Here's a link to my recent interview.
I think that there is a general misfit between our political institutions and the direction of technology. Our institutions are still in the middle of the twentieth century, centralizing power, putting more and more resources into the same number of political hands. See my essay on the wealth controlled by politicians, reprinted here. Meanwhile, the rest of society is in the 21st century, featuring what Chris Anderson calls The Long Tail (I just finished Kindling the book. Much of its message seeped out before and after the book appeared, but it's still worth reading.)
Salmon is correct to suggest that urban voters are not well served by the current institutional setup. Perhaps a "horizontal network" of urban voters would have more in common than a territorial entity that embeds a city inside a province or a nation-state. But to me that is an argument against giving territorial monopolies to government units, and my guess is that Salmon didn't mean to go there.
UPDATE II: Ryan Avent joins the conversation:
I think the constituency is there, but creating a political identity that will resonate at the ballot box is more difficult than simply identifying a majority with shared interests. What’s needed is a catalyst, which might fundamentally shift the way that suburban voters think of themselves.
One candidate is high gas prices. Expensive gas will likely produce an inward migration sufficient to place a larger share of households in explicitly urban areas. It may also align the interests of suburban and urban voters on a number of important issues–transportation and infrastructure funding, for example.
But the real game-changer may be the candidacy of Barack Obama. I’m reminded of the fundamental shifts in voter identification that took place under Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, who solidified southern Democrats and suburban anti-tax voters, respectively, in creating large new political voting blocs. Sometimes, a compelling politician is just a compelling politician, who comes and goes without altering the underlying political landscape. But sometimes, a compelling politician can facilitate the consolidation of new political identities.
He certainly has the constituency. The question is, even if he wins, can he heal the deep, deep split in the US on this issue? The geographic divide is also a class divide. Can the party of a single class, that amounts to say 30-35 percent of the workforce, effectively govern a polarized America? Seems to me the core issue is how to begin to mend the divide?