Why can't large urban areas be conservative?

[5280]

Why do large urban areas have to be Democratic?  Can a small city that grows in population to a large urban area be ran by conservatives?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Mecca is pretty conservative by any standard.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Let's imagine a generic liberal. This person grew up in a conservative town in a conservative state but came out liberal anyway. They appreciate stereotypical liberal things. They like the arts and would like to be near somewhere with a cool arts community. They don't care about guns or hunting and would rather go to some upscale bar or thriving nightclub than some sports bar watering hole. They don't want the slow paced life. And if they aren't religious they'd like to be somewhere where they're less likely to be judged for that. Or if they are they'd still rather be somewhere where the churches are more liberal and less condemning. Plus they're likely well educated, but the degree won't help well at any jobs in the small town. So where do they move?

The big city of course. The amenities attract people who are more likely to be liberal, so the city becomes liberal. Even if in a conservative state. It's called The Big Sort.

[5280]

There are conservatives who don't hunt or own guns, are not religious, some live in the city and have nothing to do with rural life. I'm not sure why people lump certain groups as a whole.

[smoltchanov]

There are conservatives who don't hunt or own guns, are not religious, some live in the city and have nothing to do with rural life. I'm not sure why people lump certain groups as a whole.

Tulsa? Oklahoma City? After all Phoenix is not extremely liberal (though not too conservative either)....

[YaBoyNY]

There are conservatives who don't hunt or own guns, are not religious, some live in the city and have nothing to do with rural life. I'm not sure why people lump certain groups as a whole.

Just because there are some doesn't mean they're as prevalent as liberals who enjoy those things.

They just aren't.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It would have to be a different breed of conservatism - Bloombergian liberal-conservativism, for instance.

[DC Al Fine]

There are conservatives who don't hunt or own guns, are not religious, some live in the city and have nothing to do with rural life. I'm not sure why people lump certain groups as a whole.

Tulsa? Oklahoma City? After all Phoenix is not extremely liberal (though not too conservative either)....

Those are:

a) Midsize cities
b) Cheap

I've heard it suggested that among, white voters, a large determinant of GOP support is how accessible the stereotypical American dream is. It's much easier to purchase a house, or have one's wife stay home given the wages and cost of living in those cities compared to say, Greater NYC. This in turn affects one's attitudes towards the free market/welfare sate.

[muon2]

One reason is the shift of the parties over the last 50 years. 50 years ago the Dems were a party of labor, especially Big Labor. Labor voters were found in both the cities and rural areas, especially when labor interests matched ag interests.

Today the Dem's policies are more about the economics of urban life and social policies that adapt well to living in proximity to a lot of strangers. Urban areas have the greatest economic spread with the most very rich and very poor, and Dem policies address the economics of that situation. Those policies were less about labor and more about wealth transfer and access to government services.

In short, large urban areas are not conservative, because the liberal party (Dems) have adapted their policies to match the needs of the majority of voters in large urban areas.

[Torie]

One reason is the shift of the parties over the last 50 years. 50 years ago the Dems were a party of labor, especially Big Labor. Labor voters were found in both the cities and rural areas, especially when labor interests matched ag interests.

Today the Dem's policies are more about the economics of urban life and social policies that adapt well to living in proximity to a lot of strangers. Urban areas have the greatest economic spread with the most very rich and very poor, and Dem policies address the economics of that situation. Those policies were less about labor and more about wealth transfer and access to government services.

In short, large urban areas are not conservative, because the liberal party (Dems) have adapted their policies to match the needs of the majority of voters in large urban areas.

It can go both ways, but when you live shoulder to shoulder with folks that are very different from you, in SES or race, or whatever, and you tend to get to know many personally, it facilitates more empathy, and empathy, along with logic, ideology, etc., really matters. My living in Hudson (which while a small town, is really akin to lifting a few blocks of Manhattan, slapping on a 3 story height limitation, and moving it on a magic carpet a 100 miles north up the Hudson), has influenced me in that way, and changed my views some at the margins. I really am a tad bit more of a bleeding heart liberal.

[muon2]

One reason is the shift of the parties over the last 50 years. 50 years ago the Dems were a party of labor, especially Big Labor. Labor voters were found in both the cities and rural areas, especially when labor interests matched ag interests.

Today the Dem's policies are more about the economics of urban life and social policies that adapt well to living in proximity to a lot of strangers. Urban areas have the greatest economic spread with the most very rich and very poor, and Dem policies address the economics of that situation. Those policies were less about labor and more about wealth transfer and access to government services.

In short, large urban areas are not conservative, because the liberal party (Dems) have adapted their policies to match the needs of the majority of voters in large urban areas.

It can go both ways, but when you live shoulder to shoulder with folks that are very different from you, in SES or race, or whatever, and you tend to get to know many personally, it facilitates more empathy, and empathy, along with logic, ideology, etc., really matters. My living in Hudson (which while a small town, is really akin to lifting a few blocks of Manhattan, slapping on a 3 story height limitation, and moving it on a magic carpet a 100 miles north up the Hudson), has influenced me in that way, and changed my views some at the margins. I really am a tad bit more of a bleeding heart liberal.

I agree, and my point was that 50 years ago neither party catered to that world view. Once one party did, it wasn't surprising that they would also garner more support from those in that environment.

[Hydera]

It would have to be a different breed of conservatism - Bloombergian liberal-conservativism, for instance.

If conservatives stopped being socially conservative they might appeal to a broader amount of Urban voters. But obviously this would result in social conservatives to get upset and abstain which would mean results would be the same.

Bloomberg and Giuliani won in NYC because social liberals and the small amount of social conservatives, united over fixing quality of life issues(employment, crime). Plus the long line of Democrat mayors+influence in the city might of made social conservatives to turnout despite their candidates being socially moderate.

Elsewhere this wouldn't really since it will just go into a short of equilibrium.

[Asian Nazi]

It's a pattern that exists all over the Anglosphere (though not necessarily outside it!), it's just exaggerated in the United States because of race.  And not just because minorities living in cities skew them Democrat on their own, but also because it encourages self-sorting.  White conservatives are the first to engage in white flight and abandon an area as minorities move in, leaving behind an increasingly liberal white population.  And even in urban areas with low minority populations (like, say, Seattle and Portland), liberal colonization has driven white conservatives to the suburbs.  These days, major cities throughout the American North are anathema to conservatives.  Even as property values and cost of living continues to skyrocket in these places, it's white liberals, not white conservatives, who are displacing minority populations and driving them to the suburbs. 

And of course partisan voting, just like any form of self-expression, is colored massively by our peers.  Being surrounded by Democrats makes you almost guaranteed to be a Democrat, and being surrounded by Republicans makes you almost guaranteed to be a Republican.  Throughout the urban North, there are entire neighborhoods with literally no Republicans, and the flipside is true, if to a lesser extent, in rural areas throughout the Mountain West and Deep South.

[5280]

One reason is the shift of the parties over the last 50 years. 50 years ago the Dems were a party of labor, especially Big Labor. Labor voters were found in both the cities and rural areas, especially when labor interests matched ag interests.

Today the Dem's policies are more about the economics of urban life and social policies that adapt well to living in proximity to a lot of strangers. Urban areas have the greatest economic spread with the most very rich and very poor, and Dem policies address the economics of that situation. Those policies were less about labor and more about wealth transfer and access to government services.

In short, large urban areas are not conservative, because the liberal party (Dems) have adapted their policies to match the needs of the majority of voters in large urban areas.

Lets say, what if majority of the strangers that live in the big city are conservative and there was little to no wealth transfer to the poor citizens or any social programs? Would the poor citizens flock to the rural areas and become nomads? You could still get a large support of voters without government intervention. The rural areas would be Democratic and cities be strong Republican.

[5280]

It's a pattern that exists all over the Anglosphere (though not necessarily outside it!), it's just exaggerated in the United States because of race.  And not just because minorities living in cities skew them Democrat on their own, but also because it encourages self-sorting.  White conservatives are the first to engage in white flight and abandon an area as minorities move in, leaving behind an increasingly liberal white population.  And even in urban areas with low minority populations (like, say, Seattle and Portland), liberal colonization has driven white conservatives to the suburbs.  These days, major cities throughout the American North are anathema to conservatives.  Even as property values and cost of living continues to skyrocket in these places, it's white liberals, not white conservatives, who are displacing minority populations and driving them to the suburbs. 

And of course partisan voting, just like any form of self-expression, is colored massively by our peers.  Being surrounded by Democrats makes you almost guaranteed to be a Democrat, and being surrounded by Republicans makes you almost guaranteed to be a Republican.  Throughout the urban North, there are entire neighborhoods with literally no Republicans, and the flipside is true, if to a lesser extent, in rural areas throughout the Mountain West and Deep South.

Property values can be cheaper in urban areas if taxes were kept low, there are less government policies on private property and less restrictions.

[Asian Nazi]

Property values can be cheaper in urban areas if taxes were kept low, there are less government policies on private property and less restrictions.

Lol

My state has the most regressive tax code in the country and it's actually against the state constitution to implement rent control. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most Americans live in urban areas. You are thinking in terms of formal city limits. That is a different issue and varies considerably from society to society.

[Torie]

Most Americans live in urban areas. You are thinking in terms of formal city limits. That is a different issue and varies considerably from society to society.

That is why Muon2 characterizes it as a population density issue, which I think is right, but along with that, is the age of the housing. The cosmopolitan well to do tend to like older housing stock because of its charm, and the relative poor because much of it is cheaper. Ditto with commercial areas. To some cosmopolitan types, huge parking lots are only marginally better than toxic waste dumps. Interestingly, tiny Hudson is old and charming and largely free of parking lots, and next door Greenport is the precise opposite, with big box stores, and huge parking lots, and no zoning, and no charm. When Hudsonians are putting something down, they often say, that is just so Greenport. BRTD in that sense would like Hudson.

[Sol]

OP lives in Arizona for chrissake.

In any case, there are even quite a lot of conservative areas in major US city limits, especially in the South. In fact, there's a rather interesting pattern--almost all Southern cities have a rather rich white section in the city limits.

[DrScholl]

Jacksonville is one of those cities that merged with the county and absorbed conservative suburbs. For the most part, conservatives live further outside of city limits for tax and property reasons. Bakersfield is probably one of the best examples of a conservative city that isn't wealthy and is quite traditionally conservative.

[Mr. Illini]

Similar to a lot of what has already been said, the culture differences are what make it. People who live in cities, rich or poor, are more likely to place value on public services and see necessity in them.

They are also more likely to less so buy into the conservative adage of the nuclear family with a stay-at-home mom and hardworking, 9-to-5 dad that helps their neighbors out, gets help from the neighbors when needed, and doesn't need the government. People in cities are surrounded by the non-traditional.

[RINO Tom]

At least in our current American cities, given how much they've changed in the last several decades, it would take a situation where minorities are more than willing to vote for conservative candidates (i.e., Blacks supporting Calvin Coolidge in 1924); it's not going to happen.  The GOP's marriage with Blacks was a super awkward one from the start, and it ain't ever comin' back.

The cultural differences are what put it into "super safe" status, but minorities voting as a loyal bloc are what doom the GOP from ever winning most of the bigger cities.

[Green Line]

Minorities won't vote for the GOP due to identity politics stoked by Democrats.  That's really the main thing

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Some random economic points to complement the ones already stated, off the top of my head:

It's important to realize how the economics of suburbanization affects politics. We're a suburban country (IIRC, by one measure some 51% of the country lives in areas considered suburban. Don't have the source, as I saw it a while ago). The building of suburban areas supports the automotive, construction, and home supply industries, and all the industries (steel, coal, oil, rubber, plastic, wood, ceramics, parts, etc.) that supply those industries. Suburban sprawl and building out provide quick and easy economic growth and income support in a country where land is plenty, and therefore cheap.

The Republican Party, being the party of business and believing that local governments should be leaders, are naturally going to enact policies that benefit industry (as suburbanization does). The building of the interstate highway system was begun under Eisenhower, after all, for primarily defense purposes but with the secondary benefit of promoting construction of cheap homes (remember, there was a severe housing shortage in the country for much of the late 1940s, and IIRC the early 1950s) and as automotive and other companies made big money, this led to big profits.

Americans are a individualistic bunch and owning land and a home full of nice things is ingrained into our culture. The post-WWI boom combined with wartime shortages to dam up savings to make the economy and the country as a whole ready to finally live out the American Dream of a nice home with a nice lawn with a nice family and a nice car in the suburbs. Cities were crowded, and high land & housing prices meant that you had to live in an apartment or flat if you could'nt afford a stand-alone house. So naturally, people went to the suburbs, driven by their wants but also enabled by government policy.

City housing often dates back to the pre-1940s, so upkeep can get expensive, as can infrastructure costs, so higher taxes are necessary to sustain services. A lot of inner suburbs built before the 1970s have been facing high costs to repair roads, schools, libraries, and utility infrastructure, and these costs resemble urban issues more than newer suburbs that have brand new or relatively new roads, schools, and infrastructure that do not require higher taxes and large, long-term bond issuances. I think that's a big economic factor to inner suburbs shifting Democratic in the 1990s as infrastructure began to show its age, in addition to more affluent minorities moving out of depressed inner cities.

The Republican Party has abandoned cities by virtue of being the party of suburbs and growth, really. There was a time before the 1970s when they and the Democrats focused on cities, suburbs, and rural areas, but as the population has become more suburbanized, that's where the votes lie.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Minorities won't vote for the GOP due to identity politics stoked by Democrats.  That's really the main thing

lol