Why the massive rural/urban divide?

[bgwah]

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.

[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.

[bgwah]

^ 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.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would say that for a poor person, rural living is not necessarily easier than urban living.

It isn't. Trust me on this...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even truer

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep. As opposed to almost nothing at all or nothing at all... where I grew up the only public transport (other than school stuff; largely "minibuses"; in most cases these were glorified transit vans...) was one sh*tty bus that left around 9-ish in the morning and came back around 5-ish in the afternoon. And this wasn't on all weekdays either... for a while it was just Saturdays...

[bgwah]

^ 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.

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.

[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.

[opebo]

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.

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.

That perception is deceptive, dazzleman.  'Toughness' is associated with the Republians because they represent the powerful.  Of course if the powerful were placed in the position of the poor (who the Democrats marginally represent), they would immediately appear 'weak'.  In other words strenth or weakness has nothing to do with character but with position in the social heirarchy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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!

[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.

[opebo]

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.

[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.

[minionofmidas]

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.

It depends how you define wealthy, and how you define skills.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This was a good thread. I kind of chuckled reading Philip's arguments that he lives in a rural area while describing it since he was basically describing the textbook example of an exurb.

I have more commentary on this, but that has to come later.

[TeePee4Prez]

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.

Well I could blame Reaganomics on part of why some people "without skills" can't share in some of the wealth.  Our education system is another reason. 

[Smash255]

This was a good thread. I kind of chuckled reading Philip's arguments that he lives in a rural area while describing it since he was basically describing the textbook example of an exurb.

I have more commentary on this, but that has to come later.

Loudon County, VA is the fastest growing county in the United States (at leats was from 2000-2005) it is not rural, it WAS rural, but not anymore.  Now parts f it might still be rural (far western portions of the county) and I'm not sure where exactly in Loudon Phil lives, but it is no longer rural, and no question an exurb, and moving towards suburbs (parts of the county is no question full out suburbia)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Sounds like Scott County, MN

Of course, parts of that are still undeniably rural. My grandfather's farm is still there, and that area is certainly rural. The parts along US-169 sure as hell aren't though.

[Tender Branson]

Particularly in the last two elections, cities have been voting overwhelmingly Democratic, whereas rural areas have been voting like it's 1984.

Why the huge split?

Well, in Austria the same thing. In the 2002 and 2006 elections there were lots of rural villages that voted with over 90% for the conservatives, one I remember voted with 100% for them (a small hillbilly town of 70 voters in the state of Tyrol), whereas the bigger cities of Vienna and Linz etc. are generally more to the left.

[Verily]

Rural
 59,061,367
 21.0
 
of which: - Place of 2,500 or more
 4,089,599
 1.5
 
 - Place of 1,000 to 2,499
 4,989,152
 1.8
 
 - Place of less than 1,000
 3,821,336
 1.4
 
 - Not in place
 46,161,280
 16.4

wtf??

That is, the area they in is not incorporated as a town/city/village/township/borough or tracked as a Census-designated place (unincorporated but tracked as if it was).  I guess.

And 16.4% of Americans live in such a place?  That's more than I would have imagined.

Lots of subdivisions outside of cities are not tracked by CDPs.  Towns themselves have very small boundaries.  You know when you see signs like "Now leaving (Whatever)"?  That's where the incorporated cities end.  There are plenty of people in these areas, although I'd have expected fewer, too.

California. There are other states with large unincorporated areas, but California has enormous unincorporated areas, many of which are heavily populated suburbs and exurbs that only grew up in the last 15-20 years.

[Nym90]

I strongly disagree with the notion that Republicans are in favor of growth while Democrats oppose it. The two parties just disagree on how to bring about growth. Republicans favor increasing supply, while Democrats favor increasing demand.

In some ways, however, growth can certainly be undesireable (just ask anyone who has cancer...). Growth brings about change, and any change ultimately has both winners and losers. In fact, it's somewhat ironic that Republicans would be thought of as the more pro-growth of the two parties, since by definition a conservative should tend to oppose change, while a progressive would tend to be in favor of it.

So there are several different undercurrents on this issue. For people who are looking out for their own personal economic interests, clearly the Republican philosophy is more favorable to the wealthy, and the Democratic philosophy more favorable to the less well-off.

But philosophically, the two parties also disagree on how to bring about growth, as well as how to manage it and how to best direct it. I think that both ultimately want the same outcome (a strong economy), they just disagree about how to bring that about. Republicans favor putting more money into the pockets of the wealthy so as to boost supply, whereas Democrats favor putting more money into the pockets of the poor and working class so as to boost demand.

One other point I disagree quite strongly on is that people in rural areas are more tolerant than those in urban areas. While it is true that rural people can often be theoretically tolerant without having to live with the consequences of those views, the exact same thing is true for rural racists, as well. It is quite easy to be a racist when you never have any contact with people of the opposite race and thus never have your negative image of them sobered by reality.

[Gustaf]

The difference between demand-side and supply-side economics isn't really a scientific disagreement about what is best for the economy, but rather about what best fits one's political inclinations. Demand-side economics means borrowing money from somewhere else and giving it to the poor, why supply-side economics means cutting taxes for corporations and rich people. Most people choose the theory that fits best with what they want to do.

In reality, demand-side economics is really only applicable in certain times of crisis and can be pretty destructive when used under normal circumstances. Supply-side economics is more applicable in the Western world of today, but can a) be taken way too far without fiscal discipline which doesn't work very well and b) lead to disastrous consequences for society as a whole. 

[12th Doctor]

This is a masively complicated debate which I don't think can be resolved with a few buzz words, or even a broad, but shallow analysis.

One question I would like to throw out there, however, that I think is central to the debate is this:  With the cities as crowded as they are, why is it that study after study shows that people in the cities tend to feel more lonely, isolated and cut off from other people than people in the less densly populated rural areas?  If we address both the root and conclusion of this question, then we might be getting somewhere.

If we look at the "social liberalness" of the cities, it would seem to fit that the reason people are more socially liberal is because they feel less connected to other people and humanity as a whole, so they simply don't care on an individual level.  On the flip side, when it comes to ghettoization and personal and racial distrust, one can clearly see that the liberal attitudes of the cities vanish.  Black against White.  Hispanic against black.  Asian against Hispanic.  Everyone against the Jews.  Even broken down further if you look at places like Boston where there is still a great deal on animosity between the Italian and Irish communities.

Now, it has been suggested that rural areas are more tollerant.  And, as Eric said, this is largely a myth.  Trust me, I grew up in one of these places.  A lot of people will put on the air of tollerance, but it is never practiced in reality.  Its acctually getting worse, too.  I can remember when I was younger, you hardly ever heard anyone use words like "n" or "Spic" around my area.  But as the population of blacks and hispanics around my area started to rise (basically, it went from 0-20 in my home town) people became far less tollerant.  There has also been a strong reaction against "black culture" seeping into the rural areas.  Basically, the more visible blacks have become, the less tollerant people in the area have become.

The next issue is Social Responsability.  Basically, the urban and rural definitions of these words are totally opposite.  Urbanites tend to veiw social responsability as taking care of people's material needs, but otherwise staying out of their business.  Rural folks believe that people should be totally self-reliant and not only be morally responsible for themselves, but also for the conduct of their family and friends.  In this sense, the cities are more liberal (in the traditional sense) and the rural areas are more conservative (once again, in the true, traditional sense).

As weak as it sounds, I think a lot of this simply has to do with the fact that there are more people.  Most people in the cities gave up on being socially responsible in the rural sense, because the cities simply got to big and neighborhoods to unmanagable for people to concerned about the foundations of their society (as Burke would term it).  Instead, they grew to rely more and more upon government enforcment of basic rules (laws) in order to keep order, such as the police and fire dept., which in turn led to reliance on other things.

Since the rural areas never expirienced this problem, they simply stuck with the way business was always done.

Sorry, I was doing a couple things at once while typing this, so if it sounds a little discombobulated....