Are Cities Really That Bad?
In his article, The Durable Myth of Urban Hellholes, Paul Krugman writes about a myth that continues to be passed down from politicians like J.D. Vance to their supporters. The myth is that big, urban cities like New York and San Francisco are crime-infested cesspools while the small, rural towns like Columbus, Ohio are regarded as the actual heart of the United States. Krugman tries to combat this myth, pointing to certain evidence that claims the opposite to be true and how this mindset has had a negative impact on the US. While he supports his claim very well with plenty of evidence, he falls short once he starts to connect the negative effects of believing this myth with other key issues.
In the beginning, Krugman starts strong with his claim that bug cities being bad and small towns being better is a myth. As he writes, he includes links throughout the article to various sources that support his claim. When he writes about how the overall crime rates in big cities have dropped in the last few decades, he provides links that show how the rate of how many types of crime were reported from 1960 to 2019 that show an overall decrease in certain crimes over that time period. When he writes about how young people have been dying from alcohol, drugs, and suicide, Krugman includes a link to an article by the Commonwealth Fund that goes more in-depth about the subject. This abundance of information and evidence adds credibility to his point that big cities are not as bad and that small as great as certain politicians and individuals believe.
Despite how well constructed his argument is, he begins to falter near the end of his article. When he tries to connect the perpetuation of the urban hellhole myth with the claim that the government only supports people on welfare, he does so haphazardly. He writes,
“…the myth of rural virtue and urban vice means that many Republican voters seem unaware that they are among the major beneficiaries of the ‘big government’ their party says it wants to eliminate.”
His claim that by believing the myth, a person also believes that the government supports only people on welfare is a stretch at best. He commits the non-sequitur fallacy. It’s what happens when someone tries to claim that by believing point A you must also believe point B, despite there being no evidence to support the claim. In this claim, Krugman makes an assumption of the people who believe the myth without any evidence to back it up. At no point in the article does he provide any evidence that proves this claim.
Another instance where his arguments fall short is when he tries to link this myth to the myth of a mass exodus coming from California. He writes that
“… if you’ve heard that it has become a terrible place to live, that’s because you’ve heard right-wing propaganda.”
Again, like with his last attempt, Krugman commits a logical fallacy when he tries to link two different ideas together. In this instance, he makes a hasty generalization about the reason people were told to explain the exodus without providing any evidence to support it.
While I do believe Krugman makes a strong case about the big cities of the US being horrible hives of crime a myth, his attempts to connect the myth with other claims only diminished that strength. Krugman ends his article with,
“That cynicism has effectively killed thousands of people in the pandemic — and it could, all too easily, end up killing democracy.”
This sentence only hurts his stand even more. He makes a bold claim that the cynicism that perpetuates the myth led to the deaths of thousands during the COVID-19 pandemic and will eventually lead to the death of democracy is yet another fallacy of logic. Called the slippery slope, it’s a technique that assumes one action or event will cause a chain of events that lead to a worst-case scenario. This bold claim of his ends his article with an overdramatic and weak ending.
Despite the shortcomings in his article, I must admit that I mostly do agree with Krugman about his main claim. He provides enough evidence to support it and the shortcomings in the last half of his article do not make me doubt his argument overall. However, it must be pointed out that Krugman’s main specialty is in international economics, not sociology or political theory. While not a major detriment to his argument, it does explain why his arguments might not have been as strong in certain areas.
