Red State, Blue City: How the Urban-Rural Divide is Splitting America

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Thinking about Muon2's density hypothesis, which is teased out after correcting for race and class, why do the Tories do so well in high income dense neighborhoods in England? Why does inner city Paris vote conservative? I might note that Newport Beach, CA is quite densely populated. The lots next to the bay are very small.

The ideological component of inner city dense living seems most common in the US and Canada. Why?

Because the right-wing parties are crazier here.

Or, to be less blunt, they are more in thrall to social conservativism, which is a mindset that thrives in rural agrarian environments, and is deeply distrustful of anything cosmopolitan as a "corrupting" influence.  Because, y'know, you go to the city, have to deal with people and viewpoints that are new and unfamiliar, and social liberalism inevitably follows because you have to jettison the old prejudices to get by.

The Tories may be to the right economically (at least compared to Labour), but they aren't going around trying to adopt personhood amendments or claiming that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that we're warming the planet is some sort of crypto-Marxist conspiracy of evil scientists.  So educated richers can vote for them in peace.

Educated richers in the US still lean Republican overall, of course.

But take a look at Marin County. memphis made a thread about this place earlier. In truth while it's not as unique in the US as he thought, a place with these demographics would simply not vote anything like it does in any European country.

Although if the US used a different voting system and some sort of PR and had multiple parties, these areas would probably vote for some party more along the lines of the Liberal Democrats than the party commonly thought of as the main center-left party, actually Andrew Cuomo kind of epitomizes the politics of the party that would dominate here pretty well (Kind of brings up a good question, is there any significant difference in politics between Cuomo and David Cameron? But that's for another thread.) These areas probably still wouldn't be willing to vote for the main center-right party because even if it basically was the Republican Party today with all the biggest crazies purged and in minor parties, it still wouldn't be capable of governing without the support of the crazies.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I sat down for a while and did some math regarding whites in Northern Illinois. Here's what I found. For my purposes, Northern Illinois includes the following counties: Boone, Bureau, Carroll, Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Henry, Jo Daviess, Kane, Kendall, Lake, LaSalle, Lee, McHenry, Ogle, Rock Island, Stephenson, Whiteside, Will, and Winnebago. Furthermore, I'm calling the following Northern Illinois counties Chicagoland: Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will.
A few points:
1. Whites in Chicagoland are almost exactly split in population between Cook County and the rest of the Chicagoland counties
2. About 67% of whites, who voted in Cook County, voted to reelect the President.
3. About 43% of whites who voted in the remaining Chicagoland counties voted to reelect the President.
4. About 55% of whites, who voted in all of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President.
4. About 10% of whites, who voted in both Cook and Lake Counties, self-identify as Jewish, about 2/3 of whom likely voted to reelect the President.
5. About 48% of whites who voted in Northern Illinois, outside of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President.
6. Only 43% of whites, who voted in Winnebago County, the largest county in Northern Illinois, outside of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President. Without the influence of Winnebago, the whites of Northern Illinois would have split their votes almost equally between the President and Mitt Romney.
7. Chicagoland's 55% vote for the President is roughly equal to Northern Illinois's 48%, once one takes Jews and gays into account. Any additional "urban effect" is limited to just a few points.
8. However, there is a great deal of polarization within Chicagoland with white Dems much more likely to live in Cook County and white Republicans much more likely to live in another Chicagoland County. This is clearly not merely the result of gays and Jews.

Whites voting to relect the President by Chicagoland county
1. Cook 67%
2.DeKalb 47%
3. Lake 46%
4. DuPage 43%
5. Will 43%
6. Grundy 42%
7.McHenry 41%
8. Kendall 40%
9. Kane 39%

You have to realize that in Cook County at least (less so in the other counties, but not entirely untrue), this is a bit of an apples/oranges comparison. It's like calculating the white vote in Brooklyn, you could do it and the number WOULD be interesting, but it doesn't really represent the "average white" in Brooklyn or any type of demographic there. Or to use another commonly used example in college textbooks, it's like calculating the average income of ten people on food stamps and one millionaire. The number doesn't represent anyone in the group.

[Benj]

from great atlas forum i learn that there are no gays in the countryside

Must everything be in black and white? It's not binary, of course. But there is an undeniable migration of gays frrom the countryside into major cities. As true in northern Illinois as anywhere.

Well I think that's obvious. Why would a gay person live in countryside America? Where almost everyone goes to church and has very little education.

Neither of those statements are actually true.

While we're talking stupid stereotypes about urban whites, we should use stupid stereotypes about rural whites, too.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah that's really no more ridiculous than claiming that most urban whites are either gay or Jewish.

[memphis]

I sat down for a while and did some math regarding whites in Northern Illinois. Here's what I found. For my purposes, Northern Illinois includes the following counties: Boone, Bureau, Carroll, Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Henry, Jo Daviess, Kane, Kendall, Lake, LaSalle, Lee, McHenry, Ogle, Rock Island, Stephenson, Whiteside, Will, and Winnebago. Furthermore, I'm calling the following Northern Illinois counties Chicagoland: Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will.
A few points:
1. Whites in Chicagoland are almost exactly split in population between Cook County and the rest of the Chicagoland counties
2. About 67% of whites, who voted in Cook County, voted to reelect the President.
3. About 43% of whites who voted in the remaining Chicagoland counties voted to reelect the President.
4. About 55% of whites, who voted in all of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President.
4. About 10% of whites, who voted in both Cook and Lake Counties, self-identify as Jewish, about 2/3 of whom likely voted to reelect the President.
5. About 48% of whites who voted in Northern Illinois, outside of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President.
6. Only 43% of whites, who voted in Winnebago County, the largest county in Northern Illinois, outside of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President. Without the influence of Winnebago, the whites of Northern Illinois would have split their votes almost equally between the President and Mitt Romney.
7. Chicagoland's 55% vote for the President is roughly equal to Northern Illinois's 48%, once one takes Jews and gays into account. Any additional "urban effect" is limited to just a few points.
8. However, there is a great deal of polarization within Chicagoland with white Dems much more likely to live in Cook County and white Republicans much more likely to live in another Chicagoland County. This is clearly not merely the result of gays and Jews.

Whites voting to relect the President by Chicagoland county
1. Cook 67%
2.DeKalb 47%
3. Lake 46%
4. DuPage 43%
5. Will 43%
6. Grundy 42%
7.McHenry 41%
8. Kendall 40%
9. Kane 39%

You have to realize that in Cook County at least (less so in the other counties, but not entirely untrue), this is a bit of an apples/oranges comparison. It's like calculating the white vote in Brooklyn, you could do it and the number WOULD be interesting, but it doesn't really represent the "average white" in Brooklyn or any type of demographic there. Or to use another commonly used example in college textbooks, it's like calculating the average income of ten people on food stamps and one millionaire. The number doesn't represent anyone in the group.

I was not trying to find the "average person." I've stated many times that people do not average. We are not numbers. And even if a person were average on a number of metrics, he still would not be typical because it's very odd to be near the center of so many qualities. Most people are higher on one measure and lower on another. All I wanted to know was what percent of whites voted for the president in each county. Until I did the math, I very much underestimated Cook County whites. They are much more Democratic than I had expected, even discounting Jews and gays. I also did not realize that a slim majority of Chicagoland whites live outside Cook County, which helps to account for how Cook whites can been so Democratic. The Republicans have all fled to refugee camps in other counties.  I was wrong and I can admit it.

[BaldEagle1991]

from great atlas forum i learn that there are no gays in the countryside

Must everything be in black and white? It's not binary, of course. But there is an undeniable migration of gays frrom the countryside into major cities. As true in northern Illinois as anywhere.

Well I think that's obvious. Why would a gay person live in countryside America? Where almost everyone goes to church and has very little education.

Neither of those statements are actually true.

Keep in mind I said "almost" everyone.

[muon2]

I sat down for a while and did some math regarding whites in Northern Illinois. Here's what I found. For my purposes, Northern Illinois includes the following counties: Boone, Bureau, Carroll, Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Henry, Jo Daviess, Kane, Kendall, Lake, LaSalle, Lee, McHenry, Ogle, Rock Island, Stephenson, Whiteside, Will, and Winnebago. Furthermore, I'm calling the following Northern Illinois counties Chicagoland: Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will.
A few points:
1. Whites in Chicagoland are almost exactly split in population between Cook County and the rest of the Chicagoland counties
2. About 67% of whites, who voted in Cook County, voted to reelect the President.
3. About 43% of whites who voted in the remaining Chicagoland counties voted to reelect the President.
4. About 55% of whites, who voted in all of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President.
4. About 10% of whites, who voted in both Cook and Lake Counties, self-identify as Jewish, about 2/3 of whom likely voted to reelect the President.
5. About 48% of whites who voted in Northern Illinois, outside of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President.
6. Only 43% of whites, who voted in Winnebago County, the largest county in Northern Illinois, outside of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President. Without the influence of Winnebago, the whites of Northern Illinois would have split their votes almost equally between the President and Mitt Romney.
7. Chicagoland's 55% vote for the President is roughly equal to Northern Illinois's 48%, once one takes Jews and gays into account. Any additional "urban effect" is limited to just a few points.
8. However, there is a great deal of polarization within Chicagoland with white Dems much more likely to live in Cook County and white Republicans much more likely to live in another Chicagoland County. This is clearly not merely the result of gays and Jews.

Whites voting to relect the President by Chicagoland county
1. Cook 67%
2.DeKalb 47%
3. Lake 46%
4. DuPage 43%
5. Will 43%
6. Grundy 42%
7.McHenry 41%
8. Kendall 40%
9. Kane 39%

You have to realize that in Cook County at least (less so in the other counties, but not entirely untrue), this is a bit of an apples/oranges comparison. It's like calculating the white vote in Brooklyn, you could do it and the number WOULD be interesting, but it doesn't really represent the "average white" in Brooklyn or any type of demographic there. Or to use another commonly used example in college textbooks, it's like calculating the average income of ten people on food stamps and one millionaire. The number doesn't represent anyone in the group.

I was not trying to find the "average person." I've stated many times that people do not average. We are not numbers. And even if a person were average on a number of metrics, he still would not be typical because it's very odd to be near the center of so many qualities. Most people are higher on one measure and lower on another. All I wanted to know was what percent of whites voted for the president in each county. Until I did the math, I very much underestimated Cook County whites. They are much more Democratic than I had expected, even discounting Jews and gays. I also did not realize that a slim majority of Chicagoland whites live outside Cook County, which helps to account for how Cook whites can been so Democratic. The Republicans have all fled to refugee camps in other counties.  I was wrong and I can admit it.

The interesting follow up would be to look at some of the other large northern cities to see if they show the same pattern as Chicago.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

from great atlas forum i learn that there are no gays in the countryside

Must everything be in black and white? It's not binary, of course. But there is an undeniable migration of gays frrom the countryside into major cities. As true in northern Illinois as anywhere.

Well I think that's obvious. Why would a gay person live in countryside America? Where almost everyone goes to church and has very little education.

Gee whiz, I sure wish there was writing done on this subject.

The gay people I know who live in countryside America do so because either (1) they were born there and everybody and everything they know and love is there; (2) they think cities are ugly/smelly/dangerous/unsustainable/some combination of the four; or (3) both.

Keep in mind I said "almost" everyone.

Not better.

__________

Many (not 'almost all') rurals vote and pray to the right in large part precisely because they feel, correctly, that they and their homes are stereotyped, denigrated, and despised by urban liberals.

[soniquemd21921]

The interesting follow up would be to look at some of the other large northern cities to see if they show the same pattern as Chicago.
[/quote]

Cook County outside of Chicago used to be heavily Republican; Dewey got 63% in Cook outside Chicago, and Nixon got 57% in 1960. Even Evanston was heavily Republican then. Were there any Republican neighborhoods in Chicago back in that era as well? I'm guessing the Rogers Park area was.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Personally I think we'd all be better off if we completely avoided the whole 'using stupid stereotypes' school of electoral analysis entirely, however controversial such a move would be.

[memphis]

Many (not 'almost all') rurals vote and pray to the right in large part precisely because they feel, correctly, that they and their homes are stereotyped, denigrated, and despised by urban liberals.

This totally goes both ways. Rurals are not at all kind to the cities either. Your words: ugly, smelly, dangerous. At least the politicians on the left (usually) leave the countryside alone. Republicans regularly appear on tv, frothing at the mouth talking about "big city" "Chicago politics" "New York" "San Francisco values..." I distinctly remember in the 2004 debates, Kerry had just taken Bush to task and then W dropped the "Massachusetts liberal" line, as if that was some sort of retort to policy in Iraq. You almost never hear a Democratic candidate say ugly things about Texas. This divisiveness is much more a tool of the right than the left. And, whether people realize it or not, it's all about race. Because metro whites, although they self-segregate within the metro, vote about the same as rural whites in the same part of the country.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Basically you all need to read The Country and the The City.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Many (not 'almost all') rurals vote and pray to the right in large part precisely because they feel, correctly, that they and their homes are stereotyped, denigrated, and despised by urban liberals.

This totally goes both ways. Rurals are not at all kind to the cities either. Your words: ugly, smelly, dangerous.

Oh, of course. And that, I think, explains why a lot of urban and suburban richers vote (and pray, if they pray at all) to the left, when as we keep discussing in this thread they perhaps would not in many other countries.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is actually a really interesting point. It's also worth noting that rural minorities are for the most part pretty Democratic, so a lot of the perceived urban-rural divide is purely or almost purely a function of the (unfortunate, in my opinion) relative over-whiteness of rural areas outside the Black Belt and the Southwest.

There's obviously an element of subconscious (or less-than-subconscious) racism in a lot of American anti-urbanism. I'm willing to deal with the possibility that this includes my own, to some extent, since I am after all a white person originally from a nineteen-twentieths white state; it definitely includes some of the mostly white, mostly lower-middle-class LGBTQ rurals I was referring to as expressing the ugly/smelly/dangerous sentiments (especially the last of the three; the first two are usually couched as judgments about the physical environment, although of course preference between smog and manure is pretty subjective).

Similarly there's an element of often quite overt classism in American anti-ruralism, and religious bias of various kinds in both strains of sentiment.

Later on I could share my impressions of how these prejudices work within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts if anybody's interested; we have a pretty stark internal divide that, while it's not entirely urban-rural, codes in a similar manner.

[minionofmidas]

(especially the last of the three; the first two are usually couched as judgments about the physical environment, although of course preference between smog and manure is pretty subjective).

I'll take either over cologne.

[traininthedistance]

Many (not 'almost all') rurals vote and pray to the right in large part precisely because they feel, correctly, that they and their homes are stereotyped, denigrated, and despised by urban liberals.

No, not correctly.  There has always been a persistent and pernicious anti-urban bias in our politics (see what's going on in VA, and the supposed justifications given, for a particularly galling example).  Urban areas and urban values are constantly under attack for things that are either not true or are deeply beneficial to the country as a whole, but apparently if we try to do anything to defend ourselves and ask for equitable treatment, on either economic or social grounds, then oh NO it's a war on rurals.   It's disappointing to see an otherwise thoughtful poster as yourself fall into this lazy falsehood (I'd call it a false equivalence, but it tends to go further than that).

Basically you all need to read The Country and the The City.

I'd recommend Jane Jacobs, especially The Economy of Cities.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Many (not 'almost all') rurals vote and pray to the right in large part precisely because they feel, correctly, that they and their homes are stereotyped, denigrated, and despised by urban liberals.

No, not correctly.  There has always been a persistent and pernicious anti-urban bias in our politics (see what's going on in VA, and the supposed justifications given, for a particularly galling example).  Urban areas and urban values are constantly under attack for things that are either not true or are deeply beneficial to the country as a whole, but apparently if we try to do anything to defend ourselves and ask for equitable treatment, on either economic or social grounds, then oh NO it's a war on rurals.   It's disappointing to see an otherwise thoughtful poster as yourself fall into this lazy falsehood (I'd call it a false equivalence, but it tends to go further than that).

Basically you all need to read The Country and the The City.

I'd recommend Jane Jacobs, especially The Economy of Cities.

And yet, wealth and resources are more concentrated in urban areas than ever.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Many (not 'almost all') rurals vote and pray to the right in large part precisely because they feel, correctly, that they and their homes are stereotyped, denigrated, and despised by urban liberals.

No, not correctly.  There has always been a persistent and pernicious anti-urban bias in our politics (see what's going on in VA, and the supposed justifications given, for a particularly galling example).  Urban areas and urban values are constantly under attack for things that are either not true or are deeply beneficial to the country as a whole, but apparently if we try to do anything to defend ourselves and ask for equitable treatment, on either economic or social grounds, then oh NO it's a war on rurals.   It's disappointing to see an otherwise thoughtful poster as yourself fall into this lazy falsehood (I'd call it a false equivalence, but it tends to go further than that).

Whether there's an anti-urban bias among rurals, suburbans, and exurbans and whether there's an anti-rural bias among urbans and some suburbans are questions that do not have mutually exclusive answers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd recommend Jane Jacobs, especially The Economy of Cities.

[/quote]

I like Jane Jacobs a lot. I'll take a good, solid, Jacobs-style city over a Robert Moses-style soulless shambling suburbanized abomination every day of the week.

[traininthedistance]

Many (not 'almost all') rurals vote and pray to the right in large part precisely because they feel, correctly, that they and their homes are stereotyped, denigrated, and despised by urban liberals.

No, not correctly.  There has always been a persistent and pernicious anti-urban bias in our politics (see what's going on in VA, and the supposed justifications given, for a particularly galling example).  Urban areas and urban values are constantly under attack for things that are either not true or are deeply beneficial to the country as a whole, but apparently if we try to do anything to defend ourselves and ask for equitable treatment, on either economic or social grounds, then oh NO it's a war on rurals.   It's disappointing to see an otherwise thoughtful poster as yourself fall into this lazy falsehood (I'd call it a false equivalence, but it tends to go further than that).

Basically you all need to read The Country and the The City.

I'd recommend Jane Jacobs, especially The Economy of Cities.

And yet, wealth and resources are more concentrated in urban areas than ever.

It's probably important to define our terms here.  Wealth tends to be concentrated in the suburbs, which are certainly within "metro areas" and even "urbanized areas" but are also very much not what one necessarily thinks of when they think "urban".  And, yes, some city centers have become wealthy, but many have not; and the vast majority of cities with prosperous rich areas also have poor areas as well.  (The only exception I can really think of off the top of my head is San Fran, and that's largely because a) it's boundaries are so small and it's exported the slums to Oakland, and b) Silicon Valley as a whole is just so so rich).

Also, it's very important to examine why metropolitan areas tend to be wealthier than non-metro areas.  It's not because the rural areas are subsidizing metro areas, in fact the exact opposite is true, the metro areas subsidize the rural areas.  It's because the structure of urban life allows for far greater innovation and productivity than the structure of rural life.  

And let us be very clear that this is not a slam against the people who live in rural areas, like the urban poor they face deep structural challenges through little to no fault of their and I am in favor of redistribution to help them.  I am simply asking for intellectual honesty, for a recognition that they are not the "makers" which are being held down by the leeches in the cities, but rather that they are net recipients of the wealth/technologies/etc that could only have ever come from city living.

[traininthedistance]

Whether there's an anti-urban bias among rurals, suburbans, and exurbans and whether there's an anti-rural bias among urbans and some suburbans are questions that do not have mutually exclusive answers.

Fair enough.  I will freely admit to a raging anti-exurban bias, but I think I have very good, fact-based reasons for that; and I'm sure that social issues in particular can lead people to develop a bad attitude towards rural areas.

My point is mainly that, since the political system and national mythologies of America have such a persistent anti-urban bias, trying to correct that get to a parity where the voice of any one urban person is worth just as much as the voice of a rural person should not be lumped in that category, but simply considered a matter of basic fairness.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Whether there's an anti-urban bias among rurals, suburbans, and exurbans and whether there's an anti-rural bias among urbans and some suburbans are questions that do not have mutually exclusive answers.

Fair enough.  I will freely admit to a raging anti-exurban bias, but I think I have very good, fact-based reasons for that;

We have that in common.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is part of what I was getting at, although many of the people living in rural areas deserve at least some blame for reacting in a, er, reactionary manner. I'm not denying that either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is definitely true to an extent, but it's also true, as you've averred, that the economic system in America, and in most other countries, has by nature a persistent anti-rural bias which isn't really the fault of the people in the urban areas so much as it is a function of why urban areas develop in the first place. What I think is that this leads to class-based resentment of rurals as well as that based upon real or imagined social issues, class-based resentment that does, I think, characterize rurals as useless, 'backwards' takers (as opposed to some sort of puissant farming nobility, pace Arakawa Hiromu, or unfairly dominant kulak class, pace Lazar Kaganovich).

[Sbane]

The right wing in this country (which you are not a part of Nathan) characterizes city residents as being the "takers". I don't think many urbanites think of ruralites as such, and in any case it is not a mainstream view. Urban bashing is seen in mainstream politics, rural bashing not so much.

[Benj]

I agree with Sbane. The dominant stereotype is of urban residents as takers, not the other way around, whether "urban" means minority ghettos or Wall Street. There is overwhelming resentment towards government spending on pro-urban policies, and widespread and mainstream hatred of cities among rural and suburban politicians. The reverse just is not true. It is not acceptable for any urban politician to express resentment of rural areas, which are still lionized as the "heartland" of America.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I agree with Sbane. The dominant stereotype is of urban residents as takers, not the other way around, whether "urban" means minority ghettos or Wall Street. There is overwhelming resentment towards government spending on pro-urban policies, and widespread and mainstream hatred of cities among rural and suburban politicians. The reverse just is not true. It is not acceptable for any urban politician to express resentment of rural areas, which are still lionized as the "heartland" of America.

The reality of it is that urban areas (which include suburban areas, despite suburbanites' protests to the contrary) are where opportunities for accumulating capital-physical, intellectual, social, and economic-are, and that's also where the fruits of physical resources (agriculture, energy, logging, mining) that come from rural areas end up.

The question of who subsidizes who is rather irrelevant, because rural areas subsidize urban areas through agriculture, energy, etc. while urban areas subsidize rural areas through having a larger tax base and government spending disproportionately going to rural areas.

In other words, both areas subsidize each other, but in different ways. The real question, then, is why so many small towns and rural areas have become depressed of physical, economic, social, and intellectual resources, and which areas of the country do benefit from that redistribution of resources.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Basically you all need to read The Country and the The City.

I cannot repeat this enough.

[Hash]

Personally I think we'd all be better off if we completely avoided the whole 'using stupid stereotypes' school of electoral analysis entirely, however controversial such a move would be.

Using another school of electoral analysis is way too hard. It's much quicker for us to say that all people in rural areas are inbred hicks who smell funny and have guns and that all Hollande voters in Paris are really, really wealthy elitist bobos!
edit: and that all Panzergirl voters are Nazis who are too stupid to function