Talk Elections

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?

People are self-selecting where they live like never before. Trendy Democrats are moving into urban areas, while Republicans are still fleeing.

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.

Demographics mean that *both* parties are essentially urban now (if we include suburbs, exurbs and commuter villages etc. as "urban" which, if we're doing a strict line between urban and rural, we should). Essentially the Democratic Party is the party of the inner core of a "city" while the GOP dominates the outer limits. The idea that the Democratic party is the party of latte sipping yuppies while the GOP is the party of slack-jawed yokels and rednecks just isn't true, no matter how much the media and many partisans from either side seem to wish that it were.
Rural areas have been left by the wayside and abandoned by both parties save for a few token gestures; significantly the GOP now does badly in some rural areas where it was once the master (the Upper Mississippi is the obvious example, but there are others) and we all now this is the case with the national Democrats...
Seeing as the issues that the two serious candidates made a fuss over last election were yon social/wedge issues, then it is to be expected that most rural areas voted for the more conservative of the two candidates. Had the issues been unemployment, economic development or healthcare, you'd expect the reverse of that to be the case. That Kerry got so solidly hammered in most Democratic rural areas is entirely his own fault and not part of some great national "trend" towards urban/rural polarisation; many rural Democrats did well in Congressional races and *especially* in the State Legislative elections (look at Montana).

To finish, some rather sobering maps:

()()()

It's not a rural vs. urban divide so much as an exurban/suburban vs. metropolitan divide. Looking at maps tend to exaggerate the importance of rural areas, where less than 20% of the population lives. The GOP is getting its margins from suburban areas, while Democrats are getting their margins from the cities.

Another divide that is somewhat related to this one is the Sun-Belt/non-Sun Belt divide. Republicans do very well in the SunBelt because Reps since Reagan (although not Bush Sr.) have pushed the SunBelt image hard, doing things like speaking in a heavily exaggerated Southern accent or dressing up as a cowboy. None of the other Bushes speaks like W. Did he pick the accent up at Yale?

Yes, he did. A Texas accent is much easier to pronounce when drunk than a Northeastern one.

Same goes for a Frankfurt accent vis-a-vis standard German, by the way.

Partially right.  You really have to put the older suburbs who (with a few 9/11 related exceptions which are now over with plunging Bush poll #'s in  some of these areas) in with the cities because they have really trended to the Democrats.  Generally its the cities & older heavily populated suburban areass that are Dem vs the newer, lesser populated, but faster growing suburbs, exurban & rural areas.  For example their are massive differences between Nassau County NY & Cobb County Georgia.  So you can't link all suburbs together as being a GOP stronghold as their are some (which are mainly older highly populated suburbs in the mid-atlantic, northeast & bay area, with some spots in the Denver area) that are mostly Dem and those that aren't tend to be  trending Dem

Depends where you are, although this is true overall.  What you describe is more of a northeastern phenomenon.  In some states (Washington included), cities are generally more Democratic than suburbs, but suburbs are generally about state average, while exurbs are more Republican than state average but oftentimes still Democratic.

Interesting... though I think what I described more than just a northeastern phenomenon, with California being the most obvious and extreme example. Though, what you describe is interesting. I would like to see a map of King and Pierce counties broken up into township-like results, along with population densities. Even if these suburban areas are marginally Democratic, I'd still argue the Republican voters inside these areas are significantly more numerous (and thus important to the GOP) than rural Republican voters.

California is very true.  I guess it's not just northeastern - good point.

Affluent Seattle suburbs like Bellevue and Redmond generally vote about 60% Democrat.  Suburban Seattle is about 70%.  The outer suburbs are around 50-60% Democrat; Seattle exurbs are narrowly Democratic.

Pierce County is mainly Tacoma (which is about 60%), Tacoma suburbs (narrowly Democratic), and Tacoma exurbs (Republican).  The exurbs are more populous relative to the suburbs than normal, and closer in.  There aren't really any Seattle exburbs in Pierce, but there are in Snohomish (they are around 55% Democrat).

I'm afraid we don't have townships, but here's a precinct map:

()

A lot of the red in the southeast is marginal Bush victories; the legislative district down there actually voted Kerry.

I haven't really looked at any other area in detail, but I always had the impression that suburbs leaned Democratic until I saw exit poll numbers that disagreed with that in virtually every case.

What percentage of the country lives in exurbs, suburbs, and cities, however defined?

No idea about exurbs/inner suburbs split but I think rural - suburban - urban is roughly 20-55-25 or 17-58-25.

Some of that "rural" % will be commuter towns and stuff. Almost always included in "rural" and never really should be...

Ah, here's teh official Census 2000 data.

Urban/rural and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan population
 
URBAN AND RURAL
 
Urban
 222,360,539
 79.0
 
of which: - In urbanized area
 192,323,824
 68.3
 
(of which: In central place
 109,705,763
 39.0
 
Not in central place
 82,618,061
 29.4)
 
- In urban cluster
 30,036,715
 10.7
 
(of which: In central place
 22,844,647
 8.1
 
Not in central place
 7,192,068
 2.6)
 
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
 
INSIDE AND OUTSIDE METROPOLITAN AREA
 
In metropolitan area
 225,981,679
 80.3
 
of which: - In central city
 85,401,127
 30.3
 
- Not in central city
 140,580,552
 50.0
 
(of which: - Urban
 114,885,009
 40.8
 
[of which: In urbanized area
 105,628,220
 37.5
 
In urban cluster
 9,256,789
 3.3]
 
Rural
 25,695,543
 9.1)
 
Not in metropolitan area
 55,440,227
 19.7
 
of which: - Urban
 22,695,347
 8.1
 
(of which: - In urbanized area
 2,708,887
 1.0
 
- In urban cluster
 19,986,460
 7.1)
 
- Rural
 32,744,880
 11.6

So what are the numbers?

It appers to be 39-50-21

Officially. But that includes a number of small towns and a number of incorporated areas of suburban character as urban.

Do exurbs count as suburbs or rural areas?

I suppose most of them count as suburbs, some (unincorporated ones, that the Census hasn't gotten around to count as Census Designated Places yet) count as rural, and many that once were independent smaller cities/towns that have been drawn into the commuter ring are probably counted as urban...
Notice that 40% of the "rural" population is within metro areas, though.

Yeah, that includes me.

I can't picture an exurb. Any photos online?

If people in your "rural" community in Loudoun County are mostly commuters, you should probably just look out of the window.

So then what's the difference between a rural community within a metropolitan area and an exurb?

The one is a marketing term that Al rails against, the other is an ugly neoword.

Marketing term? What?

Calling residences like that "rural".

This area is 'rural' by everyday usage of that term.

Definitely not a 'suburb' in every day usage. Twenty acres of land a mule territory... Got a better term?

Commuterland. Or any of the numerous variations upon that general theme.

wtf??

I said a better term.

What's your objection to identifying these rural areas as rural?

I took "better" to mean "accurate".


The fact that they are not rural. They are outposts of the cities in areas that were once rural, they are places inhabited by people who live urban lifestyles, work in indisputably urban areas and have white collar jobs. Even the houses are usually distinctly urban.
The only "rural" thing about these areas is the tendency for fair sized spaces inbetween each cluster.

The perfect example of an exurb: Rogers, Minnesota

Rural means out in the country. Not poor.

That might refer to areas that aren't listed as a citw. town or CDP.  For example Bush with his home address as his ranch.  Its always called Crawford, but the ranch is actually several miles from Crawford

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.

That or someone at the Census department has a good sense of humour.

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

There are a lot of unincorporated places in the US. Especially in the west.

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.

No it doesn't. Only property developers think that.


Don't think I actually mentioned poverty so...

Property developers and the dictionary.

::)

An ordinary dictionary isn't a great place to look for complex geographical terms, but if you insist, here are some dictionary definitions of the word "rural":

"Of the country, country people or life, or agriculture"

"Of the country, a country-dweller"

And a neat little description of "country" from the second dictionary; "rural districts as distinct from town".

So out in the country, as I said.

No... that's not what it says at all... and at the same time it depends what "the country" is determined as being.

Sounds like out in the country to me.

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

It implies that it is not urban, which the country is not.

Not so. If it did then suburban areas would be classed as rural; they aren't.
Fundamentally things like lifestyle, employment, place of work and, in many cases, building designs are the best ways to find out if an area is urban, rural, suburban, etc, etc than any alternatives that I can see.

The fact that something implies the lack of something else, does not mean the lack of that latter something defines the former.

A rural area is simply out in the country, and the term obviously includes 20 acre lots beyond a well-developed area, regardless of where the residents work.

Now, that's the normal definition. You're free to have your own, but it's pretty much worthless, since no one uses it.

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


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.


No it doesn't. 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".


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.

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

It's defined by the country.


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.


Yes, it does. Keep your snobbery to yourself.


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


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.

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.

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

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?

What exactly is "the country" then?


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.


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


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


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


::)

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.)

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

^ 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.

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


Very true


Even truer


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...

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.

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.


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.

The wealthy in New York or elsewhere also lack 'skills' - they don't need them.

Well, I'll say this much -- you sure do.

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

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.

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. 

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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....