民主党正在走向政党灭绝

The Democrats Are Committing Partycide
Opinion by Jerusalem Demsas

加州的发展决定了整个国家的命运，但是当大量加州人搬到德克萨斯州时会发生什么？2030 年人口普查之后，好莱坞和硅谷的故乡可能将被迫面对人口停滞和影响力减弱的问题。当国会席位重新分配以适应人口变化时，加州几乎肯定会成为最大的输家——并被视为民主党在州和地方治理方面失败的体现。

自由派布伦南中心预计加州将失去四个席位，保守派美国选区重划计划预计加州将失去五个席位。这两种情况都可能影响未来的总统竞选，因为一个州的选举人团票数取决于该州有多少参议员和众议员。 2016 年，在输给唐纳德·特朗普后，希拉里·克林顿辩称，她“赢得了乐观、多元、充满活力、不断前进的席位”——这一观点与唐纳德·特朗普的“让美国再次伟大”口号形成了鲜明对比。但现在，民主党作为代表未来的政党的自我概念正与增长最快的州由共和党领导的现实发生冲突。

根据美国选区重划计划，如果目前的趋势继续下去，纽约州将失去三个席位，伊利诺伊州将失去两个席位，而共和党占主导地位的德克萨斯州和佛罗里达州将分别增加四名代表。特朗普在本月选举中赢得的其他增长州可能会获得一名额外的代表。无论按照哪种预测，如果 2032 年民主党候选人赢得的州与卡马拉·哈里斯今年赢得的州相同，该党将少获得 12 张选举人票。在民主党今年失去的七个摇摆州中，哈里斯最接近获胜的是威斯康星州、密歇根州和宾夕法尼亚州这三个前“蓝墙”——其中至少有两个州很可能在 2030 年后失去选举人票。即使将这些州加上哈里斯获胜的州，也不足以确保她在 2032 年获胜。这位民主党人需要在地图上的其他地方再找到 14 票。

人口增长和下降并不只是发生在各州；它们是政策选择和相对于其他州的经济状况的结果。一些州失去居民是因为它们的经济没有跟上美国其他地区的步伐。但在包括加利福尼亚州和纽约州在内的大部分蓝色美国，经济活力和高工资不足以维持人口增长，因为住房成本的飞涨超过了其他一切。这些州提供的便利设施——加州海岸线、纽约市文化景观——开始看起来像是屋顶塌陷的房屋上的历史造型。政策失败正在以两种方式拖累民主党的前景：一是将民主党治理的结果以尖锐、不利的面目展现出来，二是直接降低该党在总统选举和众议院中的前景。

加州、纽约州和其他增长缓慢的沿海民主党据点几十年来一直采取明确的反人口增长策略。他们把自己的自然优势视为理所当然，认为繁荣是理所当然的。人们心甘情愿地放弃这些沿海地区的居住权，表明生活成本是多么低廉。

虽然媒体可能会报道富人抱怨自由州的税收水平和政治规范的轶事，但数据显示，人口流失主要集中在低收入人群和没有大学学位的人群中。加州公共政策研究所通过分析人口普查数据发现，过去十年中，有超过 60 万人离开加州，而住房危机是主要原因。

当人们用脚投票时，他们发出了一个明确的信号，表明哪些地方让他们对未来充满乐观。民主州无法与佛罗里达州和德克萨斯州竞争，这说明了自由主义治理的什么问题？

值得注意的是，这一切都不是偶然发生的。对人口增长和普通民众的敌意弥漫在民主党地方政府的政治中。研究员格雷格·莫罗（Greg Morrow）细致地记录了 20 世纪后半叶洛杉矶阻止人们迁入该市的政治努力。20 世纪 70 年代初，加州大学洛杉矶分校教授弗雷德·亚伯拉罕（Fred Abraham）推动限制人口增长，他认为：“我们需要更少的人口——生活质量，而不是数量。我们必须要求暂停增长，并认识到应该停止增长。”莫罗还提到了塞拉俱乐部（Sierra Club）的评论，该俱乐部建议“限制住宅……以降低出生率”。这些争论发生在 70 年代和 80 年代臭名昭著的降级分区之前，该分区大幅减少了可以合法建造的房屋数量，将洛杉矶的潜在人口容量从估计的 1000 万人削减至 400 万人，并引发了美国最严重的住房和无家可归危机之一。全国各地蓝色社区中自诩为进步派和自由派的人也采取了类似的做法，几乎把潜在的新移民引向德克萨斯州和佛罗里达州等地。

与此形成鲜明对比的是，佛罗里达州州长罗恩·德桑蒂斯 (Ron DeSantis) 在其失败的总统初选竞选期间的一份新闻稿中吹嘘说，“人们涌向佛罗里达州，逃离加利福尼亚州”。德桑蒂斯一直推行有利于增长的住房政策，让工薪阶层也能负担得起他所在州的住房。

长期以来，地方治理的失败一直与全国政治对话脱节。马林县或威斯特彻斯特县拒绝新住房供应的决定与总统乔·拜登有什么关系？但全国民主党人不能再忽视这个问题了。正如经济创新小组的研究人员最近指出的那样，从 2020 年到 2024 年，民主党得票率下降幅度最大的是生活成本最高、人口最多的县。

自哈里斯败选以来，民主党一直为拜登的任期辩护，称通货膨胀超出了总统的控制范围，或指出了其他经济成就。但没有共和党人阻止旧金山建造住房，特朗普也不应对纽约市拜占庭式的住房许可制度负责。（事实上，在我写这篇文章的时候，纽约正处于淡化一项旨在简化公寓楼和小型住宅建设的提案的边缘。）在我工作的过程中，我听到许多政策制定者和蓝色社区的居民哀叹他们难以克服的住房危机，似乎没有意识到许多地方已经解决了一个所谓无法克服的问题。唯一的区别是这些地方位于共和党执政的州。

扭转加州的停滞状态——或纽约和其他昂贵州的停滞状态——还为时不晚。住房成本实际上是一个信号，表明有多少人愿意住在这些地方。然而，在特朗普连任之后，尽管几位民主党州长都表示他们打算在未来几年充当抵抗堡垒，但没有人关注最能破坏自由美国承诺的问题。在这些吸引眼球的声明中，没有一个是解决住房和生活成本危机的计划，甚至没有一个是清算导致现状的失败。部分原因是民主党未能理解他们在州和地方层面的反增长政策与该党在全国的生存能力之间的联系。多年来，民主党一直代表着这个国家不断增长、充满活力的部分，并变得自满，即使在没有良好政策的情况下也自以为占据经济主导地位。但上周的结果不应该让州和地方民主党政策制定者感到震惊——人们多年来一直在用脚投票。



As California goes, so goes the nation, but what happens when a lot of Californians move to Texas? After the 2030 census, the home of Hollywood and Silicon Valley will likely be forced to reckon with its stagnating population and receding influence. When congressional seats are reallocated to adjust for population changes, California is almost certain to be the biggest loser—and to be seen as the embodiment of the Democratic Party’s failures in state and local governance.

The liberal Brennan Center is projecting a loss of four seats, and the conservative American Redistricting Project, a loss of five. Either scenario could affect future presidential races, because a state’s Electoral College votes are determined by how many senators and representatives it has. In 2016, after her loss to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton argued that she’d “won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward”—an outlook that she contrasted with Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan. But now Democrats’ self-conception as a party that represents the future is running headlong into the reality that the fastest-growing states are Republican-led.

According to the American Redistricting Project, New York will lose three seats and Illinois will lose two, while Republican-dominated Texas and Florida will gain four additional representatives each if current trends continue. Other growing states that Trump carried in this month’s election could potentially receive an additional representative. By either projection, if the 2032 Democratic nominee carries the same states that Kamala Harris won this year, the party would receive 12 fewer electoral votes. Among the seven swing states that the party lost this year, Harris came closest to winning in the former “Blue Wall” of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—at least two of which are likely to lose an electoral vote after 2030. Even adding those states to the ones Harris won would not be enough to secure victory in 2032. The Democrat would need to find an additional 14 votes somewhere else on the map.

Population growth and decline do not simply happen to states; they are the result of policy choices and economic conditions relative to other states. Some states lose residents because their economy hasn’t kept up with the rest of the country’s. But in much of blue America, including California and New York, economic dynamism and high wages aren’t enough to sustain population growth, because the skyrocketing cost of shelter eclipses everything else. The amenities that these states offer—the California coastline, the New York City cultural scene—start to look like the historic molding on a house with its roof caved in. Policy failures are dragging down the Democrats’ prospects in two ways: by showing the results of Democratic governance in sharp, unflattering relief, and by directly reducing the party’s prospects in presidential elections and the House of Representatives.

California, New York, and other slow-growing coastal Democratic strongholds have taken an explicitly anti-population-growth tack for decades. They took for granted their natural advantages and assumed that prosperity was a given. People willingly giving up their residencies in these coastal areas is a sign of how dismal the cost of living is.

While the media are likely to pick up on anecdotes about wealthy people complaining about tax levels and political norms in liberal states, data show that population loss is heavily concentrated among lower-income people and people without a college degree. In an analysis of census data, the Public Policy Institute of California found that more than 600,000 people who have left the Golden State in the past decade have cited the housing crisis as the primary reason.

When people vote with their feet, they’re sending a clear signal about which places make them optimistic about the future. What does it say about liberal governance that Democratic states cannot compete with Florida and Texas?

Remarkably, none of this happened by accident. A hostility toward population growth and people in general has suffused the politics of Democratic local governance. The researcher Greg Morrow meticulously documented the political effort in Los Angeles to stop people from moving to the city over the back half of the 20th century. In the early 1970s, the UCLA professor Fred Abraham pushed for growth limits, arguing, “We need fewer people here—a quality of life, not a quantity of life. We must request a moratorium on growth and recognize that growth should be stopped.” Morrow also points to comments from the Sierra Club, which recommended “limiting residential housing … to lower birth rates.” Such arguments preceded a now infamous downzoning in the ’70s and ’80s, which substantially reduced the number of homes that could be legally built, slashed the potential population capacity of Los Angeles from an estimated 10 million people to 4 million, and spurred one of the nation’s most acute housing and homelessness crises. Self-styled progressives and liberals in blue communities across the country have taken similar approaches, all but directing would-be newcomers to places like Texas and Florida.

Contrast this attitude with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s boast, in a press release during his unsuccessful presidential-primary campaign, that “people are flocking to Florida and fleeing California.” DeSantis has pursued pro-growth housing policies that allow working-class people to afford housing in his state.

For a long time, failures of local governance have remained divorced from the national political conversation. What can President Joe Biden have to do with the decision of Marin or Westchester County to refuse new housing supply? But national Democrats cannot overlook the issue any longer. As researchers from the Economic Innovation Group recently noted, the biggest declines in Democrats’ vote share from 2020 to 2024 occurred in the most expensive and most populous counties.

In the days since Harris’s defeat, Democrats have defended Biden’s tenure by arguing that inflation was beyond the president’s control, or pointing to other economic accomplishments. But no Republican stopped San Francisco from building housing, and Trump is not responsible for New York City’s byzantine housing-permitting regime. (In fact, as I write this, New York is on the verge of watering down a proposal that would ease the construction of apartment buildings and smaller homes.) In the course of my work, I hear many policy makers and residents in blue communities lament their intractable housing crises, seemingly unaware that many places have solved a supposedly insurmountable problem. The only difference is those places are in states run by Republicans.

It is not too late to reverse California’s stagnation—or that of New York and other expensive states. The cost of housing is quite literally a signal for how many millions of people would love to live in those places. Yet, in the aftermath of Trump’s reelection, as several Democratic governors have telegraphed their intent to act as bastions of resistance in the coming years, none has focused on the issue that has most hollowed out the promise of liberal America. Nowhere in these headline-seeking pronouncements is a plan to address the housing and cost-of-living crisis or even a reckoning with the failures that produced the status quo. In part this is due to Democrats’ failure to understand the link between their anti-growth policies at the state and local level and the national viability of their party. For years, Democrats have gotten to represent the growing, vibrant parts of this country and have become complacent, presuming economic dominance even in the absence of good policy. But last week’s results should not have shocked state and local Democratic policy makers—people have been voting with their feet for years.