Why is the urban-rural "gap" in shared cultural understanding so much bigger in the US?

[Indy Texas]

If you go to a major city in the US, you will find people who generally support a right to abortion, who believe it is important for the government to ensure adequate access to education and healthcare, who support same-sex marriage and nondiscrimination, who believe some level of restriction on gun ownership is warranted for safety, and who believe in evolution and global warming.

If you drive just a few hours away from that major city (maybe less than that), you will encounter people who believe a woman who takes a morning-after pill should be charged with murder, that public education is a satanic conspiracy, that public healthcare is tyranny, that LGBT people should face social censure at best or public execution at worst, that guns are so important that AR-15s should be carried on a trip to the grocery store, that climate change is a hoax and that the world was literally created in six days.

While urban-rural political polarization is seen in other developed countries, it seems to mainly stem from disagreements regarding immigration and various fiscal or economic imbalances between regions. There does not seem to be such a dramatic gap between, say, a Londoner or someone in the Midlands, or between a Berliner and someone in a small village, on issues like religion and science.

Why does it seem like our "culture wars" go so much deeper and there is so much irreconcilability between our cities and our rural areas compared to Western Europe or Japan? (Which of course have their differences, but which seem to be much milder in degree and kind.)

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

The hyper-individualism and idea of the frontier that have been central to American history (since the first colonists) lead pretty naturally to a distinct form of rural American identity. This identity falls along a lot of axes which we would consider to be at least culturally conservative - decentralized authority and home rule, traditional, self-protective, masculine (physical labor as a necessity), mostly Anglo Saxon, distinction from urban hubs.

Meanwhile, in the United States, industrialization and most recently deindustrialization and transitioning to a creative-sector economy has endowed specific urban hubs with considerable wealth that doesn't radiate outward to these rural areas. This (and the cosmopolitanism it brings) brings forth a pretty natural bidirectional antagonism - rural areas feel condescended towards and form grievances, urban areas feel like rural areas are full of uncouth leeches.

Katherine Cramer's writings about rural Wisconsin are a great resource for understanding rural identity (beyond the idiotic trope of the current times that it's simply a product of racism). Will Wilkinson has some good writing about how even smaller, more dense "city" centers (towns of ~30K people) are moving left while their rural surroundings move right.

[SevenEleven]

My theory?

The USA has always been a mobile nation, socioeconomically and geographically. Most of us can point to near relatives (grandparents, parents) from different states or even countries. A gifted child in West Virginia who has the ability to become a good doctor, can pursue that path. It's not expected for him to back to West Virginia. In fact, it's unlikely, as doctors benefit from areas with many patients and the money to spend, i.e. not West Virginia. The free-flowing nature of US population movement, the inherent brain drain from any area that demonstrates low opportunity, and the self-selection bias caused by those who actively choose to live as far away from "others" as possible converge to amplify these effects to the extreme.

People in urban areas who want more seek to "do better". People in rural areas who want more seek to "get out". Our culture and tradition encourage upward mobility. Likewise, you don't see many immigrants from the DF. Most Mexican immigrants come from the rural north areas or the deeper southern parts of Mexico.

The modern urban lifestyle lends more convenience, opportunity, and amenities. The only benefit to living in a rural environment is avoiding other people. There's a reason why it costs more to live in an urban area.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

The modern urban lifestyle lends more convenience, opportunity, and amenities. The only benefit to living in a rural environment is avoiding other people. There's a reason why it costs more to live in an urban area.

The rest of the post is... uh... not very generous, but this part in particular is baffling to me. This reads to me like something that an upper middle class city-dweller whose only experiences outside of a city are vacationing would say. Can you really not think of a single other reason why people would choose or at least want to live in a rural area? Do you really think so little of these areas?

[SevenEleven]

The modern urban lifestyle lends more convenience, opportunity, and amenities. The only benefit to living in a rural environment is avoiding other people. There's a reason why it costs more to live in an urban area.

The rest of the post is... uh... not very generous, but this part in particular is baffling to me. This reads to me like something that an upper middle class city-dweller whose only experiences outside of a city are vacationing would say. Can you really not think of a single other reason why people would choose or at least want to live in a rural area? Do you really think so little of these areas?

I wouldn't say that I "think little" of these areas. There's a lot of beauty out there, for sure. But we recently had a similar discussion on discord, and the conclusion was that you work harder and see less income in a rural area. There's some decent rural areas in the mountain west, but most of the west is highly urbanized. Given the geographic center of population, most occupied rural areas are in the east, rust belt types or underprivileged deep South types. The Rust Belt name says enough. It's not the steel or iron belt. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to live in areas like that and for good reason.

You're correct in suggesting that I have never lived in a rural area. My appreciation for America lies in her diversity. I don't want to live somewhere where I can't visit a taco truck, or go to an Indian market, or eat some amazing hand-pulled noodles. You can call that a bias, I guess, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. Talent flows out of less populated areas into populated areas. Populated areas are more desirable and thus cost more.

My post has less to do with my feelings on rural areas, rather, I seek to explain the dichotomy presented in OP and why it is so stark compared to elsewhere. I can do without the pearl-clutching, thank you very much.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

1. I get most of the points, but where exactly are the people who think public education is a satanic conspiracy?

2. "If you drive just a few hours away from that major city"... you probably end up in another major city?

3. I feel like many of the answers are applicable to other nations as well.

4. This kind of discussions tend to drive me nuts because I live in a small city and small cities usually seem erased from the argument.

[Torie]

Size is part of it. In Western Europe, rural areas are really urban areas. The place is small and densely populated, and most people are within commuting distance of a substantial urban center. And then yes the brain drain. Maybe the new post virus age of working remotely and using Zoom will change that some, but not nearly as much as advertised. In my neck of the woods, there is a rather thin veneer of urban sophisticates, that are culturally very different from the locals who hang around, who lack the skills often to make it in the big city successfully, and need their informal familial network as a social safety network.

It is amazing just how different the Berkshires are, which is a 45 minute drive away. Dan and I drive around to dog parks all over the place. It is interesting to observe just how different the cultural ambiance is at the different dog parks. The folks who tend to show at the Egremont dog park in the Berkshires, are artsy types, and Dan enjoys chatting about the art scene in NYC and so forth. At the one in Athens, NY, the users tend to have pick up trucks,  big often brutish looking dogs that "can hunt," or dogs such as pit bulls, and have poor grammar. That means we go to the small dog section of the dog park with our adorable designer breed miniature snoodle. We just don't trust the canines on the other side of the fence.

[RINO Tom]

I think your second paragraph could have been written in better faith...

[SevenEleven]

And then yes the brain drain. Maybe the new post virus age of working remotely and using Zoom will change that some, but not nearly as much as advertised.

It's not going to change it at all. In lieu of going to the office, people working remotely are going to need to get their social interaction elsewhere and rural areas do not adequately provide that. Office types will still need their fancy Equinox gyms and health clubs and they will need nice bike paths to ride their nice bicycles on. The only people who might be likely to move to a rural area are large families (four or more children).

[Del Tachi]

An "urban-rural" cultural gap is one of the most universal aspects of human society, and has been for centuries.  Seeing literally everything through this dynamic is just the politics of our moment, perhaps.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I normally like SevenEleven's contributions to the Talk Elections blog a lot but his posts in this thread evidence a pretty stark empathy gap. I can only speak for myself, but I hate living in communities with more than ~30,000 people and it has nothing to do with wanting to avoid people or not caring about having things to do. Living in the Boston area actually exacerbated my sense of loneliness and alienation, for all sorts of reasons.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Anecdotally, I have noticed since moving to a more urban area that people are actually less trusting and keep more to themselves than people in smaller communities, where people are more likely to actually know their neighbors and, perhaps because of the fewer conveniences, be more willing to help and depend on each other. Preferring rural over urban has nothing to do with avoiding people. Individualism is fairly prevalent in American society as a whole, and that's no less true in large cities where convenience and accessibility are took as givens.

[It’s so Joever]

This SATW comic is what I am thinking when people say “Rural communities and small towns are SO much more friendly and communal!”

https://satwcomic.com/taxes-healthcare-and-culture

I would prefer people to not be fake friendly while simultaneously believing that people with no health insurance should die or Covid is fake. If you believe in those values, just f**king be honest about it. Don’t give me a “bless your heart”, at least have the courage to flip me off.

Maybe some people value that type of facade, and I can respect that, but for me, I will never comprehend the mentality of such places.

(Replace Scandinavians with US Urbanites)

[SevenEleven]

I normally like SevenEleven's contributions to the Talk Elections blog a lot but his posts in this thread evidence a pretty stark empathy gap. I can only speak for myself, but I hate living in communities with more than ~30,000 people and it has nothing to do with wanting to avoid people or not caring about having things to do. Living in the Boston area actually exacerbated my sense of loneliness and alienation, for all sorts of reasons.

I would like to hear more about this. So far ive heard a lot of "you're wrong" with no one offering any other viewpoints. My post was primarily looking at the numbers and migration patterns, but assuming you are referring to my "list" of reasons to prefer rural to urban. Why is less than 30k better? I'm genuinely interested in learning.

[SevenEleven]

Anecdotally, I have noticed since moving to a more urban area that people are actually less trusting and keep more to themselves than people in smaller communities, where people are more likely to actually know their neighbors and, perhaps because of the fewer conveniences, be more willing to help and depend on each other. Preferring rural over urban has nothing to do with avoiding people. Individualism is fairly prevalent in American society as a whole, and that's no less true in large cities where convenience and accessibility are took as givens.

I'm not sure I would use your area of Virginia to judge anything.

I suppose if you're getting more to the point that with an abundance of people they become sort of a commodity, I could buy into that. It's harder for people to care about certain things if the easier path is to move on and replace. That's something I would say has both upside and some negatives. A more close-knit community might be a valid reason for preferring a rural are, I suppose.

Still, I would try out NoVA if I were you. The vibe is totally different.

[parochial boy]

There's also the argument that in urban areas people are generally more dependent on public services. You know; public transport instead of cars; shared recreational areas; challenges in the housing market; often much more visible inequality and so on all mean that people are more open to viewing the role of a more visible state more positively. It's not just cultural, as there are also transactional reasons why city dwellers would opt for left wing parties more than people in the country side would.

As for the question at hand - the US is obviously massive compared to any European country, therefore almost mechanically tends towards a broader range of cultural outlooks, even within rural areas, that a two party system like the US has would tend to hide. Even then, I'm not sure it contrasts that much. If there isn't as much of a distinctive gap on some US culture wars issues like religion or Black Lives Matter or LGBT rights its because these aren't pertinent issues in the way they are in the Europe. For example, religion is fundamentally much less culturally relevant as a force in Western Europe than it is in the USA, which obviously means that a cleavage focused on religion is not going to be as stark or emotional.

You only need to look at the Gilets Jaunes in France to see that there can be huge cultural and political difference in between cities and countryside in Europe. I mean, compare Berlin with the village in Saxony that vote 40%+ AFD; Paris with the village in the Haute-Marne where Le Pen won 70% plus of the vote or head from Bern, where 70% of people voted against the Minaret ban to the small alpine village where 85% of the population voted the other way. Those difference are there, they just tend to be applied in Western European countries' own cultural and economic anxieties. Which aren't always the same as American ones.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

There's also the argument that in urban areas people are generally more dependent on public services. You know; public transport instead of card; shared recreational areas; challenges in the housing market; often much more visible inequality and so on all mean that people are more open to viewing the role of a more visible state more positively. It's not just cultural, as there are also transactional reasons why city dwellers would opt for left wing parties more than people in the country side would.

As for the question at hand - the US is obviously massive compared to any European country, therefore almost mechanically tends towards a broader range of cultural outlooks, even within rural areas, that a two party system like the US has would tend to hide. Even then, I'm not sure it contrasts that much. If there isn't as much of a distinctive gap on some US culture wars issues like religion or Black Lives Matter or LGBT rights its because these aren't pertinent issues in the way they are in the Europe. For example, religion is fundamentally much less culturally relevant as a force in Western Europe than it is in the USA, which obviously means that a cleavage focused on religion is not going to be as stark or emotional.

You only need to look at the Gilets Jaunes in France to see that there can be huge cultural and political difference in between cities and countryside in Europe. I mean, compare Berlin with the village in Saxony that vote 40%+ AFD; Paris with the village in the Haute-Marne where Le Pen won 70% plus of the vote or head from Bern, where 70% of people voted against the Minaret ban to the small alpine village where 85% of the population voted the other way. Those difference are there, they just tend to be applied in Western European countries' own cultural and economic anxieties. Which aren't always the same as American ones.

Well, while I agree with most of your post, your third paragraph feels like you are cherry picking the most extreme examples.
I feel like this gap is generally undeniably smaller or less clear in Western Europe. Or, at least, it is insofar as it applies to party politics. Maybe it just has not polarized totally along certain axes yet. Or maybe never will.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I normally like SevenEleven's contributions to the Talk Elections blog a lot but his posts in this thread evidence a pretty stark empathy gap. I can only speak for myself, but I hate living in communities with more than ~30,000 people and it has nothing to do with wanting to avoid people or not caring about having things to do. Living in the Boston area actually exacerbated my sense of loneliness and alienation, for all sorts of reasons.

I would like to hear more about this. So far ive heard a lot of "you're wrong" with no one offering any other viewpoints. My post was primarily looking at the numbers and migration patterns, but assuming you are referring to my "list" of reasons to prefer rural to urban. Why is less than 30k better? I'm genuinely interested in learning.

For one thing, I'm somebody who responds very strongly in deeply emotional ways to my physical environment, meaning that the greater natural beauty of the countryside is a genuine saving grace for me rather than just a case of polishing the turd. Trees are important to me; being able to see the stars at night is important to me. I also find navigating public transit hectic and unsettling in a way that interacts very poorly with my autism (ideologically I obviously support a massive expansion of public transit (leftist, normal), but that's not the same thing as enjoying using it myself). And I'm lucky enough to live in Western Massachusetts where even the small towns still have fairly eclectic local food options and progressive or at least moderate politics, so my experience of rural life isn't going to be nearly as alarming as that of someone from the very beating heart of MAGA Country.

So if I'm given a choice between living in Boston where all the creature comforts I could want are at my fingertips but I'm constantly stressed out from the Green Line or depressed because the night sky is greyish-orange, or living in Franklin County where I might have pretty crummy local Chinese food options but have a view of five or six different hardwood species from my home office window and can still find cool restaurants to go to if I look for them, I'm going to choose small-town life each time.

[SevenEleven]

I normally like SevenEleven's contributions to the Talk Elections blog a lot but his posts in this thread evidence a pretty stark empathy gap. I can only speak for myself, but I hate living in communities with more than ~30,000 people and it has nothing to do with wanting to avoid people or not caring about having things to do. Living in the Boston area actually exacerbated my sense of loneliness and alienation, for all sorts of reasons.

I would like to hear more about this. So far ive heard a lot of "you're wrong" with no one offering any other viewpoints. My post was primarily looking at the numbers and migration patterns, but assuming you are referring to my "list" of reasons to prefer rural to urban. Why is less than 30k better? I'm genuinely interested in learning.

For one thing, I'm somebody who responds very strongly in deeply emotional ways to my physical environment, meaning that the greater natural beauty of the countryside is a genuine saving grace for me rather than just a case of polishing the turd. Trees are important to me; being able to see the stars at night is important to me. I also find navigating public transit hectic and unsettling in a way that interacts very poorly with my autism (ideologically I obviously support a massive expansion of public transit (leftist, normal), but that's not the same thing as enjoying using it myself). And I'm lucky enough to live in Western Massachusetts where even the small towns still have fairly eclectic local food options and progressive or at least moderate politics, so my experience of rural life isn't going to be nearly as alarming as that of someone from the very beating heart of MAGA Country.

So if I'm given a choice between living in Boston where all the creature comforts I could want are at my fingertips but I'm constantly stressed out from the Green Line or depressed because the night sky is greyish-orange, or living in Franklin County where I might have pretty crummy local Chinese food options but have a view of five or six different hardwood species from my home office window and can still find cool restaurants to go to if I look for them, I'm going to choose small-town life each time.

I guess I was wondering what made you suggest a lack of empathy on my part. To be fair, what you are describing seems to fit the mold of "avoiding people" that I mentioned, which is fine if that's what makes you comfortable. I myself am a huge fan of natural beauty, but for example Los Angeles has Griffith Park, Topanga Park, and some fairly remote beaches out near Malibu. DC has Rock Creek Park, which pairs well with it's lower skyline. So you can enjoy the natural beauty in an urban setting but what you don't get is the solace of vast emptiness. You'll probably see other hikers further out on the trail, or you can look out upon Downtown LA. Am I correct in my understanding that you value the "emptiness"?

[parochial boy]

There's also the argument that in urban areas people are generally more dependent on public services. You know; public transport instead of card; shared recreational areas; challenges in the housing market; often much more visible inequality and so on all mean that people are more open to viewing the role of a more visible state more positively. It's not just cultural, as there are also transactional reasons why city dwellers would opt for left wing parties more than people in the country side would.

As for the question at hand - the US is obviously massive compared to any European country, therefore almost mechanically tends towards a broader range of cultural outlooks, even within rural areas, that a two party system like the US has would tend to hide. Even then, I'm not sure it contrasts that much. If there isn't as much of a distinctive gap on some US culture wars issues like religion or Black Lives Matter or LGBT rights its because these aren't pertinent issues in the way they are in the Europe. For example, religion is fundamentally much less culturally relevant as a force in Western Europe than it is in the USA, which obviously means that a cleavage focused on religion is not going to be as stark or emotional.

You only need to look at the Gilets Jaunes in France to see that there can be huge cultural and political difference in between cities and countryside in Europe. I mean, compare Berlin with the village in Saxony that vote 40%+ AFD; Paris with the village in the Haute-Marne where Le Pen won 70% plus of the vote or head from Bern, where 70% of people voted against the Minaret ban to the small alpine village where 85% of the population voted the other way. Those difference are there, they just tend to be applied in Western European countries' own cultural and economic anxieties. Which aren't always the same as American ones.

Well, while I agree with most of your post, your third paragraph feels like you are cherry picking the most extreme examples.
I feel like this gap is generally undeniably smaller or less clear in Western Europe. Or, at least, it is insofar as it applies to party politics. Maybe it just has not polarized totally along certain axes yet. Or maybe never will.

One of the points that I probably should have made clearer is that not all Western European countries are the same, and not all rural areas are the same (which goes for the US too). There are plenty of such examples of rural areas that are extremely conservative relative in other countries, but also plenty of examples which absolutely aren't the case. You can easily find rural areas that are even more progressive or left wing than urban areas in Europe - but that's the case in the USA too.

Part of the story is that the US as a whole is a society that has an immense political and cultural polarisation - and that isn't the case to the same degree in Europe. But that isn't the same thing as an urban-rural divide not being significant (and, as you pointed out yourself, it ignores the roles of smaller cities, suburban and exurban areas). As in, it's quite hard to speak of one single "urban-rural" divide, by which I mean, the fact that the Val d'Aosta and rural villages in Apulia are politically very different places is much easier to pick up on in a multiparty system like Italy has.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

There's also the argument that in urban areas people are generally more dependent on public services. You know; public transport instead of card; shared recreational areas; challenges in the housing market; often much more visible inequality and so on all mean that people are more open to viewing the role of a more visible state more positively. It's not just cultural, as there are also transactional reasons why city dwellers would opt for left wing parties more than people in the country side would.

As for the question at hand - the US is obviously massive compared to any European country, therefore almost mechanically tends towards a broader range of cultural outlooks, even within rural areas, that a two party system like the US has would tend to hide. Even then, I'm not sure it contrasts that much. If there isn't as much of a distinctive gap on some US culture wars issues like religion or Black Lives Matter or LGBT rights its because these aren't pertinent issues in the way they are in the Europe. For example, religion is fundamentally much less culturally relevant as a force in Western Europe than it is in the USA, which obviously means that a cleavage focused on religion is not going to be as stark or emotional.

You only need to look at the Gilets Jaunes in France to see that there can be huge cultural and political difference in between cities and countryside in Europe. I mean, compare Berlin with the village in Saxony that vote 40%+ AFD; Paris with the village in the Haute-Marne where Le Pen won 70% plus of the vote or head from Bern, where 70% of people voted against the Minaret ban to the small alpine village where 85% of the population voted the other way. Those difference are there, they just tend to be applied in Western European countries' own cultural and economic anxieties. Which aren't always the same as American ones.

Well, while I agree with most of your post, your third paragraph feels like you are cherry picking the most extreme examples.
I feel like this gap is generally undeniably smaller or less clear in Western Europe. Or, at least, it is insofar as it applies to party politics. Maybe it just has not polarized totally along certain axes yet. Or maybe never will.

One of the points that I probably should have made clearer is that not all Western European countries are the same, and not all rural areas are the same (which goes for the US too). There are plenty of such examples of rural areas that are extremely conservative relative in other countries, but also plenty of examples which absolutely aren't the case. You can easily find rural areas that are even more progressive or left wing than urban areas in Europe - but that's the case in the USA too.

Part of the story is that the US as a whole is a society that has an immense political and cultural polarisation - and that isn't the case to the same degree in Europe. But that isn't the same thing as an urban-rural divide not being significant (and, as you pointed out yourself, it ignores the roles of smaller cities, suburban and exurban areas). As in, it's quite hard to speak of one single "urban-rural" divide, by which I mean, the fact that the Val d'Aosta and rural villages in Apulia are politically very different places is much easier to pick up on in a multiparty system like Italy has.

I agree. In fact, in all of these countries, the urban-rural gap evidently is not really a "gap" so much as a continuum, where places of medium density or with smaller agglomerations are both unlike Manhattan & friends and unlike rural tiny villages.
And yes, I did not say that this divide is not significant, but that it is not as polarized in Europe.

Your Italy-themed example is pretty poignant except that Valle d'Aosta has the added layer of being inhabited (sort of, not really) by a linguistic minority, which means it has a localized politics with regional parties anyways. Let's use this: rural mountainous Lombardy is not at all like rural flat Apulia, politically and not only.

[Former President tack50]

I mean if you want to look at a place with a weird urban-rural gap Spain is a very good example (even if this seems to have slightly weakened lately it is still very much present)

In Galicia the most left wing areas are the major cities of the region (most notably Vigo, but also A Coruña or even Santiago and Pontevedra). Meanwhile the Galician countryside is very much conservative. (although there is an element of linguistic minorities here but still)

Meanwhile in rural western Andalucia you get the exact opposite scheme, where the urban areas are conservative or moderate while the rurals are very left wing.

This effect is even greater in Portugal in fact, where the rural areas are very conservative in the north, but extremely left wing in the south (to the point where PS+the Communists get something like 65% of the vote)

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

You're correct in suggesting that I have never lived in a rural area. My appreciation for America lies in her diversity. I don't want to live somewhere where I can't visit a taco truck, or go to an Indian market, or eat some amazing hand-pulled noodles. You can call that a bias, I guess, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. Talent flows out of less populated areas into populated areas. Populated areas are more desirable and thus cost more.

My post has less to do with my feelings on rural areas, rather, I seek to explain the dichotomy presented in OP and why it is so stark compared to elsewhere. I can do without the pearl-clutching, thank you very much.

This line of thought takes such an incredibly narrow (not to mention heavily commoditized) view of diversity. Rural areas have diversity of attitudes/cultures/temperaments (contrast: isolated Mormon communities versus rural Minnesota versus people on the Ozark plateau), diversity of landscapes (needs no examples), diversity of industry (ranching, forestry, and agricultural can all be found in Southern Idaho alone), diverse histories (e.g., even the two Carolinas have two pretty different colonial patterns of settlement and institution-building), diversity of cuisines (hot dish versus soul food), and even an obvious racial and ethnic diversity that your monetized examples try to illustrate.

I highlighted your post because it traced out the exact type of condescension of supposedly open-minded urbanites that I described as promoting antagonism in my post right above yours. Your post reads like a sneering Hillbilly Elegy-style pathology of rural people as poor, unambitious, and self-loathing rubes with absolutely no larger perspective on why such places may be "low opportunity" or why "talent flows out of less populated areas". Sorry if pointing out that your attitude provides the (stereotypical) fuel for Trumpist grievances is "pearl clutching".

For all of this talk of the advantage of rural areas being places to avoid other people, the brief time I've spent living and working in rural areas had much more resembling community than the majority of urban places I have lived. People are friendlier to strangers, neighbors know and frequently check in on each other, people leave their doors unlocked, more (although still shockingly few) public institutions and meeting spaces are still active. There is far less entitlement. People have a sense of place and belonging that is often rooted in tradition. The pace of life is slower and more comfortable. Families are stronger and there is much less emphasis on individual "fulfillment". I'll put it like this: for a place that by your telling is probably very rich in social fabric, if you stepped onto a train at the DC Metro station I grew up near, every single passenger would avoid eye contact with you as you looked desperately for the most isolated seat to stare at your phone on.

Obviously they're not areas without problems - rampant poverty, drug addiction, depopulation, less economic and intellectual dynamism, increasing political polarization and crumbling civic institutions like the rest of the country. These are not places I want to live in right now, although I have several rural transplant friends who itch to leave Denver constantly. Some but not all of these things are due to forces that are not only beyond these people's control but at times due to decisions made by people in DC, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or London. People should give these people credit and treat them with dignity, or at the very least not be surprised when this level of rank condescension is not received well.

I would prefer people to not be fake friendly while simultaneously believing that people with no health insurance should die or Covid is fake. If you believe in those values, just f**king be honest about it. Don’t give me a “bless your heart”, at least have the courage to flip me off.

Maybe some people value that type of facade, and I can respect that, but for me, I will never comprehend the mentality of such places.

I suggest you live in a rural area, or at least get to know a person from a rural area, before making such judgements. This post too reads like something from someone whose entire concept of rural life and rural people is formed by mass media written by (and for) people in Los Angeles. I can't imagine wanting to live somewhere were people flip you off (or the milder version I have experienced in every city I've ever lived n - honk car horns for the most meaningless of offenses) Most laughable is the idea that urbanites/suburbanites are somehow more honest than rural people - that is, if you can even get these people to speak to or acknowledge you in the first place.

[SevenEleven]

You're correct in suggesting that I have never lived in a rural area. My appreciation for America lies in her diversity. I don't want to live somewhere where I can't visit a taco truck, or go to an Indian market, or eat some amazing hand-pulled noodles. You can call that a bias, I guess, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. Talent flows out of less populated areas into populated areas. Populated areas are more desirable and thus cost more.

My post has less to do with my feelings on rural areas, rather, I seek to explain the dichotomy presented in OP and why it is so stark compared to elsewhere. I can do without the pearl-clutching, thank you very much.

This line of thought takes such an incredibly narrow (not to mention heavily commoditized) view of diversity. Rural areas have diversity of attitudes/cultures/temperaments (contrast: isolated Mormon communities versus rural Minnesota versus people on the Ozark plateau), diversity of landscapes (needs no examples), diversity of industry (ranching, forestry, and agricultural can all be found in Southern Idaho alone), diverse histories (e.g., even the two Carolinas have two pretty different colonial patterns of settlement and institution-building), diversity of cuisines (hot dish versus soul food), and even an obvious racial and ethnic diversity that your monetized examples try to illustrate.

Uh, alrighty. You realize that diversity among rural areas does not demonstrate diversity within rural areas, right? There's more varied food options within two blocks of my house than you'll find within fifty miles of most of the areas you mention. Not to mention people from literally all over the world bringing unique cultural perspectives.

I highlighted your post because it traced out the exact type of condescension of supposedly open-minded urbanites that I described as promoting antagonism in my post right above yours. Your post reads like a sneering Hillbilly Elegy-style pathology of rural people as poor, unambitious, and self-loathing rubes with absolutely no larger perspective on why such places may be "low opportunity" or why "talent flows out of less populated areas". Sorry if pointing out that your attitude provides the (stereotypical) fuel for Trumpist grievances is "pearl clutching".

I sense a lot more condescension in this response to my post than I see in my post. OP asked a question about why the culltural gap in the US is so much wider than what is seen in other developed nations. Noting the history of American geographic and social mobility and easily observable population trends within our borders, I made an argument centered on self-selection. Strange to me that no one actually wants to engage with the OT and instead talk about how I'm "sneering". I don't think it's wrong to be able to admit that America's rural areas are typically not bastions of opportunity.

For all of this talk of the advantage of rural areas being places to avoid other people, the brief time I've spent living and working in rural areas had much more resembling community than the majority of urban places I have lived. People are friendlier to strangers, neighbors know and frequently check in on each other, people leave their doors unlocked, more (although still shockingly few) public institutions and meeting spaces are still active. There is far less entitlement. People have a sense of place and belonging that is often rooted in tradition. The pace of life is slower and more comfortable. Families are stronger and there is much less emphasis on individual "fulfillment". I'll put it like this: for a place that by your telling is probably very rich in social fabric, if you stepped onto a train at the DC Metro station I grew up near, every single passenger would avoid eye contact with you as you looked desperately for the most isolated seat to stare at your phone on.

I have never lived in a rural area so I can't really speak on how friendly the people there are. The urban areas I've lived in have all been great experiences. I've never had any struggles meeting new acquaintances while out and about. In fact, even in DC I met plenty of awesome people on the Metro trains. I'm sorry that you didn't get to enjoy that. In LA, I'm constantly fascinated meeting people that are very interesting. You might learn about Armenian Christmas celebrations, or a specific style of tamal from a region in Mexico that you never knew about! I love being able to do that.

Obviously they're not areas without problems - rampant poverty, drug addiction, depopulation, less economic and intellectual dynamism, increasing political polarization and crumbling civic institutions like the rest of the country. These are not places I want to live in right now, although I have several rural transplant friends who itch to leave Denver constantly. Some but not all of these things are due to forces that are not only beyond these people's control but at times due to decisions made by people in DC, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or London. People should give these people credit and treat them with dignity, or at the very least not be surprised when this level of rank condescension is not received well.

It sounds like you are engaging in more condescending stereotypes than I ever did in my post. Not all rural areas are drug-infested dumps. That still doesn't make them ideal places to live for most people.

I appreciate Nathan's post because he actually highlighted some of the cool diversity in his area. Being able to see a large variety of trees and different shining stars every evening is pretty cool, imo.

Notice that no one engaged my point about most Mexican immigrants coming more rural areas.  You can dogpile urban liberals all you want but the purpose of my post was to explain the gap noted by OP, not denigrate rural areas or rural people.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I normally like SevenEleven's contributions to the Talk Elections blog a lot but his posts in this thread evidence a pretty stark empathy gap. I can only speak for myself, but I hate living in communities with more than ~30,000 people and it has nothing to do with wanting to avoid people or not caring about having things to do. Living in the Boston area actually exacerbated my sense of loneliness and alienation, for all sorts of reasons.

I would like to hear more about this. So far ive heard a lot of "you're wrong" with no one offering any other viewpoints. My post was primarily looking at the numbers and migration patterns, but assuming you are referring to my "list" of reasons to prefer rural to urban. Why is less than 30k better? I'm genuinely interested in learning.

For one thing, I'm somebody who responds very strongly in deeply emotional ways to my physical environment, meaning that the greater natural beauty of the countryside is a genuine saving grace for me rather than just a case of polishing the turd. Trees are important to me; being able to see the stars at night is important to me. I also find navigating public transit hectic and unsettling in a way that interacts very poorly with my autism (ideologically I obviously support a massive expansion of public transit (leftist, normal), but that's not the same thing as enjoying using it myself). And I'm lucky enough to live in Western Massachusetts where even the small towns still have fairly eclectic local food options and progressive or at least moderate politics, so my experience of rural life isn't going to be nearly as alarming as that of someone from the very beating heart of MAGA Country.

So if I'm given a choice between living in Boston where all the creature comforts I could want are at my fingertips but I'm constantly stressed out from the Green Line or depressed because the night sky is greyish-orange, or living in Franklin County where I might have pretty crummy local Chinese food options but have a view of five or six different hardwood species from my home office window and can still find cool restaurants to go to if I look for them, I'm going to choose small-town life each time.

I guess I was wondering what made you suggest a lack of empathy on my part. To be fair, what you are describing seems to fit the mold of "avoiding people" that I mentioned, which is fine if that's what makes you comfortable. I myself am a huge fan of natural beauty, but for example Los Angeles has Griffith Park, Topanga Park, and some fairly remote beaches out near Malibu. DC has Rock Creek Park, which pairs well with it's lower skyline. So you can enjoy the natural beauty in an urban setting but what you don't get is the solace of vast emptiness. You'll probably see other hikers further out on the trail, or you can look out upon Downtown LA. Am I correct in my understanding that you value the "emptiness"?

An empathy gap isn't a lack of empathy in the sense in which it's become fashionable to accuse people with politics you don't like of having a lack of empathy. It just means a gap in an otherwise understanding person's ability to empathize with a particular situation or attitude. Sorry for the confusion; I didn't mean it to sound as insulting as it probably came across.

"Vast emptiness" is a weird way to describe the countryside I'm familiar with. Here's the current view from the home office window I mentioned:



(The grass isn't usually that yellowish; we've had an extremely dry summer.)

This might be an east/west distinction; even rural parts of Northeastern states are more densely populated than most Western (and some Southern) states. In terms of population density alone (as opposed to land use and culture), when I describe a preference for rural life, it's basically a preference for what would be considered outer-suburban life out west. It's definitely easier to avoid people if I want to than it is in Boston or LA, but it's not really the solace of wild places I'm looking for either.