The Final Word

Saving our cities

Why conservatives need to stay and vote

By Alisa Farenzena

From the May 2008 Print Edition

As another school year comes to a close, many graduating seniors are moving. I’d be willing to bet that most of the ones who aren’t enrolling in graduate school this fall are moving to cities, as that is where most high-paying jobs are located. Do you happen to fall into this category? If so, as a lifelong resident of a city, I can warn you that you’re probably going to encounter a great deal of liberal nonsense from your local government. That’s exactly why you’ll need to stay.

Confused yet? What I just described sounds dreadful, so why would anyone want to stay long? The reason is that cities need your vote in order to counteract the aforementioned nonsense. When I voiced this sentiment to a friend who is also conservative, he felt that there was no longer any point. “Let the cities die,” he said. Yet this is exactly the type of destructive thinking that has gotten us to this point. If normal residents hadn’t begun to get fed up and leave, cities never would have gotten so liberal.

In addition to hurting the remaining residents, this type of thinking is harmful because much of the history of our country is rooted in the cities, and that is too much to lose. This country grew up as a patchwork of cities, small towns, and family farms. I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that not many members of the class of 2008 will be relocating to the latter two, so much of the readership will probably choose cities, where the jobs are, but later feel compelled to move to suburbs, which are within commuting distance of the jobs. I ask you now to remember to stop and think before making that second move.

Suburbs are a very recent invention. The oldest, Levittown, Long Island, celebrated just 60 years of existence in September. Aside from being America’s first suburb, the most significant contribution it seems to have made to our nation’s history is another ugly page in the chapter on racial prejudice. Compare that to Manhattan, which teaches us about the beginnings of public leisure, the beginnings of fixed-route public transportation (which was then privately owned, I might add), the many waves of immigration into the United States, and some of our tallest and most beautiful skyscrapers.

Cities are also centers of art and culture. The suburbs simply do not have the array of opera, ballet, symphony, museum, and theater offerings that the cities do. Sure, they may have community theater, but cities can boast that plus major theatrical productions. Broadway was delighting audiences long before Levittown was thought up. Cities also attract everything from famous comedians on tour to some of the best restaurants in the country. Simply put, there is always something to do in a city.

The same cannot be said of the suburbs. They’re not called “bedroom communities” for nothing. The lack of things to do drives some to become involved with drugs. That is why it always perplexes me when people say that the suburbs are the best place to raise a family. People seem to be taken in by the association that cities like San Francisco have with drugs, ignoring the fact that there are also many positive things to do in San Francisco. The same cannot be said of Concord, an unimpressive suburb located in Contra Costa County; Contra Costa, like Alameda County, has a large methamphetamine problem.

Another reason that cities are important is the schools. While it’s true that cities are home to some of the worst public schools, they are also home to some of the best. Top citydwelling students can earn admission to New York City’s Stuyvesant, Boston’s Boston Latin, or San Francisco’s Lowell High School. The education available is so good that suburban parents regularly lie about their residence to get their children in.

With all of these positive qualities that cities have, why have we allowed our cites to be taken over by leftists? This question is particularly directed toward those of you who come from cities (or whose parents were the first in your family to leave). Plus, how does it make you feel that some liberal carpetbagger from Texas — who couldn’t fit in there because he hates America — is destroying your hometown?

If you say that there’s no longer any point to staying, consider New York City. People had given up there too, but Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani turned the city around. He got the homeless off the streets, got rid of the squeegee men, turned the deficit into a surplus, and cut taxes.

If you say that you prefer to live in the suburbs simply because you want to live in a single-family dwelling with ample parking, then I have to inform you that such a lifestyle is available in the city. San Francisco, in particular, is a largely residential city. Many neighborhoods fit this description, including St. Francis Wood, the Sunset District, the area near Lake Merced, and my neighborhood of Diamond Heights. The area where I live is essentially an early-1960s suburban development built right in the middle of a major city.

If you argue that you’d rather live in the suburbs because the suburbs are conservative, guess again. The front page of the April 21 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle declared, “Suburbs now sending Dems to Sacramento, Washington.” Liberalism is like a cancer that starts in the cities and spreads outwards.

For this reason, playing defense in the suburbs is not enough. Like it or not, the battle of ideas is fought in the cites. That is why we need to stay there and fight for our property rights, against the militant bicycle lobby, against socialized health care, against anti-market business restrictions, and so on.

We need to use our votes, and we need to educate our liberal-by-default non-confrontational neighbors. So many people living in cities fail to think through their political positions; they think that they are liberal simply because everyone else around them is liberal, so personal interactions can make a real difference.

One of the main reasons that the battle of ideas is fought in the cities is that the cities are the hubs of the major media markets. One way to shift the debate is to become a news reporter and deliver unbiased news, rather than the advocacy journalism that we typically see from the mainstream media. We also need more people like Michael Savage and Jeff Katz, who broadcast conservative talk radio from San Francisco. One of my fellow San Franciscans, a family friend and lifelong Democrat, has become a fan of Savage and is now casting conservative votes.

The other way we need to fight to turn the tide in the battle of ideas is to get involved in local politics at the lowest levels. The Green Party and other “progressives” have been very successful in taking over by starting at the Board of Education. We need to do the same. The reason these extremists were elected in the first place is that so many conservatives retreated. We now need to rectify the situation.

Turning our cities around is an uphill battle because we have neglected many of them for so long. Yet conservative Cal graduates may have an easier time at it than most people because they have endured several years of Berkeley without abandoning their beliefs. Perhaps the next Savage or the next Giuliani is among us. If you happen not to be that larger-thanlife personality, that doesn’t let you off the hook, though — you do have the ability to stay and vote.

Respond to letters@californiapatriot.org

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot