to a foreign automaker makes them good businessmen.

[BrianTH]

Investing in cities used to be a bipartisan notion--in fact, if anything it was the Republicans who were more in favor of such policies.

The problem is that the Culture Wars/Southern Strategy tactic, which started as an attempt by the elites of the Republican Party to co-opt various powerful resentments for their political gain, ended up corrupting the Party instead, because that tactic eventually handed control of the primaries to a predominantly older and more rural base. So now at the federal level, and in most states, Republican policitians are required to be resolutely anti-urban.

Being an optimist, I am also hopeful that at some point this will all die off--and in fact being the party of old, white, rural people is going to be an increasingly nonviable strategy. But how we get there from here, and how soon, are complex questions. And with Corbett's proposal beginning the state budgeting process today, unfortunately I think we are about to see that these anti-urban forces will have enough power left to do a lot of damage before they finally fade from the scene.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

There are two things the Republican Party can do in order to be taken seriously again... I have no choice but to wait for the Republican powers that will be.

G, these remarks remind me of a certain Mr. Anthony Blair PC. Perhaps at some point, probably after a run of electoral humiliations such as Labour suffered from 1979-1992, it might be possible to reconstruct the GOP as Nu-Republican. I suspect the chances of a "Nu-Republican" (Liberal-Republican? Reform-Republican?) re-branding are slim to none for the national party in the next decade.

Locally, however, given the sclerotic present power structure on Grant, I can imagine a scenario where a Nu-Republican movement - one which (like Blair's party) made a clean break with its past, and which explicitly distanced itself from national-party insanity - might have a chance, if for no other reason than simply that it existed and therefore offered the only organized alternative to the Grant St "let them eat black and gold cake" Ancien Regime.

But first we'll need a deal fewer old-timer yinzers with zombie hands frozen to the party slate lever and a good number more coastal-region incomers.

[JD984]

Interesting link. Not sure I agree with it, but it was still thought-provoking.

I tend to think younger generations have a more favorable view of many cities not necessarily because their expectations are lower, but rather because urban crime rates had declined significantly by the time they experienced urban living, so they don't assume that they need to move to the suburbs to raise a family in security.

I am not sure how that translates to the experience of Pittsburgh residents, but at least in my case the New York City of the 70s and 80s and the DC of the early 1990s were much less secure than their current versions, although they were also less expensive. This leads many younger urban residents - provided they can afford urban living - to assume that they can have their cake and eat it, too (i.e., continue to live in the city, navigate the spotty urban schools, and raise a family without unduly exposing one's loved ones to random acts of violence) in a way that, perhaps incorrectly, strikes Baby Boomers as unrealistic, because the latter are unaware or predisposed not to recognize that many urban areas have become safer over the past 10-15 years.

[BrianTH]

I suspect you are quite right about the role dropping crime rates have played in these trends.