Conservatives Should Care About Cities

It’s no secret that big cities vote heavily Democratic. In fact, population density is a very good predictor of voting habits. So it’s no surprise that Republicans have made a habit of not even trying to compete electorally in cities. In fact, in some cases they prefer not to be competitive in local urban elections, lest that fuel turnout in cities that might affect races further up the ballot.

But that isn’t a wise strategy. There are many reasons why it’s important that conservatives and Republicans do not write off cities, but instead actively compete for votes there.

First, cities are America’s cultural centers. Big cities are where culture is made, where influential institutions ranging from think tanks to foundations to many elite colleges have their headquarters, and where many powerful business and financial institutions are based. What happens in Vegas may stay in Vegas, but what happens in New York, Los Angeles, or San Francisco will eventually come to your town. Movements ranging from gay rights to historic preservation to coffee shops all got their start in big cities and are now ubiquitous in America.

For good and for ill, cities profoundly shape the cultural fabric of our country, and being absent from the city cedes the playing field of pre-political culture shaping nationwide.

Relatedly, cities are a critical venue where society’s true elites live and convene: not the only places, certainly, but clearly important ones. Ironically, we see this most clearly in movement conservatism, where the leading intellectuals and institutions are concentrated in New York and Washington. Cities are disproportionately where the top talent of younger generations moves, for a time at least, after school. After university, the city is the “graduate school” that enculturates them into what it means to lead at the highest levels in the country. To lose the cities is to lose the affection of the elites, including the next generation of them.

Secondly, even if Republicans can’t win in cities, simply being more competitive could be a game-changer electorally. As Miami’s Republican mayor Francis Suarez points out in a forthcoming interview I recorded with him, “even if you don’t win the city, if you go from an 80-20 loss to a 60-40 loss, it’s a big difference.” In narrow races, simply having the political infrastructure in place to turn out the Republican voters who do live in cities could be a difference-maker for state or presidential elections.

Just getting to more competitive elections in cities would be beneficial to the cities themselves. If there’s one thing conservatives know, it’s that monopolies are bad. That includes political monopolies. A more competitive Republican party in cities would force Democrats to elevate their governance game. This would make life better for their residents, something that Republicans should care about as part of having concern for the public interest and public good of the entire country. Perhaps Chicago would never have gotten into insurmountable debt had there been a competitive Republican party there to push for more reasonable spending, for example.

Thirdly, Republicans actually can have compelling ideas and win in urban areas, as history makes clear. In the 1990s, it was Republican mayors who were the most dynamic, responsive, and innovative leaders. Rudy Giuliani in New York dramatically reduced crime in that city. Stephen Goldsmith in Indianapolis pioneered competitive bidding as a way to reduce costs and improve public services. Michael Bloomberg may have switched to the Republican Party in order to run for mayor of New York—but he was elected under that banner, and then implemented the kind of innovative and results-oriented governance that Republicans should be trying to deliver, such as his bike lane and public plaza programs, and bringing a new gas pipeline to the city across the Hudson River. (In fact, he actually hired Stephen Goldsmith as his deputy).

Miami serves as a helpful, modern use-case: an example of where Republican governance is delivering results on the ground and electorally today. While not a Republican stronghold by any means, both Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Marco Rubio won Miami-Dade County by double-digit percentages in 2022. The city of Miami again has a Republican mayor, a rarity in a city of its size.

Mayor Suarez is a charismatic Generation X leader who became a national sensation after reaching out to disgruntled California tech executives on X (formerly Twitter) asking, “how can I help?” He contrasts Miami’s approach with other coastal elite cities, noting that, “in New York, they had kicked out Amazon after winning the HQ2 prize.” But such hostile policy wouldn’t be happening in Miami he said, “what we want to do is sort of like the Hippocratic oath. At first, we want to do no harm. That’s the first thing we want to do at a very basic level. Then secondly, we love to facilitate.”

He notes that Miami never embraced progressive criminal justice fads or what he calls the “lawlessness culture.” Where once Miami had America’s highest big-city murder rate, last year it had a record low of just 31 murders. It was one of the most open cities during the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s attracting wealthy residents, elite events like Art Basel, and firms that do business nationally and globally, growing beyond its historic Latin American gateway destination. Miami Republicans are pro-urban, pro-density, and pro-diversity—but also champion a pro-America, can-do, entrepreneurial, and family-oriented approach that resonates with many Hispanic voters there.

The Miami model can’t necessarily be fully replicated elsewhere, but it does show that Republicans can and should have a policy and cultural agenda that resonates with voters in a diverse urban center—and delivers results.

Making an urban appeal will require Republicans to create a space within their coalition for a new kind of moderate leader. The populist or folk-libertarian approaches that are dominant among the core “base” voter are not appealing in many cities, where residents expect government to actually do things. Nor can this be the model of the traditional country club suburban Republicans, singularly focused on low taxes and fewer regulations.

Instead, these leaders would be younger, politically entrepreneurial, likely centrist on social issues, tech savvy, and future oriented, with attention to policy detail and an ability to execute on them. They would be focused on the issues of concern to urban residents, like crime and high housing prices. There are any number of areas where competent, innovative Republican leaders could make a big difference, ranging from more permissive zoning to allow more housing construction, to tackling America’s worst-in-class regulations such as our extremely expensive elevator standards, to bringing down our highest-in-the-world transit construction costs.

If Republicans instead decide to continue writing off cities, they shouldn’t complain when the progressive cultural, economic, and institutional forces that radiate from them end up colonizing the minds of their would-be voters, turning them in directions the current Republican leadership never dreamed possible.