December 15, 2016 | By Kris Hartley

National Elections and the New American City-State

America’s 2016 presidential election marks a turning point in the relationship between local and federal government. The Electoral College will soon reverse the national popular vote for only the fifth time in history, favoring a candidate who was largely rejected by urban voters. As the country splinters along geographic and ideological lines, post-election divisions could portend the rise of a new American city-state movement, with mayors and city councils likely to intensify efforts to independently pursue progressive local agendas. Rather than prepare for battle, however, the city-state movement should broaden its relevance to rural areas in order to make a convincing case for the international economic, cultural, and social unity fueling its growth.

The United States is urbanizing at a steady pace, with a majority of population growth occurring in cities. In the 2016 election, however, votes in states with larger, more urban populations effectively counted less than those in states with smaller, less urban populations. For example, a Wall Street Journal study calculated that Wyoming voters “wielded almost three times as much influence as California voters.” Due in part to the fact that smaller states have more Electoral College votes per voter than do large states, the candidate who overwhelmingly won urban areas (and, the national popular vote by roughly 2.5 million votes) will not be the country’s next president.

This phenomenon has prompted scholars, analysts, and media to ask probing questions about the democratic legitimacy of the Electoral College system. One notable corollary is that states with large cities have less political influence relative to their importance in the national economy. Rural areas, no longer America’s primary economic engines, enjoy a degree of influence that out-scales their modest population size and economic contribution. As the dust settles and people come to terms—happily or otherwise—with the finality of the election, now is the time to consider how the rural-urban political divide will impact America’s cities.

This rural-urban divide in the United States—an increasingly global phenomenon—is pitting city leadership against national leadership on a variety of issues, with major cities already publicly disavowing policies that impede metropolitan economic growth and threaten the well-being of urbanites. By early indications, the incoming administration is at ideological odds with cities on issues such as immigration, economic inequality, climate change, social support, gun control, and policing, among others. In a recent speech, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio vowed to resist any federal policy deemed discriminatory, stating “we will use all the tools at our disposal to stand up for our people.”

The city-state movement could redefine the longstanding local-national balance of power. Indeed, the movement’s rebranding of “home rule” portends a new generation of rebellious governance in which openness, social tolerance, and economic progressivism endure only in America’s largest and most economically consequential cities – despite contempt from national administrations. To remain globally competitive, these cities will need to maintain their welcoming international image and distance themselves from rhetoric of fear and isolation.

The emerging city-state movement may appear little more than a reincarnation of the “states’ rights” movement; both share a spirit of autonomy. The difference, however, is decidedly ideological. The concept of “states’ rights” has historically been invoked to resist federal civil rights legislation, dividing communities and perpetuating oppression. By contrast, the city-state movement seems unified in opposition to division and oppression. The tug-of-war between state and national authority has persisted for decades on divisive issues such as abortion and, more recently, voting rights, drug policy, criminal justice reform, and LGBT rights. It is clear that progressive causes have little currency in America’s rural “heartland.” Some Democratic commentators argue that the election was lost, in part, because the “coastal” progressive movement focuses too much on social issues and not enough on working class employment.

Each generation appears to have its own policy-based urban-rural divide, which across time highlights a structural problem in how demographic and social change is politically reconciled with the lingering legacy of American agrarian conservatism. Combining disparate issues such as marriage equality and blue-collar job losses into a coherent narrative about social justice is a challenging but potentially transformative strategy to unify urban and rural areas – particularly against what many label a discriminatory and economically predatory elite. Ultimately, the marketplace of ideas will reward the movement that applies substantive and sensible policy.

Accelerating urbanization, increasing ethnic diversity, and more tolerant social attitudes among younger generations presage the gradual but inevitable liberalization of the American electorate. The most recent election result may be viewed in time as an aberration, but still must be taken as a call to action for both national party leaders and city governments. While the urban-rural divide deserves analysis, emphasizing it as an ideological battle front is limiting; finding common ground should be prioritized. As such, the triumph of a characteristically “urban” ideology is not the end game. The ability of all citizens to pursue happiness without discrimination is the highest calling, and this ideal seems at the moment to be embraced more fully by the urban electorate. The city-state movement must broaden its relevance. Ideals of democracy and equality should know no geographic boundary, and a resurgent rural progressivism would provide valuable allyship.

Finally, the global implications of domestic political dynamics can and should shape the practical proposals of the city-state movement. As the world’s “strong-man” authoritarians consolidate and strengthen their domestic power, the last hope for international economic, cultural, and social unity and stability is the strength of city-to-city ties across borders, particularly among global cities. The fate of America’s domestic city-state movement rests in its ability to make a convincing case against global isolation and fear by appealing to both the moral and economic sensibilities of all voters, urban and rural. In what is likely to be a politically contentious four years, many Americans will look to city-states and their leaders as champions of humanitarian decency and economic pragmatism.

Kris Hartley is a Lecturer at Cornell University and a Nonresident Fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

About

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization that provides insight – and influences the public discourse – on critical global issues. We convene leading global voices and conduct independent research to bring clarity and offer solutions to challenges and opportunities across the globe. The Council is committed to engaging the public and raising global awareness of issues that transcend borders and transform how people, business, and governments engage the world.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion in blog posts are the sole responsibility of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Council.

Archive


One More Question with Laura Alonso

Argentina's Anti-Corruption Officer, Laura Alonso, came to the Council September 22. We asked her what one question she wished she was asked that day. See what she said.


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Reads - Dealing with Russia

Are we headed toward a new détente with Russia? This Week's Reads focus on the challenges posed by Putin’s Russia and show the global political landscape in which these challenges must be dealt.



One More Question with Professors Gordon and Mokyr

Renowned Northwestern Economists Robert Gordon and Joel Mokyr debated the future of the economy at the Council on October 31. We asked them: What is the one question you wish someone would have asked you today?


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Reads – Election Aftermath

This Week’s Reads show how Mr. Trump’s election has already affected the global political landscape, and provide some perspective on what we can expect from American foreign policy in a Trump administration.





| By Brian Hanson, Ivo H. Daalder

Deep Dish: Trump's America — What's Next

Following Donald Trump's surprising win, Council vice president of studies Brian T. Hanson sat down with Council President Ivo Daalder to discuss how US foreign policy and the organizing principles of the world order are likely to change under a Trump presidency.




One More Question with Carolina Trivelli

Carolina Trivelli, former Minister of Development and Social Inclusion of Peru, spent a week in Chicago as the Council’s 2016 Gus Hart Visiting Fellow. We sat down one-on-one with her to ask about her biggest takeaway from her time in Chicago.



Secretary of State John Kerry on What Makes America Exceptional

On October 26, US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke at the Council about American leadership in an era of opportunity and risk. Hear his thoughts on what makes America exceptional, as well as what's at stake in the upcoming presidential election.