Matt Yglesias

17 Responses to “MetrObama”

1. Hector Says:
   October 26th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

   I believe the word you’re looking for is ‘cosmopolitan’ as in ‘rootless cosmopolitan’, and that isn’t a compliment.

2. Dan Kervick Says:
   October 26th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

   I never really gave much thought to the whole anti-urban thing until Matt came along with his annoying “urbanist” campaign against cars and roads, low population density, quiet, solitude, contemplation and the natural world. Now I really do feel like there is an annoying, hyper-kinetic element of the Democratic Party that actively wants to destroy the most valuable elements of my way of life, and that we in the nonurbs who don’t look forward to a future of being crammed into a tight, bikable space with a lot of post-adolescent dipshits like Matt will be forced to fight back against this movement.

   Fortunately, I have a lot of confidence that Barack Obama, despite his urban background, has a much greater appreciation than Matt for the diversity of ways of life in America, and the values they possess – including the American love of freedom and space. There are a lot of nonurban, nature-loving Democrats who have absolutely no intention of being “urbanized”, and I know that wiser heads will prevent a few spoiled, citified pups like Matt from ripping the party in half over their sardine dreams.

3. Brandon Says:
   October 26th, 2008 at 6:54 pm

   Dan, what you’re describing is exactly the PROBLEM with discourse regarding metropolitan development.

   Suburban/exurban promoting rhetoric has been the basis of American planning for decades. It’s based in a sound observation that there ARE a lot of Americans that enjoy having significant amounts of personal space/contact with nature/etc. So from a representational point of view, that makes a lot of sense.

   However, the rhetoric has become kind of unbalanced–there actually ARE a significant number of people who prefer an urban lifestyle. There are a variety of reasons for this–some people just don’t like driving, others prefer the community atmosphere where your eating and shopping is within walking distance of where you live, others feel that the economy of scale of cities is more efficient and ultimately has less of an impact on the environment if managed correctly. I don’t think you’re insane for wanting to live closer to nature, just that you have different priorities than I do.

   The rhetoric of the last 20 years has focused a lot on urban contributions to pollution/crime/etc, and many large cities have tackled these problems and made significant progress. But just like there are inherent problems with cities, there are also inherent problems with suburban areas–significant capital outlay for expanding electricity/water/road/freeway infrastructure, higher car gasoline usage, higher exposure to wildfire damage, and relative scarcity of housing and sometimes inflated housing costs due to decreased supply.

   Just because people like Matt point out some of these problems and try to promote MORE urban living, or urban lifestyle-like developments as a solution, doesn’t somehow mean that the government is “trying to force people into little boxes”–indeed, because of the space/nature-loving sentiment you note, I highly doubt suburban developments are going anywhere anytime soon. Incorporating urban-like features in them (like increased availability of public transit options, or more “central” planning of towns to put housing developments around a “main street” type area) to assuage some of the negative impacts of suburban development is hardly a threat to your way of life.

4. Tyro Says:
   October 26th, 2008 at 7:39 pm

   Now I really do feel like there is an annoying, hyper-kinetic element of the Democratic Party that actively wants to destroy the most valuable elements of my way of life,

   Dan, I don’t mean this as an attack on your personal policy preferences, ideology, or lifestyle. I mean this as a criticism of you: you need to stop being such a narcissist and acting like every single policy discussion is somehow an attack on you, personally. I don’t look at discussions of how we can improve the GI Bill by complaining that I feel there’s a group of people who actively wants to destroy my civilian way of life.

5. Hector Says:
   October 26th, 2008 at 7:43 pm

   Dan Kervick,

   If you live in a rural area or small town, then I totally respect that. But if, like many Americans, you live in the suburbs and think you’re being closer to nature, then you are kidding yourself. I doubt that, say, Marlborough MA is closer to nature in any meaningful sense than Jamaica Plain. A large suburban lawn is not a natural prairie, and a town park is not a natural forest.

   The American suburban lifestyle is predicated on the assumption that we can have our cake and eat it too. That we can enjoy the benefits and cultural activities of a city and also the benefits (open space, wildlife, nice scenery to walk around in) of a natural area. Not true. You have to make a choice, and either way you will be giving something up.

   A post- Peak Oil future will probably involve more people living in rural areas and small towns, but many fewer people living in suburbs.

6. PhillyGuy Says:
   October 26th, 2008 at 8:23 pm

   This was one of the first things that attracted me to Obama. A president who actually grew up and lives in a city will automatically have a better grasp on the importance of things like transit infrastructure, urban development, crime, etc… It’ll be a nice change from the countless presidents who take pride in insulting city life (while simultaneously raising their money there, buying their nice clothes there and generally conducting almost all official business in cities).

7. Dan Kervick Says:
   October 26th, 2008 at 8:47 pm

   Hector, for what it’s worth, I live in a town of around 7000 people. There is no suburban sprawl. We don’t even have a pizza shop – although there is a rather good Chinese restaurant right near the highway off ramp. Much of the town is wooded and there are many trails through the woods, along with plenty of ponds, bogs and running water. About 4% of the town is zoned for industry. The houses in most parts of town are not built on stripped lots with heavily manicured lawns, but are set back into lots that are usually about half-wooded, and afford ample privacy. Marlborough, Mass, has a population density about seven times greater than where I live. Not far from where I live, things get even more sparsely populated.

   You could say the town is a “suburb” of Concord, New Hampshire. But Concord itself is a rather small city of just a bit over 40,000 people. I don’t think anybody who took a close look at this area could conclude that there are many economically realistic opportunities for significant expansion of effective mass transit.

   Tyro, I’m sorry, but it is my view that Matt actually does want to end my way of life. It is a way of life that depends on low-density living, and requires cars for personal transportation. He doesn’t appear to approve, and has been conducting a campaign for many months on behalf of his preferred high-density lifestyle.

8. levitra Says:
   March 2nd, 2009 at 6:39 am

   levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.

9. viagra Says:
   March 11th, 2009 at 5:54 am

   Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

10. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 6:48 am

    tramadol
    I want to say – thank you for this!

11. viagra brand Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 am

    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
    cheap brand pfizer viagra

12. cheap viagra Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    Excellent site, It was pleasant to me. viagra