Why the massive rural/urban divide?

[Gustaf]

Well, in part because the parties are currently choosing to define themselves that way. Basically, both parties ideal images of themselves are linked to the geography. Democrats want to be a) trendy, modern, etc, which means urban, and b) the party that stands up for the poor workingman, who is once again an urban figure (so it doesn't include miners and farmers to the extent it used to).

Republicans want to be the party that stands up for good old American stuff, family, farming, religion, etc. And that leads to rural areas.

Also, I think it got something to do with the way the Democratic party is based on party machines that can only be effective in huge concentrations of people, while Republicans need anti-Government indiviudalists who are almost by definition situated on their own and far away from centres of power, i.e. cities.

[Gustaf]

Rural implies something opposed to urban, people working in the city and leading urban lives should not be defined as 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.

[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.

[Gustaf]

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

[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.