Civitates and Megacities

Republicans Won’t Compete in Cities by Samuel Goldman

Uhmerican megacities are "strongholds" of liberalism - historically Democrats may have been popular because who compromises most of the dwellers in the city? Not the rich. Now, the Democrats promise benefits for the poor and they appeal to the non-poor for this reason and others as well. Goldman's response is correct in that respect:

Moreover, the social conservatism that defines the Republican Party is anathema to urban voters. A party that is loudly opposed to gay marriage and abortion will never be competitive in America’s cities. Glaeser dreams of a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicanism that might win in New York and its inner suburbs. But there aren’t enough votes to make this an appealing strategy on the national level: any gains in metropolitan areas would be wiped out by losses in the so-called base.

Why Conservatism Cares About Cities by Jonathan Coppage

Coppage's flaw is that he fails to make distinctions among cities according to scale and order. Conservatives Virtuous men do not hate the city in itself, though there are plenty of Biblical examples of cities gone bad, but they do recognize limits to how big cities can be. The city can be the locus of civilization and culture, or it can be the consequence of unchecked vice. What is needed is not a universal panegyric or a complete condemnation but a recognition that our megacities are problems in themselves and that appeal to national politics as currently practiced by the duopoly will not solve them.

I wonder if this book of translated texts by Annabel Brett is worth getting: Marsilius of Padua: The Defender of the Peace. (GB)