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

| By Richard C. Longworth

Putinism: The New Russian Ideology

A nation's self-identity is what drives its foreign policy motivations. Russia has shifted among different identities over the past two, post-communist decades. The latest, however, embodied by leader Vladimir Putin, is more authoritarian and anti-American than before.


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week’s Reads – The Roots of Western Woes

This has not been a good year for Western democracy. How did we get here? This week’s reads from Council President Ivo Daalder seek to offer some preliminary answers—shedding light on the difficult question of what is driving today’s illiberal trends around the world. 



Election 2016: What Global Issue Might Affect Your Vote This Fall?

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is engaging the public and thought leaders in dialogue critical to the 2016 elections. In part one of our “Election 2016: America in the World” video series, find out what global issues are top of mind for the public with one month left to go.


Salam Al-Marayati on the Biggest Global Issue Facing the Next President

Salam Al-Marayati, president and cofounder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, spoke at the Council on September 23. There, we sat down one-on-one with him to inquire what he thought was the biggest foreign policy or global issue facing the next president. Find out what he said.


One More Question with Paul Collier

The University of Oxford's Paul Collier discussed the complex issue of global migration and the refugee crisis with a Council audience earlier this week. We sat down one-on-one with him to inquire what question he hoped the audience would ask. Find out what he said.


| By Noah J. Toly

Brexit, Global Cities, and the Future of World Order

In an article published in the journal Globalizations, senior fellow on global cities Noah Toly characterizes the Brexit vote as linked to larger dynamics of income inequality, political disenfranchisement, and social exclusion, which threaten to destabilize a liberal world order premised on integration and openness.


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week’s Reads – Thoughts on the First Debate

The highly-anticipated debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump took place on Monday. This week’s reads provides some different perspectives on some of the topics that were discussed—and some that should have been discussed—during the debate. 




One More Question with London Mayor Sadiq Khan

London Mayor Sadiq Khan joined a Council audience on September 15 to discuss the breakdown of social integration. After the event, we asked him: "If you could challenge the traditional thinking on one global issue, what would it be?" See his response.





One More Question with Fareed Zakaria

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria joined a Council audience on September 8 to discuss America's international leadership. Before the event, we asked him what question he wished the audience would ask.