Some of them do. But their premise is that there’s a large, unmet demand for dense, walkable neighborhoods in which to raise families. But there are tons of dense, walkable neighborhoods all over the country where prices and demand are quite low. Why the focus on more building and upzoning when you could buy existing stock?
There’s a big urbanist movement in the DC area, but it’s focused on trying to upzone Northern VA and Montgomery County, MD. Meanwhile, most of the Maryland side of the Metro network is underutilized. Urbanists would rather pay triple to try and turn Tysons Corner, VA into an urban area.
The modal urbanist who lives in the suburbs is usually just someone who wants to be able to have the lifestyle they want without a commute to work. Someone who works at Google in Mountain View but would prefer not to have to drive everywhere, for example. Or, in your example, someone who works at the Pentagon but doesn't want to have to commute from Maryland (or D.C.) in order to live in a walkable area.
You don't seem to have an actual argument, instead inventing a straw urbanist to fit your view of what's going on. You of all people should be able to fundamentally understand why people would want to advocate for things they want in areas they live.
It is much much easier to move than to get the laws changed concerning what can be built where you live now. Rayiner is correctly pointing out that the revealed preferences of urbanist advocates differs from their professed preferences, which is a red flag.
