The War on Urbanism

Daniel Lazare's America's Undeclared War: What's Killing Our Cities and How We Can Stop It carries a rather sensationalist title, but drives home a good deal of hardheaded historical analysis before succumbing to some woolly proposals. Lazare exposes antiurban bias from Jefferson through the Progressive movement, Fordism, Mumford (!) and their latter-day heirs. His take on the Progressives is revelatory: their distaste for urban "squalor" and their do-gooder program of uplift make me reach for my Mencken. He is right to chastise acclaimed urbanist Jane Jacobs for her anti-political mentality: her "microscopic approach was both her strength and her undoing." His critique of the Constitution, which references his previous work The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution is Paralyzing Democracy, warrants further inquiry. But he falls prey to an ungrounded exaltation of democracy that almost derails his sometimes sensible solutions.

Good Guys and Bad Guys cont.

Sorry--I failed to mention the absurdity of causing the deaths of thousands more on both "sides" to supposedly prevent future deaths. I forgot to point out that the insurgent army are not the terrrorists. But there's so much going on that rankles, and it's so easy to draw up an indictment, that the most obvious criticisms sometimes take leave of us momentarily. It makes me wonder why I bother to give the monkey a mirror when his dance will only deepen.

Good Guys and Bad Guys

In today's Tribune Magazine letters section we were treated to some reflective pieces on terrorism and war. It seems that two weeks prior the magazine had dared profile a peace activist, and a reader had deigned to take up his pen and voice his approval. Apparently this sparked an outcry in the beyond-the-bungalow belt. "Understanding the terrorists?" "Reasoning" with them? Perish the thought! These vermin are out to kill us, so we must kill them first.

While this writer did not attend peacenik camp, if ever there was a time when understanding the enemy was the first order of business, we are witnessing it. When popular reasoning runs that we must eradicate Islamic terrorism because it is equivalent to Nazi rule and warmongering, and hence not open to negotiation, it is time for a teach-in. But no--the great beast has been struck: the American rears his Ugly head and the world cowers.

I would be the last to advance the notion that idiots can be convinced of their idiocy and see the light of reason. Any brief sojourn in the land of the free would assure one otherwise. But these terrorists are not mere idiots--they are educated idiots. Misundereducated, to be sure, but educated nonetheless, and more aware of the state of things than the benighted folk who have lately woken up to the world.

The "logic" evinced in these missives is staggeringly stolid. To paraphrase one: "there's a difference between a war to protect us and a conquest or a crusade; Islamic regimes are horrendous and must be changed." Sparkling. Here's another: "It is not our change they seek. It is our conquest." Right, because commercial airliners are the preferred military vehicles for conquest. Must I go on? "There will always be bad people in the world, and sadly, sometimes the only solution is to kill them before they can (kill us)." While this may have earned high marks in third grade social studies, or at least social mathematics, I wish to rebut it directly. If one is fighting for survival amongst wolves and the like, one would do well to administer a few coups de grâce to the murderous element. When the scene shifts to millions of people and billions of dollars, it is clear that we are better off withholding our energies from these entangling engagements. The point of fact is that the baddest of the bad have already either met their maker or made appointments to do so. To endeavour to eliminate terrorism because there is a chance that by killing terrorists the total number of dead will be smaller leads to a very slippery slope. Money can be spent to save lives in far more effective fashion; the mind of the policy wonk fairly boggles at the possibilities.

So both the simpleton sentiment of revenge and the intellectual argument of prevention are wrong, and the "war on terror" is doomed to failure. The intellectual version is only slightly more sophisticated. (More to come.)

Voting With One’s Pocketbook

Reading in the Tribune earlier today about the CTA’s impending crisis, I wondered again why in a supposed democracy the preferences of the people are so seldom heeded, or even sought out. The CTA faces the typical dilemma of underfunded public transit systems: to raise fares, or to cut back service. While one might perhaps come across a TV news poll on the question, it is never put to a public vote. Now though I might peer a bit more intently and prick up my ears at the climax of such an exercise, I wouldn’t suggest that public policy be decided by polling. But I’ve been pondering a process that might both appease a demand for more public participation and, strangely enough, raise the level of political debate.

Before I describe this process, let me first suggest a transport-specific solution. The transport system of the U.S. at present is a mess of bureaucacy and an exercise in hypocrisy. Urban residents do vote with their pocketbooks in one way: each must choose how to get around, weighing costs and benefits. They vote by making long-term decisions about vehicle ownership and residential location, and, for those with several options for conveyance, by making mode choices on a day-to-day and even hour-by-hour basis. But one problem is the unavailability of service level options for public transit users. Most transit systems have a standard fare, most often with an extra fee for transfers (paying more for having to suffer an inconvenience!) and sometimes a graduated fare structure based on distance, usually for commuter rail systems only. Public transit, being a public service, must adhere or at least appear to adhere to an “egalitarian” standard. It would be one thing if this equal standard were applied to all. But those with the wherewithal for and inclination to an automotive lifestyle (the vast majority, in case you haven’t noticed), by ignoring transit, cancel out the merits of such a system. The hypocrisy of public transit is that it claims to serve all but usually only serves those who have no choice.

Ideas are floating around in libertarian circles to make certain highway lanes “premium” lanes, that is, speedy toll lanes. Whatever we make of this, we ought to institute (revive?) multiple levels of service of public transit so that one can pay more for better service on a case-by-case basis. I’ll leave the logistics for later, but the idea is not to create distinctions of class (these already exist), or to exacerbate them (quite the contrary), but simply to increase transit ridership and lessen car dependency by creating a service that is superior to the automotive-asphalt complex. Here, at least the libertarian critique of government-provided services is spot on. I would even wish that one could donate funds to improve one’s own pet transit route. . . Unfortunately this proposal would be difficult under the present dispensation. But what if government were actually accountable?

Though democracy of course requires an educated populace--as yet unnattained in these here United States--wouldn’t it be neat if we could determine how our tax money is spent? I must hasten to assure the guardians of public order that this is no proposal to replace representative democracy with a direct version. In a mass society, deliberation by the elect is certainly to be preferred to plebiscites. But the genius of this proposal, if I may, is that the process would be open to all, but those who bother to sit down to mull over the budget would be forced to come to grips with the scheme of apportionments. Perhaps the “libertarians” might recognize that the American inclination toward the internal combustion engine has been, how shall we say, helped along by various, what do you call them—subsidies! Yes, dear, the private lifestyle is publicly funded. Go tell grandpa.

Cities of Concrete

Fred Hiatt's horror at the uglification of Washington reminds me of Mike Davis's depiction, in the "Fortress L.A." chapter of City of Quartz, of one regional campus of the security-state school of architecture. The maximum-security Willowbrook shopping center with police observatory conveniently upstairs from its library, the aerial reconnaissances, deployments, and offensives of the renowned L.A.P.D., and that boy tsar of real estate, the gated archipelago, all attest to the unceasing innovatory power of America West, South Coast division. Indeed one cannot name another portion of our sweet land of liberty more devoted to the pursuit thereof. In New York it is interpreted as the freedom to compete, in riches and in rags; in Chicagoland, as the freedom of labour (that is, just enough for Big Ten tuition for Brad and Todd); in San Francisco, as the freedom to be oneself, to reinvent oneself, or, best yet, to shed one's self; but in Los Angeles the Damned, freedom is primarily understood as freedom of property: the house, the car, and most saliently, the body. The preoccupation with physical security now manifested in the nation's government, financial, and transport hubs has a precursor in the Southland of California; our latter-day War on Terror bears a marked resemblance to one region's War on Crime.

The quest for freedom is the subtext of Davis's book: through automobility and house ownership, a region was built on the premise and promise of personal, physical freedom: freedom as security through isolation. With the help of citizen revolts against taxes and density, and proactive police programs, that particular flavor of freedom has endured. Freedom's ring, once an abstract (ap)peal that drew men to battle for a common good against imperial tyrants, now resonates as a call to arms for the defense of one's person against itinerant and dispersed enemies. (Itinerant and dispersed, that is, unless, of course, at a certain time those enemies happen to be strangely concentrated in a certain Middle Eastern country.) It has been remarked elsewhere that the likelihood of encountering terrorism firsthand is less than the chance of being struck by lightning, and much less, for that matter, than being killed by an automobile. Though of course cars don't kill people, people do. Which cognizance emboldens me to implore the reader, to reflect on our own, homegrown, everyday terrorism.

"Moral Issues" and Ugly Cities

From the Daily Howler:

"HIATT’S REGENCY: . . . how powdered—how perfumed—is this fine fellow? On November 1, laughter rang through the HOWLER’s great halls as Hiatt revealed what was on his mind one day before our election:

HIATT (11/1/04): Here's a piece of advice for the president who will be chosen tomorrow: Take a walk around your White House.
Yes, both candidates have lived in Washington for some time now. But how closely has either of them looked at the core of their city in the past few years—at how ugly it has become?

What was on the great satrap’s mind? Iraq? “Moral issues?” The president’s character? Lowered wages for America’s parents? No, Hiatt wanted the newly-elected president to note how ugly his city had become:

HIATT: After they shut Pennsylvania Avenue to traffic, you could still drive past the White House on E Street. No more. After they fenced off the pleasant alley between the White House and the Treasury, you could still stroll down the sidewalk on the Treasury's east side. No more. Not so long ago you could climb the steps on the west side of the Capitol, sled down the hill beneath them, wander undisturbed back up the hill and across to the Library of Congress. No more, no more, no more.

Washington’s security fences were ugly, and they interfered with Hiatt’s strolls. Fiercely, he went to the heart of the problem: “[S]omeone has to say enough.”

The Big Day was coming, and Hiatt spoke—whoever won should make D.C. look better."

Not acquainted with Lord Hiatt myself, I will defer to the judgment of the Daily Howler, that redoubtable brigadier for truth and justice (seriously), as to the state of his character and complexion. But methinks that urban allure and its antithesis are no minor matters. While those of royal or gentlemanly stature might well possess more time and inclination to reflect on the finer points of urban aesthetics, ugly cities affect the huddled masses just as much as the bluebloods.

The instance of uglification noted by Hiatt has resulted from the tireless labours of our permanent war state. We well know that the pursuit of security is that without which our other efforts are futile. But when security is elevated to the top of our quotidian concerns, it is all too easy for the powers that be to encroach on our vaunted liberty while claiming to be engaged in enforcing it.

I will leave to others the task of speculating on the exact effects of the visible effluvia of homeland security. I will note only that public morale is indubitably affected by the built environment. If morale is not a moral issue, I must be misreading my Merriam-Webster. And that ongoing affront to our senses known as urban blight, though perhaps less quantifiable than fluctuations in wages, should be at the forefront of political discussion. Though informed opinion differs on how to interpret economic indicators and enhance economic performance, leading urbanists are well-nigh unanimous on the necessary steps for revival of our cityscapes. (about which much more to come.) On most moral and economic, nay, most political matters, government's role is subject to debate. But it is becoming more and more clear that government got us into this urban mess, and it must get us out.

The General Will and the Possibility of Democracy

Having long been antagonistic to notions of a "general will" (this antagonism deriving from my studies of nationalism and its mystifications and distortions), I have recently been alerted to the logical and logistical difficulties in theories of democracy. Popular sovereignty deriving from a general "will of the people" is the basis of legitimacy for contemporary "advanced" states and those that aspire to be. History shows that peoples or nations do not come about "naturally," without the intervention of governments or intellectuals, and the general will is only a bastard son of monarchical right, arising to fill the vacuum created with the decline of courtly prestige. Its legitimacy derives from the association of monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy and other forms of government with mass poverty, oppression, backwardness and general misery. Democracy gained prestige from its association with the Enlightenment. . . The people, who are the subject of the general will, have in democratic theory always been assumed; what determines membership in the people has only recently become to be seen as problematic. Setting aside this for the moment, a cursory examination of the supposed will of this putative people reveals little of substance.

Let's start by assuming the existence of this will and slowly chip away. Given that the will changes over time (only the most essentialist reactionaries could deny this), any given "snapshot" of it does not correspond to any actual set of positions; you can't step in the same river even once. So any representative government based on the will of the people is also engaged in thwarting it, given the lag between elections and governnment sessions and the impossibility of representatives constantly monitoring the thought of their constituents. If we take the view that representatives and other politicians are granted freedom to make decisions based on their consciences and considerations, we might repair the general will theory by taking it in a looser sense. . . If we jettison representative democracy for some form of direct democracy, we don't fare much better. People do not know what they want, and even if they did, they would not know how to bring it about. This applies even to the smartest people. How can we enshrine a political principle based on something unknowable and unworkable? We might revert to the thought that democracy is a bulwark against misery because is has the power to remove misery-producing governments. But it is not always clear that the government is the source of the misery and that another government would be any better. . . This best-of-the-bad, Churchillian view of democracy has unfortunately passed out of currency.