Why the massive rural/urban divide?

[A18]

Irrelevent. "Rural" is essentially defined by what it is not not what it is.

It's defined by the country.

No, no it isn't. I've been over this a couple of times already and you just refuse to listen. You're like a spoilt three year old at times.

Actually, you posted definitions that proved me right. You are correct in saying we've been over it several times, which is why it's amusing that you still refuse to listen. You're like a spoilt three year old at times.

No it doesn't. Keep your snobbery to yourself.

Yes, it does. Keep your snobbery to yourself.

No it is not. Just because you happen to think something doesn't mean that everyone else does.
I seriously doubt that someone living in a real rural area would describe commuterland areas as being in anyway "rural".

Everyone around here considers the country rural, as does the dictionary.

I don't have my own definition of rural. I tend to try to use definitions that are actually accurate and that are generally favoured by people who actually know what they're talking about.

A definition can not be 'accurate' or 'inaccurate' except based on how it is used, which is obviously not how you use it. I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand.

[A18]

It somewhat depends on how the area feels...
How do these 20 acres look? Do they all look alike? Post us some description, Philip.

Grassy, hay, large forest area on the side. We don't actually have any farmers right where I live, but you don't have to drive far to see some farms and animals.

[Vasall des Midas]

So basically, you're living in an urban millionaire's ghetto not too far from where the inner city ends and the suburbs begin.

Okay, not really. But a core part of the definition of rural as vs suburban, apart from "not too closely linked in with the city", is that even though it's not actually largely agricultural (since otherwise you wouldn't find many rural areas left in the US), it still looks somewhat as if it might be.

Another question: What are the houses like? How old are they? Are they mostly all the same age?

[Sibboleth]

It's defined by the country.

What exactly is "the country" then?

Actually, you posted definitions that proved me right.

Nope. Certainly didn't do that. You just squirmed around it. Although as I pointed out, a dictionary isn't the be all and end all of this sort of thing.

Oh and in future don't post things along the lines of the playground response "I know you are". Thanks.

Yes, it does

How exactly? It's not *impossible* that such an area might be rural, it's just not very *likely*...

Everyone around here considers the country rural, as does the dictionary.

Again, what do you mean by "the country"?

A definition can not be 'accurate' or 'inaccurate' except based on how it is used, which is obviously not how you use it.

Hmm? I think I'm using the appropriate definition in the appropriate way. You are free to disagree.

I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand.

[A18]

So basically, you're living in an urban millionaire's ghetto not too far from where the inner city ends and the suburbs begin.

Okay, not really. But a core part of the definition of rural as vs suburban, apart from "not too closely linked in with the city", is that even though it's not actually largely agricultural (since otherwise you wouldn't find many rural areas left in the US), it still looks somewhat as if it might be.

Another question: What are the houses like? How old are they? Are they mostly all the same age?

Pretty much all new. Not everyone around here is rich though. The main attraction to the place is the countryside atmosphere, at a location close enough to the city to not feel so isolated.

[Vasall des Midas]

So basically, you're living in an urban millionaire's ghetto not too far from where the inner city ends and the suburbs begin.

Okay, not really. But a core part of the definition of rural as vs suburban, apart from "not too closely linked in with the city", is that even though it's not actually largely agricultural (since otherwise you wouldn't find many rural areas left in the US), it still looks somewhat as if it might be.

Another question: What are the houses like? How old are they? Are they mostly all the same age?

Pretty much all new. Not everyone around here is rich though. The main attraction to the place is the countryside atmosphere, at a location close enough to the city to not feel so isolated.

Uh - anyone who can afford a 20 acre holding in an area already discovered by developers, is rich by my definition.
(And just checking ... did that all-new housing replace any earlier housing? If not, congrats, you're definitely exurban and not rural by any measure except perhaps dumb old population density.)

[A18]

And how do the two differ? It is obviously the countryside, so it's rural.

[Gustaf]

If I can chime in, how big is an acre again? Not used to your measurements, you know...

In my view, rural areas are defined as being apart from the urban centres (as opposed to suburbs, etc who are linked to the urban centre and are pretty much unthinkable without it).

For instance, I live in a suburb. It's about 20 miles from the city of Stockholm. A lot of people in my area work or go to school in the city. A rural area is not as dependent on the city. Of course, there would be tons of grey areas but that's how I view it.

[Vasall des Midas]

20 acres is app.8 hectar. Basically Philip lives in a very large park with some dividing walls.

[MarkDel]

A lot of people are getting this wrong. Where you live does NOT determine how you vote. How you VOTE determines where you live. This is a totally new phenomenon in American culture and it's NOT a positive development for the social cohesion of the nation. And I say that as someone who is very guilty of this behavior himself.

Take where I live in the Atlanta area. The inner city votes Democratic by a wide, wide margin. Part of that is racial, but not entirely as the rich white people in the inner city vote heavily Democratic as well. Now come out to the extended suburbs and the picture is 100% reversed even though the vast majority of the people who live in Forsyth County (where I live) actually work in or much nearer to inner city Atlanta. Most of them are transplanted Northerners like me, and they selected Forsyth because it's the kind of place (socially, politically, etc...) where they want to raise their children.

It's almost exclusively about your FAMILY. When I was single, I lived in NYC, Philly and DC at different times...why? Well, near the bars, social life and less commute. Plus, as a single guy, I had no problem carrying a gun at all times to fend off the vultures who tend to congregate in the inner cities. But with a family, I wanted to move as far away from that crap as possible, both for reasons of security, and the desire to raise solid, productive citizens as my kids rather than the cretinous children I see coming out of inner cities at EVERY socio-economic level these days.

[danwxman]

An exurb is a rural area with a few subdivisions and maybe a new gas station or fast food restaurant.

[MarkDel]

Also, after carefully reading this thread, there is something that is painfully obvious. Some very, very intelligent European posters may have a grasp of  the US political system, but they understand very, very little of the "layout" of the nation. They have a significant misunderstanding of the terms "country" and "suburb" and "exurb" and may even lack a complete understanding of "inner city"

These terms apparently have very different meanings in Europe than they do in the US. I guess that Al has a better sense than most, but even he is missing it a little bit. I guess this is one of those cases where you have to live in a given culture to totally understand it.

[Beet]

A lot of people are getting this wrong. Where you live does NOT determine how you vote. How you VOTE determines where you live. This is a totally new phenomenon in American culture and it's NOT a positive development for the social cohesion of the nation. And I say that as someone who is very guilty of this behavior himself.

Take where I live in the Atlanta area. The inner city votes Democratic by a wide, wide margin. Part of that is racial, but not entirely as the rich white people in the inner city vote heavily Democratic as well. Now come out to the extended suburbs and the picture is 100% reversed even though the vast majority of the people who live in Forsyth County (where I live) actually work in or much nearer to inner city Atlanta. Most of them are transplanted Northerners like me, and they selected Forsyth because it's the kind of place (socially, politically, etc...) where they want to raise their children.

It's almost exclusively about your FAMILY. When I was single, I lived in NYC, Philly and DC at different times...why? Well, near the bars, social life and less commute. Plus, as a single guy, I had no problem carrying a gun at all times to fend off the vultures who tend to congregate in the inner cities. But with a family, I wanted to move as far away from that crap as possible, both for reasons of security, and the desire to raise solid, productive citizens as my kids rather than the cretinous children I see coming out of inner cities at EVERY socio-economic level these days.

Look, I don't see how your argument fits your premise.

As I said a long time ago, families are the future. Actually I am pretty much the opposite of BRTD here, I view anything but a two-parent family living in the suburbs with kids as deviationist. Other arrangements can be tolerated, but only temporarily.

If you are equating families with the GOP then this will soon become a one-party state, because social arrangements that do not reproduce themselves or that do not sustain lasting loyalties can never form the basis for a major party.

Also: This thread has gotten bogged down in semantics, lowest form of debate. That is rather unfortunate.

[Gustaf]

Also, after carefully reading this thread, there is something that is painfully obvious. Some very, very intelligent European posters may have a grasp of  the US political system, but they understand very, very little of the "layout" of the nation. They have a significant misunderstanding of the terms "country" and "suburb" and "exurb" and may even lack a complete understanding of "inner city"

These terms apparently have very different meanings in Europe than they do in the US. I guess that Al has a better sense than most, but even he is missing it a little bit. I guess this is one of those cases where you have to live in a given culture to totally understand it.

That is definitely true...urban areas are much more conservative in Sweden and rural areas are much less populated, for instance. Still, I consider it a major intellectual failure to say that something would be impossible to understand without experienceing it...explain it then. (nice to see you, btw, didn't know you still posted)

Beet, you have a point, but I don't think that's what Mark's saying...there are a lot of things still separating the parties, other than family status. I think I mentioned something in this thread about images, but it might have been another one...anyhow, economy obviously remains a major factor, limousine liberals et al aside. And there is race and religion too.

[Vasall des Midas]

A lot of people are getting this wrong. Where you live does NOT determine how you vote. How you VOTE determines where you live. This is a totally new phenomenon in American culture and it's NOT a positive development for the social cohesion of the nation. And I say that as someone who is very guilty of this behavior himself.

I agree with you, actually. THere's definitely a strong dose of that, and it is (in part) new.

Take where I live in the Atlanta area. The inner city votes Democratic by a wide, wide margin. Part of that is racial, but not entirely as the rich white people in the inner city vote heavily Democratic as well.

Numbers?
I'm doubtful about that one because Fulton Co seems actually is voting less democrat than the Black middle class side of the Atlanta suburbia by now ... which tells me that at least part of North Atlanta (what they call it again? Wheeler?) must be voting its class and race.

[dazzleman]

Here is my theory.

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

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

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

[Gustaf]

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

[Vasall des Midas]

But Dazzle, in Sweden urban areas are more conservative and rural areas more socialist.

Because Sweden's rural areas couldn't survive without subsidies?
The "ah, we'll just make the pie bigger" fallacy Daz describes would obviously work only in massive growth areas ... nothing to do with population density. Which sort of explains why rural East Iowa and West Wisconsin don't vote Rep either.
Other rural areas (in the excluding people like Philip sense) , then, would be voting Republican for different reasons entirely.

[dazzleman]

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

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

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

[bgwah]

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

You're all mixed up, Dazzy.

[dazzleman]

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

You're all mixed up, Dazzy.

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

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

[A18]

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

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

[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.

[dazzleman]

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

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

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

[dazzleman]

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

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

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