Submitted by:  Andrew Thomas [1]

The problem

The current push for densification, expensive public works projects that seemingly have little real purpose, and overall craziness exhibited by public officials and some of their constituents is clearly evident in Bozeman.  As manifested in the endless desire to install yet another large, multi-story apartment building or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars studying bike lanes while a substantial portion of the population cannot afford housing, it is obvious that those in control of local government have strayed down the path of self-serving delusion.  However, when we step back and look at the greater agenda behind these local issues, we can see that such agendas are not isolated, home-grown lunacy, but are part of a greater, elite-driven effort to control people’s lives against their self-interest.  Before we analyze why densification, the war on cars, or any other policy does not make sense, we must understand who ultimately gains from advancing this dystopian agenda, how people should understand these issues, and how people can effectively respond to them.

The Illusion of partisanship

A common misconception about the push for densification along with its associated policies is that it is a partisan issue.  For example, densification efforts are often labeled by conservatives as being “leftist” or “socialist” in nature since they evoke images of Soviet-style block housing.  Alternately, liberal observers of the issue often are critical of the rent-seeking and financialized nature of pushes to gentrify and densify communities. Although there certainly is merit to both claims, the reality is that ideology is little more than window dressing for an elite-backed agenda that hurts conservatives as much as it does liberals. Regardless of the “blue” or “red” label placed on certain ideas, they are done at the expense of the majority of people.  For example, although traditionally “liberal” ideas such as environmental concerns, preventing sprawl, or preserving open space are often invoked when advocating for density, any cursory analysis quickly concludes that a desire to constrain most of the masses to a limited space while profiting off of them is a primary motivation behind these policies. Along those lines, the conservative rhetoric of providing affordable housing by “letting the free market work” through abolishing zoning is something that favors well-off investors at the public’s expense.  In many senses, using ideology as window dressing for what in reality is an ideology-free agenda is a masterpiece of propagandistic strategy.  One, by framing the agenda in terms of this or that ideology, you can recruit supporters to get behind an issue they otherwise would not. Two, you can create unnecessary conflict among potential opponents by playing one group against the other. In an almost surreal fashion, these narratives can be promoted and consumed by the public in a largely uncritical way.  However, regardless of the superficial rhetoric, the core agenda remains the same: Those in control get what they want at the expense of everyone else.

The real agenda. . .

The push for densification is not ideological but is in fact the product of a minority of elites deciding that they can direct society in a fashion that serves their interests while disregarding everyone else’s. As noted above, ideology is a superficial justification to conceal this fact. Once it is understood that the real issue is a matter of the elites versus the non-elites, we can then engage in a constructive discussion about what type of response is needed to address these policies.

What past populist movements have taught us

This type of elitism or anti-populism is nothing new. Those with a little bit of power have always sought to consolidate and increase their power to the detriment of the majority of the population. Throughout the course of history, we have found that there has always been a tendency for those with a little bit of power to increase and consolidate that power. For example, English Nobles spent a good amount of time driving rural people off of their land through the Enclosure Acts during the 17^th century. Or, in more recent history, a certain colonial power decided to tax goods, including tea, in its colonies. Regardless of the instance, there is always the tendency of those in power to want to expand their reach. The current situation is no different.

However, as much as the elite want to revert to the absolute monarchs they once were, the rest of society has decided it’s a good idea to spread the power around and ensure everyone has a say in how things get done.  We recognize that society has progressed through entrenching the notion of individual rights as well as a common good that serves all individuals, and, that elite-centered societies are something that is generally considered undesirable. For example, we recognize today that the democratic form of government is superior to that of monarchies and aristocracies. We also recognize that individuals have inalienable rights regardless of their power or status in society. Along those lines, we broadly recognize the need for collective action to ensure both individual rights, such as freedom of speech or due process, as well as things that universally serve the common good such as roads, basic education, and public health. Regardless of this progress, there is always a tendency for the elites to want to retrench themselves and to rein in the masses from the pursuit of their self-interest.

If we look at the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century, we see a similar dynamic to what we are witnessing today. Increasing amounts of economic and social inequality along with a disregard for fundamental civil rights pervaded during the era of the Robber Barons. From almost any perspective, this inequality and anti-populist mentality in American Society wreaked havoc on both the economic welfare as well as the social existence of the majority of the population. As a response to this anti-populist dominance, various mass movements arose from both ends of the political spectrum to promote a social and economic agenda that better served the interests of the majority of people. For example, religious and rural communities organized groups such as the Grange Movement and Knights of Columbus to form cooperative associations to bring about self-governance and economic autonomy. Also, during this period, various labor and political movements arose which were rooted in the idea that society must be governed by the will of the majority of its members. From this, we see an eventual political response that was directed at reigning in the anti-populist sentiment that ruled the Gilded Era. The policies advanced by Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, as well as FDR all embody this populism in one form or another. Although often viewed through a partisan lens, from the perspective of contemporary America, we now take many of these reforms whether they be regulatory economic or relating to civil rights as being universally accepted.

Remembering our history so that we can move forward.

As the cliché adage goes: Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. Given the current circumstances that people find themselves in, we are quickly reverting to the era of anti-populism and mass discontent.

From understanding our history as well as the fundamental tension between populism and anti-populism, we can draw broad lessons about how to address the current challenges we face. Despite much of the partisan discourse and blame-shifting from one faction or another, to address the current dysfunction that most people are feeling, it is necessary for us to contemplate a broad coalition of people willing to put their differences aside to advance the common good. Drawing from our populist forbearers, it is obvious that if the majority of people remain in their partisan camps and never form a broad coalition, the elite agenda will be able to divide and overwhelm any type of opposition. This is not to say that people are not entitled to their beliefs or their perspectives. People are always going to have disagreements on fundamental issues.  However, to be able to confront the agenda that we are now facing, people must work to find commonalities rather than exacerbate their differences. Although this is a difficult thing given how politically-charged things are, everyone must try to clearly understand their position and also the position of people they might disagree with. In doing this, people can start to work to find common ground. For example, opposition to density and many of the restrictive planning schemes is often perceived as being conservative in nature. However, most liberals are sincerely concerned with the welfare of working in middle-income people. Regardless of how they may be different or misinformed in their views, an effort can be made to reach out to them and share the legitimate perspective of how densification is not an answer to the problem of housing affordability. Rather than maintaining an opponent on an issue, an effort to reach out and communicate may result in creating an ally moving forward.

 It is unreasonable to expect everyone to give up all of their beliefs. However, if you sit down and talk with your friends and neighbors and start discussing what your problems are, it's very likely you will discover that even if you disagree on many issues, you also have many in common. Whether most people acknowledge it or not, the issues faced by the majority of people in American Society are not partisan in nature. They are things that affect conservatives as much as they do liberals. Most people are uneasy and fearful of the direction that this country is going. They might articulate it differently, but the concern and sense of dismay is universal. If everyone stays in their lane and only talks with people they agree with, we will remain divided and unable to counteract the increasingly out-of-touch and oligarchic nature of our society.  However, if we get out of our comfort zone and start realizing most people have more in common than they have different, the current challenges can be overcome. Or as another cliché states: "United we stand, divided we fall".