Phoenix 101: Rugged individualism

Phoenix is built on many myths. Perhaps the greatest is that of the rugged individualist, standing in opposition to the statist and collectivist tendencies of "the East" and Europe. It's a familiar myth of the West, but it reaches levels of hilarious dissonance in my hometown.

In reality, Phoenix is the largest-scale example of government social engineering and public ownership of the commanding heights of the economy — i.e. socialism — in American history. Without massive government intervention, Phoenix would be a benighted little farm town of a few thousand, instead of a benighted migropolis of some 4 million, many raging along the public highways in their SUVs imagining themselves as 21st century range riders.

Modern Phoenix began with federal reclamation, the Newlands Act, which would begin the dam building that tamed the Salt River. It envisioned a Jeffersonian yeoman farmer democracy, with plots of 160 acres cultivated by citizens liberated from the dark satanic cities of the East. It didn't quite work out that way — rich farmers emerged and poor farmers (like my family) struggled. But all were being subsidized by federal tax dollars long before the New Deal. Their endeavors would not have been possible without the federal investment.

Reclamation allowed Phoenix to eclipse Tucson and Prescott to become the capital, first of the territory and then, in 1912, of the new state. Of course, the little city attracted its share of cowboys and prospectors — men we imagine to be indisputable independent mavericks — especially to its opium dens and houses of ill repute. Yet the prospectors benefited from the federal mining act of 1872, which gave them considerable latitude in staking a claim on public land and the potential to grow rich off property that actually belonged to the commons. Both cowboys and prospectors depended on the federal government to bring peace with the Apache and to subsidize in various ways the coming of the railroads to inhospitable desert. (Despite the Copper Square idiocy, Phoenix was never a mining town, but it's also important to recall that the big mining operators received heavy state and federal help, including in strike breaking).

Federally subsidized electricity brought air conditioning to Phoenix — a seminal allowing a large population to survive there. So, too, was federal action during World War II, which located numerous military bases and industries in and near the modest (pop. 65,000) city. With government-built streets and highways, along with the heavily subsidized water and power, Phoenix became the post-war suburban dream for hundreds of thousands of families — many of whose fathers had first experienced the magical place as GIs or airmen in training.

After the war, Arizona's congressional delegation stepped up its efforts to win the Central Arizona Project, a hugely expensive, bitterly fought effort to bring water from the Colorado River to Phoenix and Tucson. They succeeded and the $3.6 billion project was done. At the same time, federal and state money created a vast system of freeways, enriching farmers who sold off their land for subdivisions or real-estate sharpies who were in the right place at the right time, influencing the right people. Government-paid flood control made vast segments north of old Phoenix safe for tract houses. Sky Harbor and the aviation system are heavily supported in a host of ways by Washington.

And so you have today's metropolitan Phoenix.

It's not to say the West didn't have larger-than-life characters, or that history can't pivot on the will and character of an individual (think Washington, Napoleon, Lenin, FDR, etc.). Phoenix has had its share of characters. But its foundation was built on collective effort, public and private — and especially with huge federal subsidies and investments. Good things continue with collective effort, such as First Friday. And with money from Washington for light rail, representing one of Phoenix's few opportunities to save itself. Yet they are small in proportion to today's challenges.

One could argue that the urban enterprise started to spin out of control when the old stewards died out, leaving few heirs. Instead of a Frank Snell or Walter Bimson, we got Charlie Keating. Finally metro Phoenix declined into a vast Ponzi scheme, dependent on growing its population by 40 percent every decade, built on a subsistence workforce of illegal aliens, short-changing most people who actually live there for the benefit of the real estate elite. Public costs have usually been pushed forward, so infrastructure is inferior, envronmental damage left to fester and crises from rotten schools to climate change are left to future generations. It is hardly the mighty accomplishment envisioned by the Newlands Act and the generations that worked together to create a civilization in the wilderness.

Today's rugged individualist myth is acted out in various ways. Phoenix has, apparently, the highest number of gated properties ("communities") in the nation, especially out in the affluent white ("exclusive") suburbs. People don't want to know their neighbors. They did the "civic thing" "back home" in Minnesota or where ever. Now they want to be left alone. Many live "resort culture" — where people check in and check out, but they don't really see Phoenix as home. And one will do things at a resort that one would never do "back home" where neighbors know each other and have, say, front porches as opposed to huge garage doors and Arizona Rooms.

On the more sociopathic scale, we have the nuts with their guns, their anti-immigrant ravings, their marginal world built around talk radio and Fox "News." We have the cholo gangsta criminal element that roves a city built around an underground economy and being the smuggling center of the nation. It's the perfect city to draw a terrorist to pilot training — he can melt into a place (Snottsdale) where nobody wants to know you. It's a city that draws the land swindlers and the bottom-feeder businesses that fight to keep wages low, employee rights few and unemployment compensation a national embarrassment. All speed along in their air-conditioned vehicles, perhaps armed, likely speeding, disconnected.

Conservatives have stoked the myth for political advantage, especially on tax cuts, antagonism to public schools, gun rights and property rights. This is built on the startlingly ignorant self-image of "I don't need nothin' from the government!" The underlying message is one of no obligation to the common good. Or, despite the suburban mega-churches, any moral responsibility for each soul sacred to God.

It's difficult to gauge how much the demagogues have been persuasive, or how much Anglo metro Phoenix has become a self-selecting population that, outside of a few places such as central Phoenix and Tempe, already buys into this world view. Today's conservative members of Congress do nothing to help Phoenix get federal dollars that go to other metro areas and states (even in conservative states). So dependent is Arizona on federal money that it remains a net "taker" state — but it doesn't get federal money directed by leaders to a common good, as in the past.

And, of course, this has been a city with more land than brains — so the mentality was one of moving ever outward, leaving behind linear slums that were someone else's problem. The people with the greatest ability to build a great city are far removed from the actual city, its problems, its opportunities. And they like it that way. Most, even the civic minded, are heavily invested in the kind of sprawl that kills real community.

Individual rights and collective responsibility have always been held in tension in America. Often it has been a creative tension. In Phoenix, sadly, it has become a more and more nihilistic tilt to individual license. That's bad history and bad policy. It leaves the city particularly unprepared to deal with the complex problems it faces. But it seems unstoppable.

———————————————————————————
 

My book, A Brief History of Phoenix, is available to buy or order at your local independent bookstore, or from Amazon.

Read more Phoenix history in Rogue's Phoenix 101 archive.

 

5 Comments

  1. soleri

    Then there’s the pathos of having a lightweight right-wing governor trying to stave off the catastrophic damage right-wing zealots in the legislature can inflict. It’s impossible to imagine this scenario in any other period of Arizona history. It’s all come together: the Total Explanation message machine, a collapsed MSM, and a detached business community no longer concerned about the place where it does business. After all, a company headquarters is just a generic office park in a generic suburb.
    It is unstoppable and irreparable. The momentum didn’t slow with Napolitano but simply churned underground waiting to resurface. Now the zealots can put their theory to the test. What is too good to be true will likely be too True to be good.
    And the inevitable failure of zealotry will not chasten the True Believers or cause them to reflect. They are, after all, not simply correct but convicted in their own hearts. It could be Jesus, or Ayn Rand, or Ronald Reagan who hears their prayers, but the answers are always the same: you are absolutely right.
    The elderly on Social Security, the military pensioners, the Wal-mart assistant store managers all share the certitude of white bootstappers victimized by political correctness, Hollywood, and liberals. They never asked anyone for anything. They earned it entirely on their own. They never whined or complained, either. Now it’s payback time.

  2. Dan

    Loved this from the previous comment: “It is unstoppable and irreparable. The momentum didn’t slow with Napolitano but simply churned underground waiting to resurface.” And now it has.
    Yesterday I read that the governor has approved the new Centennial logo, at the same time she has proposed zeroing out the AZ Historical Society. In 2012, we may not have any institutions left to tell the story we are supposedly celebrating, but we’ll have a logo. And parades, 100th birthday furniture sales, and lots of bunting.
    Stegner hit the nail on the head: we like to think we’re rugged individualists, Marlboro Men like Charlie Keating doing our own thing, but the truth is we depend on federal largesse as much as or more than any other region.

  3. Emil Pulsifer

    Excellent post, Mr. Talton. The first part should be taught in local school history classes. (Tom Horne would never permit it.)
    We really are lucky to have such a talented writer as Mr. Talton to share his informed views here, free of charge.
    Incidentally, Brookings released a new study from its Metropolitan Policy Program tracking “economic recovery” in the top 100 metro areas.
    Phoenix is 98th of 100 in one-quarter unemployment increase. However, interestingly enough, it’s Number 1 in average wage increases over the same period.
    According to the Arizona Republic, “That may indicate that fewer lower-skilled workers have been moving to the state’s two largest metro areas and that recent job losses have occurred disproportionately among lower-paying industries, said the Washington, D.C., public-policy group.”
    But that still doesn’t tell us what is producing the increase in wages, or whose wages, or how, given the unemployment problems and a decline in gross metropolitan product, as well as declines in housing prices and a rate of real estate owned property that places Phoenix near the very bottom.
    https://www.brookings.edu/metro/MetroMonitor/~/media/Files/Programs/Metro/metro_monitor/metro_profiles/phoenix_az_metro_profile.pdf
    https://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/2009/06/17/20090617biz-brookings0617.html

  4. Emil Pulsifer

    Perhaps I should clarify why I’m skeptical of Brookings’ explanation, which at first glance makes perfect sense.
    Let’s take a simple illustrative model in which there are just ten wage-earning workers, paid in generic units, whose wages are distributed like this: 2,2,2,2,2,3,4,5,6,7
    Then, the (mean) average wage is the sum of these individual wages divided by the number of wage-earners: (2+2+2+2+2+3+4+5+6+7) / 10 = 3.5
    Now, if those who earn only 2 units are laid-off, and assuming that laid-off workers are not counted as persons for purposes of calculating the average wage (since none of them draws a wage) the average wage becomes: (3+4+5+6+7) / 5 = 5
    So, in fact, simply by laying off workers, without increasing the wages of those who remain employed, the “average wage” has increased 43 percent: but note that this comes from a decrease in employment of 50 percent.
    Now, this is the maximum increase in the average wage you can get. If instead, for example, four of the lowest wage earners are fired, along with the guy making 5 units, the average wage is: (2+3+4+6+7) / 5 = 4.4
    and this is an increase in the average wage of 26 percent from a decrease in employment of 50 percent.
    What I don’t see, then, is how you can get a 2.6 percent increase in the average wage from a nearly identical 2.9 percent decrease in employment over the same period, as shown by the Brookings figures, simply by firing low-income workers without some increase in the wages of some remaining workers.
    Now, maybe there is a perfectly sensible explanation for this involving a different set and distribution of concrete numbers (both wage and employment figures), and I’m just not math-savvy enough to realize it. But that’s why I’m skeptical of Brookings’ proposed explanation as reported by the Arizona Republic.

  5. Emil Pulsifer

    P.S. Note that the smaller the percentage of the workforce laid-off, the larger the difference between that percentage and the percentage gain in average income thereby.
    For example, if only one of the ten employees is laid off (one of those earning 2 units) then the average wage is: (2+2+2+2+3+4+5+6+7) / 9 = 3.7
    In this case, the average wage increases less than 6 percent for an employment decrease of 10 percent.
    The point being, that for an employment decrease of 2.9 percent, I would expect an average wage increase of much less than the 2.6 percent shown even if all of those laid off were low-wage workers, if the effect were to be attributed to this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *