Why do Republicans have more leeway to attack Democratic states/cities than vise-versa?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Republicans seem to be able to reguarly trash places like NYC, SF, Chicago, LA, ect, and sometimes see gains in those communities when they run on that messaging (for instance, Zeldin did insanely well in many parts of NYC for an R in 2022 Gov). Even in competitive elections, Republicans often use the state's largest city as a punching bag.

On the flip-side, anytime a Dem trashes rural America, or generally just seems out of touch with their needs, they face pretty significant electoral blowback. A good example would be Beto's 2022 Governor run where it seems his comments on things like confiscating guns really caused him to collapse in rural TX in 2022, especially relative to 2018, while he did mostly the same in the cities. In competitive statewide races, you almost always see Democrats make some sort of effort to appeal to rural Americans and talk about issues like rural hospitals and main St and what not.

Why is this there imbalance in our politics? Do city folk generally case less about attacks against their community? Is it because institutions such as the Senate tend to overrepresent rural voters? Would Republicans see gains if they stopped all their attacks against certain cities? Do Democrats efforts to appeal to rural communities come off as disengenious? Are city problems easier to sensationalize than rural issues?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Because their base works or attends the city for events (Yanks/Mets/Knicks games) and they want to be sure that the police that patrols the city, has the tools to do so while they're in town.

That goes by the wayside, they see liberal Democratic politicians responsible for not allowing the cops to do their job and not being afraid to arrest a minority for something wrong.

Republicans see themselves as "real Americans" and if Dems attack the rural dysfunction, then the Dems are called elitist.

It's a tricky thing.

Here in NYC there's this dynamic where a lot of suburbs out on Long Island and NJ want to control NYC's policies around thing like speed limit and congestion pricing, but I never see city folks really want to enforce anything upon them. Suburbs also tend to expect the city to deal with things like housing migrants, and give them money for their own projects. In general, NYC tends to give disproportionately to the state budget than what it receives back.

I think that is a fair point though about how at least rural/suburban Americans likely travel into cities every now and then whereas folks who live in cities may never visit a rural area because everything is right there. The only reason a city person might have to go to rural America is for vacation (which likely means a more touristy town) or visiting family.

Also I really hate this notion Republicans have come up with that they're the "real Americans". Part of what makes America so great and free is that there are so many different ways you can live your life and you're still just as American. You can have your own lifestyle and culture, but please respect others as equals as long as they aren't doing anything to you.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Two reasons

1) Population density-In urban areas people live closer together thus you notice more issues in society. Obviously people defecating in San Francisco is going to garner more attention and discomfort than a rural area where people live miles apart.

2) Rural areas are generally safer- There are parts of urban cores in 2023 that are simply not safe to traverse at night due to their crime. Rural areas are dangerous mainly due to the wildlife and emptiness rather than the people there. There are no roaming packs of Klansmen in rural Missouri, but there are absolutely gangs in St Louis. (I know ST Louis isn't that dangerous but would you really feel comfortable walking north side past midnight?)

To add onto your first point, a large city has a single mayor so it's easier to lay blame on someone specific. There is no one mayor or county sheriff for the Texas panhandle, so there's it's less easy to blame the region's problems on any one person. I also find a lot of issues in rural areas tend to be less sensational and more things like drug addiction, whereas as you suggest, gangs will usually break something or cause a problem anyone can visually see.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Rural population loss is a sore spot that runs deep in the American psyche. The agrarian myth was woven into the country's folklore and nationalist ideology from the very beginning of our push to develop the continent. Going back to the industrialization of the 19th century, there's been a lot of angst about the urbanization trend being the end of the American dream of self-sufficiency, the ability to produce and enjoy a simple abundance, honest industry, a frank spirit of equality, and so on. One of my favorite songs is "Good Time Charlie's Got the Blues", which I feel captures the existential dread of life in a dead-end small town perfectly. When communities are already ravaged by natural disasters like the 1930s Dust Bowl and man-made ones like the farm debt problem of the 1980s, and the children who the communities hope will keep their way of life alive want to leave, it understandably makes the ones whose life and pride revolves around a familial identity of land ownership pretty resentful. Democrats needed at least some of the Reagan Democrats' votes until pretty recently, so yeah, of course they had less leeway to be a snob and tell the farmers or the coal miners to learn to code.

Cities, especially the bigger ones, have a different mass creed of constant reinvention and dynamism. Telling New York City to drop dead doesn't hit them quite as hard- they know there's no real danger of that happening anyway. Smallville, not so much. There's plenty of proud history in the cities too of course, but those voters aren't as likely to feel so bad about packing up and moving for a better life.

I agree with your general point, but one could argue someone who lives in a city feels like their preferred way of life is under attack, because America has been built this idea of things being spread out, having a car, ect. I always worry something unique to urban lifestyle such as the NYC Subway is always at risk of completely falling apart due to the lack of emphasis placed on it by the larger state and federal gov. At both levels, it currently gets way less per capita investment than roads, but in a hypothetical world where America prided itself on dense walkable cities, I'm sure it'd be in much better shape.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Rural population loss is a sore spot that runs deep in the American psyche. The agrarian myth was woven into the country's folklore and nationalist ideology from the very beginning of our push to develop the continent. Going back to the industrialization of the 19th century, there's been a lot of angst about the urbanization trend being the end of the American dream of self-sufficiency, the ability to produce and enjoy a simple abundance, honest industry, a frank spirit of equality, and so on. One of my favorite songs is "Good Time Charlie's Got the Blues", which I feel captures the existential dread of life in a dead-end small town perfectly. When communities are already ravaged by natural disasters like the 1930s Dust Bowl and man-made ones like the farm debt problem of the 1980s, and the children who the communities hope will keep their way of life alive want to leave, it understandably makes the ones whose life and pride revolves around a familial identity of land ownership pretty resentful. Democrats needed at least some of the Reagan Democrats' votes until pretty recently, so yeah, of course they had less leeway to be a snob and tell the farmers or the coal miners to learn to code.

Cities, especially the bigger ones, have a different mass creed of constant reinvention and dynamism. Telling New York City to drop dead doesn't hit them quite as hard- they know there's no real danger of that happening anyway. Smallville, not so much. There's plenty of proud history in the cities too of course, but those voters aren't as likely to feel so bad about packing up and moving for a better life.

I agree with your general point, but one could argue someone who lives in a city feels like their preferred way of life is under attack, because America has been built this idea of things being spread out, having a car, ect. I always worry something unique to urban lifestyle such as the NYC Subway is always at risk of completely falling apart due to the lack of emphasis placed on it by the larger state and federal gov. At both levels, it currently gets way less per capita investment than roads, but in a hypothetical world where America prided itself on dense walkable cities, I'm sure it'd be in much better shape.

"walkable cities" is such a european concept, keep that away from the good ol' US of A. Cars are as widespread as they are because the average person organically supports such an idea. It is freeing in a way that public transport never will be. I think the subway is nice but I would not shed a tear if it were to disappear.

If you prefer a more spread out car centric lifestyle, you can have that. However, given many of the fastest growing parts of the countries are dense downtowns of large cities and US cities with robust public transit see good usage, there’s clearly also a demand for a more walkable dense lifestyle.

Even though you wouldn’t care if the NYC Subway went away, it’s very important to the nations largest city daily functioning; I guarantee you it disappearing one day would be a bet negative for the Country. NYC would become completely dysfunctional, so we’d loose our largest economic engine.

I think part of what makes America so great is how large it is; there are so many different types of communities to travel to and live in. We also have a federalist system so different states can shape their communities towards different wants and needs; zoning and density is very much a local issue. We should both be able to freely enjoy living different lifestyles in different parts of the country.