Why the massive rural/urban divide?

[dazzleman]

Here is my theory.

Democrats find their biggest base of support in areas without open space that are essentially fully developed -- cities and older suburbs.  Republicans find their biggest base of support in areas that are growing -- newer suburbs, exurbs and rural areas.

I think the reason for this is that the Democratic philosophy is essentially redistributionist -- taking what exists and distributing it differently -- while the Republican philosophy is essentially a make the pie bigger philosophy -- make each person's piece of the pie bigger by making the pie as a whole bigger, without having to reduce the size of anybody who already has a piece.

People's day to day lives generally validate either one philosophy or the other, and this leads them to the political party that they support.  This also explains why Democrats in Republican areas tend to be more conservative and moderate than urban Democrats, while Republicans in Democratic areas tend to be more liberal and moderate than rural Republicans.  It is people's life experiences that lead them to their politics.

[dazzleman]

But Dazzle, in Sweden urban areas are more conservative and rural areas more socialist. How would you explain that? Still, interesting theory...

It's not necessarily left or right in the classic sense.  Prior to Ronald Reagan, the US political divide did not really run this way.  But two things have happened -- the Democrats, particularly liberal Demcrats, have adopted a limits to growth philosophy that rings true to urbanites, but sounds to rural people as if you are trying to limit their potential.  At the same time, the Republicans have adopted since Ronald Reagan a more explicitly expansionist philosophy that does not ring true to urbanites or residents of older, fully developed suburbs, but sounds like the answer to those in areas of strong growth, either population or economic.

I don't know how the divide runs in Sweden, and as I said, this divide in the US is relatively recent -- it didn't become really explicit until the 1990s, and this is the real red state-blue state divide.  Blue states are those without the space for strong growth, generally, while red states are still in a strong growth mode.  The greater affordability of housing in red states is an example of this -- the potential for expanded supply, which is absent in fully developed areas, keeps downward pressure on prices.

[dazzleman]

No, Democrats want to make the pie bigger and Republicans want to take all the pie pieces from the poor and give them to the rich.

You're all mixed up, Dazzy.

Then come up with a better explanation for the rural-urban split. 

You have an irrational hatred of Republicans; your banner says it all.  I could point out that most criminals are Democrats, but I think that's largely irrelevant, since most Democrats are not criminals.

[dazzleman]

Living in a city does make people more socially liberal. There is definitely more of a need (or just desire) for bigger government in cities. People band together in cities for the common good. They have to, to have open spaces (parks) and ways to get around (public transporation). People are so much closer to eachother, there needs to be some form of government to at least set guidelines for what people can and can not do. If you lived on a farm that played very loud music, then it wouldn't bother anyone because no one lived near them. But in the city, it will disrupt neighbors and thus the government steps in.

Socially, living in a city will cause one to experience more culture and diversity. If you experience these things everyday, then you're much less likely to fear or reject such cultures and lifestyles, and much more likely to accept them. People living in rural areas live in areas sheltered from other lifestyles, except perhaps Mexicans in some areas, and are less likely to accept or embrace them.

I think you live in a dream world.  Cities that are multi-ethnic often have high levels of racial tension and prejudice.  You must never have visited New York or Boston if you can make some of those statements.

[dazzleman]

Democrats want to make the pie bigger and Republicans want to take all the pie pieces from the poor and give them to the rich.

What absolute nonsense. Republicans want to make the pie bigger. Democrats simply try to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

Exactly right, Philip.  I try to present the divide in a neutral way, tying to people's everyday living, and Jesus falls right back on the 'liberals are enlightened and brilliant, and conservatives are backward and stupid' argument.  Typical of a hypocritical 'open-minded' liberal.

[dazzleman]

Living in a city does make people more socially liberal. There is definitely more of a need (or just desire) for bigger government in cities. People band together in cities for the common good. They have to, to have open spaces (parks) and ways to get around (public transporation). People are so much closer to eachother, there needs to be some form of government to at least set guidelines for what people can and can not do. If you lived on a farm that played very loud music, then it wouldn't bother anyone because no one lived near them. But in the city, it will disrupt neighbors and thus the government steps in.

Socially, living in a city will cause one to experience more culture and diversity. If you experience these things everyday, then you're much less likely to fear or reject such cultures and lifestyles, and much more likely to accept them. People living in rural areas live in areas sheltered from other lifestyles, except perhaps Mexicans in some areas, and are less likely to accept or embrace them.

I think you live in a dream world.  Cities that are multi-ethnic often have high levels of racial tension and prejudice.  You must never have visited New York or Boston if you can make some of those statements.

Then why are cities generally more accepting of gay marriage than rural areas?

And you don't even reply to the first paragraph of my post, which is really the part replying to your original post.

Your first paragraph basically agrees with my theory, but it doesn't explain social liberalism.  It explains why people living in more crowded areas favor more government control of things, which is part of my theory, if not explicitly stated.

There is a certain irrationality that people have -- for example, city dwellers are generally softer on crime than rural people, though they experience it more.  And social liberalism in theory often doesn't extend to real people -- Brooklyn, NY, a very liberal NYC borough, is known as the "borough of hate" because of the high number of unprovoked racial attacks that it has, initiated by both blacks and whites.

[dazzleman]

^ I suppose you're right in some ways. Vermont and New Hampshire are only so non-racist because there is nobody to hate.

Other than ethnic and racial differences, which certainly varies from region to region, cities are still more socially liberal on subjects like gay marriage, which I believe my theory still applies to. They're also more liberal on subjects like abortion and sex, but describing why is harder. I would definitely think that life in a city with a baby you aren't ready to take care for would be a lot harder than if you were in a rural area, and lots of urbanites realize that and are much more likely to support abortion rights. Sex, well, I don't know. In small towns or rural areas, you're much more likely to know everybody who lives around you. You could damage your reputation by having everyone you know think you're a whore. But in the city you can easily get away with it and not have anybody know because there's often millions of people... So in that sense, there's more of a "Who cares?" feeling.

Some good points.  It seems we actually agree to some extent on my theory, despite you saying that I had it backwards.  Did you feel you had to attack me on principle or something?

I would say that for a poor person, rural living is not necessarily easier than urban living.  If a person can't afford a car, or a reliable car, and everything is far away and there's no public transportation, life can be very difficult, and raising a child in those circumstances can be very difficult.

Cities provide proximity for basic services, and relatively inexpensive public transportation in most cases.  OTOH, the poor usually are forced to live in violent neighborhoods when they live in urban areas, since those crappy areas are all they can afford.  It's kind of a tossup as to which is worse.

I think a different sort of person chooses the urban lifestyle versus the rural or even suburban one, and that has a lot to do with why people in the cities are more liberal.

[dazzleman]

Maybe, I'm not sure how I said Democrats redistribute instead of grow and Republicans grow, though.

When I went to New York, it seemed like the epitome of capitalism and growth, with its skyscraping corporate office buildings and crowded streets lined with every type of store and business.

And I apologize if my initial post offended you.

No problem, man.  There are a few people around here who simply attack anybody who doesn't agree with their ideas, and I thought you may have been one of them.  I'm glad to see that you're not.  No offense taken.

Your New York comment is interesting, because I've often thought of the paradox myself.  It's also funny that a city known for its toughness has embraced a political philosophy that has come to be generally associated with weakness.

I think the answer is that there are really two New Yorks.  This is a point that is often missed by the red state-blue state people -- even the reddest of red states, or the bluest of blue states, have a significant component of the other philosophy.  Much of the capitalist base in New York is Republican -- not all of it, but a good percentage.  This element coexists with a largely Democratic element that lives in the shadows of this capitalist base but, for various reasons, does not fully share in the benefits of the wealth created.

I do believe that the Democrat philosophy continues to emphasize redistribution of existing wealth, as evidenced by their calls for higher taxes on the 'rich' (I don't agree with their general definition of rich; they confuse rich with moderate to high income, but that's another discussion).  The Republican argument is that lower taxes overall lead to more wealth creation that benefits everybody, to a greater degree than higher taxes and more redistribution would.  There is a zone where the two philosophies overlap, and either one I think goes off the rails if taken to too much of an extreme.

The split comes across in other ways.  Democrats pay more lip service to energy conservation as opposed to Republicans, who reject conservation as a philosophy and instead advocate greater exploration and development of supplies.  Democrats are more inclined to favor limiting housing prices (things like rent control) while Republicans emphasize greater supply to keep prices down.  In this area in particular, Republican policies are more obviously suited to exurban or rural areas, with developable land, as opposed to fully developed cities or inner suburbs, and I believe this plays a role in voting behavior.

I'd also say you're very close to the mark on Vermont and New Hampshire.  Homogeneous places are often the most tolerant, because the tolerance is only theoretical, and never tested by real-life conditions.  In reality, these are often the most intolerant people, and many of them could never survive actually living in a multi-ethnic environment.  The truth about New York is that in most cases, at the neighborhood level, it is not multi-ethnic.  The entire New York metro area has some of the most deeply entrenched patterns of racial separation in the country, and believe me, that's just the way white New Yorkers want it, whatever degree of hypocritical liberalism they proclaim.  I know it well because I've lived in some part of that area my whole life.  That's why I find it hard to take when people make the 'city dwellers are liberal and enlightened because they appreciate other cultures' argument.  The ones who appreciate other cultures, quite frankly, are the ones living in doorman buildings on the upper east side, whose main contact with 'other cultures' is with the person who cleans their apartment, or takes out their garbage.

[dazzleman]

I think the answer is that there are really two New Yorks.  Much of the capitalist base in New York is Republican -- not all of it, but a good percentage.  This element coexists with a largely Democratic element that lives in the shadows of this capitalist base but, for various reasons, does not fully share in the benefits of the wealth created.

dazzleman, that is not just in New York - everywhere the great majority gets very little of the wealth they create under the Capitalist order.  That is the whole critique of the system!

You're now distorting what I said.  There are many poor people in the city who don't participate in the city's wealth because they have little to offer in the way of skills to give them any value in the job market.

The people who receive the wealth created in New York live in Manhattan, and in the surrounding suburbs, including Connecticut.

[dazzleman]

There are many poor people in the city who don't participate in the city's wealth because they have little to offer in the way of skills to give them any value in the job market.

The wealthy in New York or elsewhere also lack 'skills' - they don't need them.

Well, I'll say this much -- you sure do.