Chuck's choice of an article in sympathy with a Strong Towns viewpoint from an avowed conservative, coupled with a webinar I attended a few days ago by Cass Sunstein about his book "Nudge" reminded me again of the danger of polarization along "political" lines (or indeed, any one dimension). (Sunstein was talking about the "Don't Mess with Texas" anti-littering slogan that avoided political polarization in favor of an almost universal Texas attitude.)
Daniel Moynihan once said that people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. In this context, we might hope that they would adopt their own rationales, but take the right actions (wearing a mask should not be an R vs D thing, or a male vs femaie thing; it should be an action that helps protect us all, especially helping protect others from ourselves). For Strong Towns strategists, it suggests we find rationales that cut across RvD, FvM, BvW or any other "polarizations" hot at the moment. Chuck has already led my example by focusing on sustainability, especially financial sustainability.
Life-cycle costing is not convervative or progressive; it saves money! Slowing cars where appropriate, and paying close attention to where sharing or separation makes more sense is not a lifestyle choice, it saves lives! Chuck's posts are very consistent in leaning on these nonpartisan or bipartisan rationales; I am hoping that I and others can do more of he same.