CHARLESTON, SC--Fred Siegel has a provocative and ominous theory about the dynamics of the current
election campaign. For those who don’t know him, Siegel teaches at the Cooper Union in New York, and is the
author of one of the best books on urban politics in the last 25 years (The Future Once Happened Here,
recently released in paperback by Encounter Books). Fred is well worth paying attention to because he is
usually right. He now sees an interesting correlation on the nation’s electoral map.

Vice President Gore is leading or running best in those fast-growing states where there is a strong anti-growth
mood. This would include the entire west coast, along with Florida. He is also popular in slow-growing states
where there are strong pockets of anti-growth sentiment such as Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester Counties in
Pennsylvania. But, you will rightly point out, Gore hasn’t said a peep about his “livability agenda” for
months.

The issue of growth doesn’t even show up on the radar screen of polls asking about key national issues, while
other polls find large majorities saying that growth is strictly a local issue, and that Washington, DC should
butt out. True, Fred allows, but the general division between the two parties on this issue is clear in the
minds of voters. Gore doesn’t have to talk about his anti-sprawl agenda, Fred says, because it is “a fact on
the ground.” Everyone understands the candidates’ different philosophies on growth-related issues.

We have discussed the problem before in this space (“The Hirsch Thesis Vindicated,” May 25, 1999),
pointing out that as the number of prosperous, comfortable Americans increased, we would gradually
turn against growth because further growth would come to represent not an increase in opportunity, but a
threat to our “quality of life.” When translated into political terms, this spells trouble for Republicans,
because the Republican party is the party of growth, while the Democratic party has become the party of the
status quo. Being the party of growth served the GOP very well in the 1970s and 1980s, when the great Reagan
tax cuts were understood as an engine of much-needed growth as well as a step toward necessary tax fairness.

More evidence for this subterranean trend is offered in the September 16 issue of The Economist, which carries
a story about the controversy over economic growth in Iowa. Iowa has an aging population and a stagnant farm
economy. The average farmer is 58, while the average factory worker is 57. Small towns are slowly dying out.
But when the governor proposed to revive the economy of small towns by siting new meatpacking plants and
encouraging more immigration to the state, only 22 percent of small town residents said they would welcome
such development.

This odd social moment isn’t likely to change, Siegel concludes, until an economic downturn makes us desire
growth once again. In the meantime, the only thing to do is batten down the hatches against the tendency of
public opinion to see a dark cloud around every silver lining.

- By Steven Hayward