By Arnold Roquerre
Capital cities—whether federal or state—often exhibit parasitic tendencies, drawing resources from other urban centers that sustain their economic and material well-being. Too often, they enact legislation and regulatory codes that harm cities by stripping them of autonomy, enforcing rigid standardization, imposing excessive taxation, and reallocating resources to less productive areas.¹ If these cities cannot reverse increasingly harmful policies, the consequences may be a downward spiral—one that drags entire states and even the nation into deepening decline.
Too often, capital cities forget that the foundation of any great nation lies in its vibrant urban centers. The danger with national capitals like Washington, D.C., is their growing detachment from the cities that generate and sustain their power. This disconnect inevitably leads to indifference toward the consequences of their actions.²
Elected officials and entrenched bureaucrats in capital cities frequently prioritize ambitious international or federal initiatives, even when such projects risk harming the cities they are meant to support. As many cities face economic stagnation, slowing commerce, and rising poverty, salaries in Washington, D.C., continue to rise—evoking the image of a system increasingly detached from the conditions of the broader population.³
City governments must recognize that Washington’s inclination to pursue initiatives beyond core national defense responsibilities can come at a high cost. Resisting the impulse to conform to national policy trends may, in some cases, serve the long-term interests of both cities and the nation. For example, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956—partly intended to facilitate evacuation in the event of nuclear attack—had significant long-term consequences for urban areas.⁴ While it improved transportation infrastructure, it also accelerated the decentralization of industry and population, weakening the economic and social fabric of many cities.⁵ The cumulative effect may have left Americans worse off than they otherwise might have been.⁶
The parable of the scorpion and the frog offers a cautionary analogy: even with cooperative intent, inherent tendencies can lead to mutual destruction. In a similar way, policies associated with Washington, D.C.—including car-centric planning, over-standardization, regulatory expansion, and redistribution mechanisms—may unintentionally undermine the very cities that form the backbone of the nation. Without meaningful reform, these dynamics risk eroding urban vitality and, by extension, national prosperity.
The long-term survival of a great nation depends on the strength of its cities. Yet federal and state governments risk weakening these foundations through extractive or misaligned policies. If such trends continue unchecked, the decline of major cities could ultimately undermine the very systems that depend on them—bringing consequences not unlike those in the scorpion’s fable.
- Richard C. Schragger, “The Attack on American Cities,” Texas Law Review; National League of Cities, “How States Preempt Local Laws.”
- Kathleen A. Stahl, “Preemption, Federalism, and Local Democracy,” Fordham Urban Law Journal.
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Occupational Employment and Wages—Washington-Arlington-Alexandria Metropolitan Area.”
- Federal Highway Administration, “History of the Interstate Highway System”; National Archives, “Ike’s Interstates at 50.”
- A. Mahajan, “Highways and Segregation,” Journal of Urban Economics; American Society of Civil Engineers article.
- Archer et al., White Men’s Roads Through Black Men’s Homes: Advancing Racial Equity Through Highway Reconstruction.