Posted on 11/03/2004 6:23:56 PM PST by M. Peach
I thought I had all the answers regarding politics until my one of my teen aged sons asked me (and yes, I'm proud to say both of them are conservative) why large cities tend to vote Democrat, and rural areas - or mostly the rest of the country, Republican?
Can I get some opinions out there?
Thank you. I appreciate it.
There might be a mindset that drives people to the "big city" to "make a name for themselves". If someone is motivated by such a prejudice, they're going to be in a somewhat elitist mindset, wanting to differentiate themselves from us "hicks in the boondocks" in philosophy, morality etc.
I was approaching the subject with the intent of exploring the differences in red and blue areas. Some others join in to be obnixious.
Thank you Doughtyone - well thought out and reasoned. I'll pass this on to my son.
Urban residents don't know their neighbors. They are basically "me" people. Unlike rural folks who have strong social interactions usually over long periods of time with several generations of families.
It's a Red/Blue thang, proven again yesterday. And, it's why the flaming liberals would love to do away with it, and can't, because even small, liberal states won't give up that freedom. Brilliant.
Meaningless speculation.
If you want to meet really strange crazy people the most rural precincts are where to go. Outside day-to-day social experiences they are easier become estranged from what most accept as in the range of normal behavior.
Yet they don't see shrinks -- it's a long drive and the shrinks don't market well -- and concentrated market has more of any service provider, pumblers or shinks and folks using thereof.
Oh, brilliant! You realize that one of the largest groups of Freepers is based in California ... the urban areas. I know as I have Freeped with them for years.
Your theory is ignorant and just plain stupid.
One of the side effects of lead poisoning is that it renders people without a sense of humor.
Why?
"Some others join in to be obnoxious."
I hear what you say - It is cocktail hour in most parts - and I'm sure you can tell which ones have knocked back a few. I think some just try to be funny and say stupid things.
They only demean themselves -
Bingo!
The parasites don't have to follow, they just expand the city limits and re-absorb the escaped hosts via annexation.
That is likely one of the most blatant racist comments that I have ever seen posted on FR.com.
I grew up in a city, and I have lived as a minority myself, big time. The problems with urban voters are in my view are not black vs. white.
The issues have to do with Class and affluence.
If I can't get support from the red states on this site, where can I find it?
For most people, voting is hereditary. That is, if they vote at all, they vote as their parents did.
The Democrats, early in their history, deliberately set out too take control of the political machinery of large cities. That has been a pillar of the party's existence since its inception. Martin van Buren built the first Democrat coalition of the South and New York.
Later, the Democrats tightened their grip on Boston and New York by means of using their existing urban machines to co-opt large numbers of Irish immigrants (c.f. Boss Tweed, Tammany Hall) into the party. It's the same in Boston.
In the mid-west, the German, Scandinavian and other immigrants that settled the area departed from countries with traditions of monarchy and aristocracy, and carried that notion of social organization with them to the New World.
In postbellum America, freed slaves travelled to many cities looking for jobs and opportunity. They were a solid Republican constituency, until the Democrats won them over with the civil rights acts of the mid-20th century.
Finally, media consumption is far higher in cities than in rural creas, and television and major urban newspapers are overwhelmingly liberal.
That's easy. Residents of rural areas, recognize bull poo poo by sight, sound or smell. Politicians can't sh*t them.
Very good answer.
Urban areas also seem to provide ample audience to support the narcissist. Since they don't really produce much of value on their own, they need more external economic support from those who will pay for the narcissist's "superiority". i.e. A farmer / miner / lumberjack will likely not be willing to spend hard-earned money on a piece of art, where a city-dweller would be much more likely to.
This might sound funny, but I think it starts with distraction. There are so many other things to do than to go to church, so many other priorities than family, church and community. Without those things, work friends become the primary influence on the person's life, and so their liberalism tends to rub off on the impressionable. There are exceptions (we live in the DC suburbs,) but they tend to be people who tenaciously stick to church, and especially homeschoolers. Most of the rest are liberal.
It is interesting to me to compare. For example, as an adult I have lived in rural Ohio and Cleveland, outside Binghamton, NY, in rural WV and Clarksburg, WV (a small city) and in 2 DC suburbs. In the country, people take time for talking, for family, cooking and crafts. They spend time just talking in a relaxed way, and enjoying each other. In the cities, people tend to go from event to event, only relaxing to some extent, and then usually with entertainment (TV, movies...) It is a hectic, stressful way of life, filled with much motion and perhaps not much meaning, unless the person sticks to church, or creates artificial meaning (like save the whales.)
Not everyone is like that, but many are, and it might explain some of the differences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.