Do politicians have an anti-urban bias?

[2952-0-0]

Although around 80% of the US population lives in urban and suburban areas, most politicians compete with each other to show off their connection with "middle America" and "heartland values", and try photo ops like driving tractors of serving food at a fair (even when 20% of the population are in the countryside and even fewer are actually in agriculture). It's relatively rare that we hear an aspiring candidate talk about the need to improve urban infrastructure and stage photo ops while riding the subway (Bloomberg excepted). There also appears to be a misconception that this is a rural nation, when in fact it's anything but. Perhaps the importance of Iowa and South Carolina to presidential candidates encourages them to talk more about rural interests rather than cities (which also contribute a disproportional amount in national revenue in any country). Or perhaps the romantic perception of life on the farm encourages such thought. Does such a bias exist, and what causes it to happen? It's just a thought.

[Smash255]

Not sure if I would say bias, but politicians clearly play more attention the the middle America voters.   I don't think its anti-urban as much as getting the voters than win elections.  For example Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin and to a point Florida. some of the biggest battleground states tend to be heavily "middle-America" type states

[dead0man]

What "rural" issues are you guys talking about that are getting all this nationwide, mainstream press?

[Lief 🗽]

I assume it's just an American cultural thing. America is a nation of frontiers, of expansion, of wilderness, etc. We're all about our purple mountains' majesty and amber waves of grain. Also, I guess there's a psychological connection to a nostalgic "better time", when things were less complicated and life was all about hard work and roughin' it, American-style.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No - b/c most of our politiciansat least on the East Coast and I know in MI come from urban areas.  And I'd think Dems would liek urban areas more, b/c they tend to get more votes there.

[Padfoot]

There is perhaps a pro-rural bias but there definitely isn't an anti-urban bias.  Also, to me the phrase "Middle America" brings to mind middle-class America rather than the geographic middle of the country.  Also, I think the phrases "traditional values" and "community values" are used more often than "heartland values."

I think people see more value in preserving rural America than they do in improving urban infrastructure.  Most of it has to do with our emotional connection to our nation's history as an agricultural country and our prominent position as a leading food producer today.  Also, the people have long associated the country and farming with warm and fuzzy images of wholesome family values whereas the city is perceived as a cold soul-sucking concrete jungle full of sin.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There is no pro-rural bias and there is no anti-urban bias. There is often a bias towards an imagined rural America/England/Etc/Etc/Etc that has little to do with the real thing and there is often a bias against inner-cities.

[Bacon King]

Remember that most of the suburban population doesn't actually want to live in the suburbs; polls show they most desire to live in a rural area but pick the suburbs as a compromise to be near their jobs. Therefore, I'd imagine that 'pro-rural' messages would resonate just as well with most suburbanites.

[opebo]

I'm pretty sure that 'inner-cities' are what BRTD means but urban here, Al.

I would say clearly the bias is pro-suburbia, as ridiculous amounts of public funds are wasted there.

[Ban my account ffs!]

My elected officials have a pro-rural and anti-suburb bias, and they are often in agreement with the urban politicians.

But my state is unique with its northern/western farmers/northern labor/inner-city urban liberal connection and its suburban/exurb/central Minnesota conservative connection.

[NDN]

I'm pretty sure that 'inner-cities' are what BRTD means but urban here, Al.

I would say clearly the bias is pro-suburbia, as ridiculous amounts of public funds are wasted there.

I think BRTD is right. Besides the obvious pandering, there's more rhetoric now about how blue staters and urbanites are somehow less American, "elitist," etc. than Americans. I'm getting tired of politicians constantly kissing the ass of a very slim (heavily subsidized) minority while ignoring if not being hositle to the more productive urban/semi-urban majority.

[J. J.]

I would say that Pennsylvania has a bias against Philadelphia (this from a once PA local politician).  I think that you can look at the county maps of most gubernatorial elections from for the last 60 years to see that.

[Earth]

They typically pander according to votes. I don't think they have a bias, just apathetic.

[memphis]

There is no pro-rural bias and there is no anti-urban bias. There is often a bias towards an imagined rural America/England/Etc/Etc/Etc that has little to do with the real thing and there is often a bias against inner-cities.

^^^^^^

It's definately an idealized Andy Griffith notion of rural America that politicians like to suggest. It's cute and romantic. It's also a hoax.

[angus]

Although around 80% of the US population lives in urban and suburban areas, most politicians compete with each other to show off their connection with "middle America" and "heartland values", and try photo ops like driving tractors of serving food at a fair (even when 20% of the population are in the countryside and even fewer are actually in agriculture). It's relatively rare that we hear an aspiring candidate talk about the need to improve urban infrastructure and stage photo ops while riding the subway (Bloomberg excepted). There also appears to be a misconception that this is a rural nation, when in fact it's anything but. Perhaps the importance of Iowa and South Carolina to presidential candidates encourages them to talk more about rural interests rather than cities (which also contribute a disproportional amount in national revenue in any country). Or perhaps the romantic perception of life on the farm encourages such thought. Does such a bias exist, and what causes it to happen? It's just a thought.

No, they do not have an anti-urban bias.

"Middle America" and "heartland values" discriminate on the basis of region, not on local population density.  It is a reference to flyover country residents (of whom there are about two hundred million), as opposed to Bos-Wash corridor and SF/LA population corridors on the edges of the country, which transmit a disproportionately large amount of information, at least via one major news medium.

True, the system is skewed toward the pastoral regions, to some extent, over the heavily populated centers.  E.g., Wyoming and Vermont get 3 votes each, out of 538 for president, wheras states like California and Texas, on the other hand, get 55 and 34 votes, respectively.  You do the math.

But the references you make are largely acquiesces to Midwestern, Southern, and intermontaine Western voters, who, combined, outnumber the sum of Californians and atlantic coast voters voters, even though they don't have sufficient technological infrastructure to maintain cultural influence projections in the way that the older, more established, coastal markets do.  It's simply a numbers game.  There's certainly no organized anti-urban bias among politicians.  The only bias among politicians is the bias toward piecing together a winning coalition, whatever that takes.

[jokerman]

There is no pro-rural bias and there is no anti-urban bias. There is often a bias towards an imagined rural America/England/Etc/Etc/Etc that has little to do with the real thing and there is often a bias against inner-cities.

Agreed.  It's as much about appealing to nostalgia among suburbanites as it is about appealing to actual rural voters.