Maybe the suburbs are a winning issue after all

People of all races, colors, and creeds move to the suburbs for the same reasons: single-family homes with big gardens on wide streets that have minimal traffic and quality, safe schools that aren't too far away from home.  It's all about raising children where they can safely play outdoors and get a good education.  These things are the opposite of what one finds in a densely populated city.

Densely populated cities, however, are the lifeblood of the Democrat party.  It came as no surprise, therefore, that Obama created his Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ("AFFH") regulation.  The AFFH allowed the Department of Housing and Urban Development to use federal funding to bully suburban communities into changing their zoning for cheaper, high-density housing.  In other words, the Obama administration told communities that had grown dependent on infusions of federal money (something applicable to both affluent and less affluent communities) that, if they wanted the money, they had to urbanize.  (You can learn more about the AFFH here.)

In my pleasant suburban community, I knew plenty of Democrat moms who normally supported all of Obama's initiatives but who parted ways with him when it came to AFFH.  They'd paid good money to raise their children in spacious, safe communities that were near sophisticated cities (for the arts, you know) but not close enough to those cities to import urban problems.

Indeed, it was Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren who made a national reputation for herself writing a book that pointed out the obvious: once a suburb's public schools got a reputation for providing a quality education, real estate prices rocketed as parents with young children willingly bid for houses that would get them in these premium schools.

The moms in my world fully understood that turning their suburban schools into copies of the urban schools they'd escaped would not only threaten their children, but also destroy the value of their houses.  Across suburban America, the houses are usually each family's biggest asset.

Still, when Trump recently announced that he was revoking the AFFH, the chattering Democrat classes (along with NeverTrumps) immediately announced that doing so would not woo back the suburban moms who seem to dislike him.  Instead, the chatterers said, his plan would alienate those same moms because the move reeked of racism, and if there's one thing suburban moms hate, it's racism.  NPR, for example, was hot on the racism dog whistle angle:

It's another instance of Trump implicitly using race in his campaign pitch, which he's also been doing explicitly on other issues. In this instance, the president appears to be using a policy to fight housing segregation in an attempt to scare white voters about outsiders coming into their neighborhoods.

Others on the left agreed:

Elizabeth Warren, the woman who should know best how much suburban homeowners have invested in their neighborhoods, was one of the loudest objecting voices:

By now, it should come as no surprise that, once again, President Trump's instincts were correct.  He understood from the beginning that the issue isn't race.  There are suburbs that are monoracial or that are multiracial.  What ties each suburb together isn't skin color; it's the residents' values.  For these families, the issue is about lifestyle choices, and it was these choices that Obama was undermining.

No wonder, then, that a Rasmussen poll has good news for Trump:

Voters strongly agree with President Trump's decision to end an Obama-era regulation intended to push low-income housing into more affluent neighborhoods in the name of racial diversity.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 83% of Likely U.S. Voters say the federal government should not play a role in deciding where people can live. Just 10% disagree. (To see survey question wording, click here.) (Emphasis added.)

One of the reasons Trump succeeded in 2016 and will succeed again (we hope) in 2020 is that he understands that most Americans want what's best for their children.  Rather than trashing suburbs, a smart president — and that would be Trump — should be ensuring their growth.  As the leftists like to say, "It's for the children!"

Image: PickPik.

People of all races, colors, and creeds move to the suburbs for the same reasons: single-family homes with big gardens on wide streets that have minimal traffic and quality, safe schools that aren't too far away from home.  It's all about raising children where they can safely play outdoors and get a good education.  These things are the opposite of what one finds in a densely populated city.

Densely populated cities, however, are the lifeblood of the Democrat party.  It came as no surprise, therefore, that Obama created his Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ("AFFH") regulation.  The AFFH allowed the Department of Housing and Urban Development to use federal funding to bully suburban communities into changing their zoning for cheaper, high-density housing.  In other words, the Obama administration told communities that had grown dependent on infusions of federal money (something applicable to both affluent and less affluent communities) that, if they wanted the money, they had to urbanize.  (You can learn more about the AFFH here.)

In my pleasant suburban community, I knew plenty of Democrat moms who normally supported all of Obama's initiatives but who parted ways with him when it came to AFFH.  They'd paid good money to raise their children in spacious, safe communities that were near sophisticated cities (for the arts, you know) but not close enough to those cities to import urban problems.

Indeed, it was Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren who made a national reputation for herself writing a book that pointed out the obvious: once a suburb's public schools got a reputation for providing a quality education, real estate prices rocketed as parents with young children willingly bid for houses that would get them in these premium schools.

The moms in my world fully understood that turning their suburban schools into copies of the urban schools they'd escaped would not only threaten their children, but also destroy the value of their houses.  Across suburban America, the houses are usually each family's biggest asset.

Still, when Trump recently announced that he was revoking the AFFH, the chattering Democrat classes (along with NeverTrumps) immediately announced that doing so would not woo back the suburban moms who seem to dislike him.  Instead, the chatterers said, his plan would alienate those same moms because the move reeked of racism, and if there's one thing suburban moms hate, it's racism.  NPR, for example, was hot on the racism dog whistle angle:

It's another instance of Trump implicitly using race in his campaign pitch, which he's also been doing explicitly on other issues. In this instance, the president appears to be using a policy to fight housing segregation in an attempt to scare white voters about outsiders coming into their neighborhoods.

Others on the left agreed:

Elizabeth Warren, the woman who should know best how much suburban homeowners have invested in their neighborhoods, was one of the loudest objecting voices:

By now, it should come as no surprise that, once again, President Trump's instincts were correct.  He understood from the beginning that the issue isn't race.  There are suburbs that are monoracial or that are multiracial.  What ties each suburb together isn't skin color; it's the residents' values.  For these families, the issue is about lifestyle choices, and it was these choices that Obama was undermining.

No wonder, then, that a Rasmussen poll has good news for Trump:

Voters strongly agree with President Trump's decision to end an Obama-era regulation intended to push low-income housing into more affluent neighborhoods in the name of racial diversity.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 83% of Likely U.S. Voters say the federal government should not play a role in deciding where people can live. Just 10% disagree. (To see survey question wording, click here.) (Emphasis added.)

One of the reasons Trump succeeded in 2016 and will succeed again (we hope) in 2020 is that he understands that most Americans want what's best for their children.  Rather than trashing suburbs, a smart president — and that would be Trump — should be ensuring their growth.  As the leftists like to say, "It's for the children!"

Image: PickPik.