The Cities on the Hill: Urban Politics in National Institutions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Cities on the Hill: Urban Politics in National Institutions Thomas K. Ogorzalek Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2013 c 2013 Thomas K. Ogorzalek All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT The Cities on the Hill: Urban Politics in National Institutions Thomas K. Ogorzalek The contemporary “Red-Blue” political alignment is characterized by a national divide between cities and rural areas. This urbanicity divide is stronger than it has ever been in our modern his- tory, but it began with the development of an urban political order that changed the Democratic party during the New Deal era. These cities, despite being the site of serious, multidimensional conflicts at home, have been remarkably cohesive in the way they represent themselves in national politics, forming “city delegations” whose members attend to more than their own district’s con- cerns. These city delegations tend to cohesively represent a “city” interest that often coincides with what we think of as liberalism. Using evidence from Congress, where cities represented themselves within the nation, and a unique dataset measuring the urbanicity of House districts over time, this dissertation evaluates the strength of this urban political order and argues that city delegation cohesion, which is a basic strategic tool if cities are to address their urgent governance needs through action at higher levels of government, is fostered by local institutions developed to provide local political order. Impor- tantly, these integrative institutions also helped foster the development of civil rights liberalism by linking constituencies composed largely of groups that were not natural allies on such issues. This development in turn contributed to the departure of the Southern Democratic bloc, and to our contemporary political environment. This combination—of diversity and liberalism, supported by institutions that make allies of constituencies that might easily be rivals—has significant implications for an America character- ized by deep social difference and political fragmentation. Table of Contents I Dissertation Chapters1 1 Introduction: An Even Playing Field?2 1.1 City Organization and National Party...........................9 1.2 City Mouse, Country Mouse: Seeing Red and Blue More Clearly............ 12 1.3 Cities and Polarization.................................... 19 1.4 Cities on the Hill: Motivation and Outline of the Project................. 20 1.4.1 The Urban Interlude: Nation as City........................ 23 1.4.2 Sources of Evidence: Time and Place........................ 27 1.4.3 Data and Method................................... 29 1.4.4 Chapter Outline.................................... 30 2 Urbanicity and City Delegations 33 2.1 What is a city?......................................... 34 2.2 Urbanicity and two-dimensional liberalism........................ 37 2.2.1 Cities and the First Dimension........................... 39 2.2.2 Cities and the Second Dimension.......................... 44 2.2.3 Diversity, Institutions, and Political Order..................... 46 2.3 Representing a city interest: City Delegations....................... 49 2.3.1 Unity despite diversity................................ 51 2.3.2 Cities and representation.............................. 56 2.3.3 Smoothing preferences................................ 58 2.3.4 Cohesive liberalism.................................. 61 2.4 Cities in Nation: Strategic concerns............................. 65 2.4.1 Marginal Urgency.................................. 66 i 2.4.2 Unity and Agenda Control............................. 67 2.4.3 Mutual inclusive exchange............................. 68 2.4.4 Urbanizing...................................... 70 2.4.5 Affinity......................................... 71 2.5 Urban Politics in National Institutions........................... 73 3 The Cities on the Hill 75 3.1 The Urban Bloc(s) in Congress................................ 76 3.1.1 Measuring district urbanicity............................ 79 3.1.2 City representation over time: the House of Representatives.......... 83 3.2 Urban Power in the House.................................. 92 3.2.1 Chamber power positions.............................. 93 3.2.2 The Urban Agenda.................................. 99 3.2.3 City voting in the House............................... 113 3.3 Discussion: City Representation in the House....................... 120 4 City Delegations 124 4.1 Political Order......................................... 125 4.1.1 City Institutions of Horizontal Integration.................... 127 4.2 Cohesion from Diversity................................... 130 4.3 Tests of City Delegation Theory............................... 131 4.3.1 Heterogeneity, not just diversity.......................... 132 4.3.2 City delegation cohesion............................... 137 4.4 Cohesion and two-stage representation.......................... 143 4.5 Pairwise cohesion....................................... 146 4.5.1 Selecting city delegations.............................. 147 4.5.2 Discussion: Homogeneous delegations from heterogeneous constituencies. 154 4.5.3 Cohesive voting.................................... 154 4.6 Discussion........................................... 161 4.7 Conclusion........................................... 163 5 Cities and Race 165 5.1 Racial Realignment...................................... 167 ii 5.1.1 Urban Strange Bedfellows.............................. 171 5.1.2 Urbanicity, City Delegations, and Cohesive Racial Liberalism......... 179 5.2 “Urbanizing” Race...................................... 180 5.2.1 Urban conceptions of racial liberalism, 1920-1963................ 181 5.3 Urbanicity and Roll Call Voting............................... 193 5.4 Discussion........................................... 205 6 Conclusion 210 6.1 Urbanicity and Two-dimensional liberalism........................ 213 6.2 Re-“Urbanizing” American Politics?............................ 216 6.3 Cities on the Hill....................................... 219 II Bibliography 226 Bibliography 227 III Appendices 240 A House USR 241 A.1 Previous Approaches: Census-driven........................... 242 A.2 USR codes: Size-driven.................................... 244 A.2.1 USR codes: scoring procedures........................... 245 A.2.2 USR codes: examples................................. 249 A.3 Conflicts: Comparing USR and census-driven measures................. 251 B Demography 256 B.1 Building district-level estimates in large cities....................... 259 C Senate 269 iii List of Figures 1.1 2008 Red State, Blue State. 2008 State-level Presidential election winners, Obama in blue, McCain in red. Source: Mark Newman et al, University of Michigan. ....... 14 1.2 Red County, Blue County. County-level voting in the 2008 presidential election (Blue for Obama, Red for McCain). Source: Mark Newman et al, University of Michigan. 15 1.3 Support for Obama by population density in twenty-five states. 2008 County- level support for Obama by population density for various states. In most cases, support for Obama is relatively high in densely populated counties. Source: Calcu- lated from USA Today (Election Results), U.S. Census (County demographics). States with few people or few counties excluded. .............................. 16 1.4 Red countryside, Blue city. Local probability of voting for Bush (Light grey) or Kerry (Dark grey/black) in 2004. Almost all dark patches are cities. Measures are predicted values of a linear geographically-weighted regression with no predictors. For a clearer, full-color “Red-Blue” version, see http://www.columbia.edu/∼tko2103/Bushvote2004color.htm Source: Calculated from 2004 NAES .............................. 18 2.1 A model of atomistic representation: Diverse preferences and interests at left are mirrored by representatives at right............................. 59 2.2 Model of a City Delegation: Diverse preferences and interests, at left, are smoothed into a more cohesive bloc, at right, as they are filtered through the intermediate institutions of the city..................................... 60 3.1 Cities with more than .1 percent of national population, at fifty year intervals. Cir- cles are proportional to national population for that year. Source: Lieberman (2009) .. 82 3.2 Place-type representation over time. Congressional District urbanity distribution, 1865-2009. The graph at left depicts the distribution of place-types in the House. At right is the same graph, with partisanship information. Source: USR data ....... 83 3.3 City districts by type and partisanship.Core city districts are now almost exclu- sively Democratic, while mixed districts are split between the parties. Source: USR data ............................................... 86 iv 3.4 Proportion of all city districts by region. While city representatives came over- whelmingly from the Northeast and Midwest until midcentury, today city districts are evenly spread across the country. On a related note, while the number of to- tal city representatives has not diminished, there are far fewer representatives from cities with a history of strong traditional party organizations. Source: USR data ... 87 3.5 Partisanship and place-type over time. Democrats are a stable majority of ur- ban seats, and urban representatives are for the first time a very slight majority of Democrats. Source: USR data ..............................