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?
Rural folks either do live closer to the land or still have a perspective and mentality that comes from living close to the land.
Another way of saying that is--rural people are more likely to be more personally responsible for their choices, actions and associated consequences.
Even research has demonstrated conclusively that when responsibility is diffused, many people become irresponsible. I believe that dependency is also maximized amidst masses of people.
Certainly the DIMRATS are gods of the irresponsible and the dependent.
. . . and those traits are major seduction tools of satan. And satan spawn like Shrillery and SKerry are gifted at using such in the best demonized Machiavellian form.
High concentrations of minorities, colleges with mush headed students, the blatantly liberal teachers, and then there are the unions.
The 19th century brought the shift from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy. In this shift, people massed in cities that provided easy access to labor, skills, resources and markets that drove the industrial economy. The influx of people to cities in search of jobs required the creation of large quantities of new housing. The vast majority of this housing was built at the turn of the last century and used lead-based paint. Quite simply, many children growing up in cities grew up eating lead-based paint when they were teething. Additionally, the industries in the urban centers produced toxic waste and pollution. The combination of lead-based paint, toxic waste and pollution lead to a vast proportion of urban populations being brain damaged.
The fresh air clears the mind and purifies the soul....a COUNTRY KID!!!!!
In the city, there are so many people it's easier to hide. Self-reliance and honesty are not required for survival when theft provides a viable alternative. Temptations abound. The very values espoused by the agrarian posit a barrier to such fleshly pleasures. Many of the consequences lead to despair.
God's creation mandate to man was this: be fruitful and multiply, and rule and subdue the earth. Farmers are more in obedience to this command. Moreover, many of the problems that lead to false assumptions of overpopulation (and therefore create false demands for birth control and abortion). Such would not be the case at urban levels in an agrarian society.
One factor is narcissism.
It's hard to be a narcissist in a rural area. Sure, there are some, but it's difficult to maintain. The backbone of the economy in rural areas tends to be the land, in one way or another. It may be farming, forestry, mining, or tourism, but the land is generally the commodity that sustains people.
If one has a belief in one's own superiority, it's difficult to work on the land. The land is humbling. A farmer can't say "with my genius, I can insure that this land will have the greatest yield it's ever had!" In general, a farmer has to use time-tested techniques to the best of his ability and hope for the best.
Someone running a resort by a natural wonder can't wake up and say "I'd like to do a deconstructionist theme this week" and hope to attract tourists. The resort owner knows that people are coming primaily to see the natural wonder, and all he can do is cater to their needs as best as possible.
Urban environments have room for narcissism. Perhaps someone wakes up with a belief that their personal vision in art or religion or policy is the best for the world. Because of the increased contact with people, the narcissist can sustain himself by convincing a small percentage of people he meets to buy into his vision.
Now, what does this have to do with politics? Conservativism is repugnant to narcissists. The conservative philosophy does not require an elite group. The emphasis is on the limitations to what humans can do. Experts can't decide prices as well as the marketplace, for example.
Likewise, liberalism attracts narcissism. Liberals believe people can change the world and that "experts" can do things that people can't do on their own.
Thus, narcissistic people tend to seek the cities and those with some humility will tend to seek the country. Millions of people living in the cities once lived in the country, and vice versa.
it's about ownership. many urban types rent,lease, or if they own, do so on a short term basis and are very transient.Ever hear of the "broken window" theory? Look it up some time. If you have a stake in the game( you own your home and property) , you care about it and the way it looks. How many hi-rise, low-rent apartments look well kept and clean? If the local politician can get the new arrivals
poor and in the city,believing they are destined to be dependent and needy on said pol, it's easier to keep a thumb on them.
Give them a vehicle and a road and they're out of there.
Race has less to do with it than how they you're raised.
My daughter asked me about it too. I told her about the lab rat experiments we did in college. When too many of them were confined in a too small of a space, they got crazy and exhibited anti-social behaviors. I am serious. I believe this explains some of the problems with large cities.
Ping to 105. If I'm not mistaken, you (like many of my closest friends) farm for a living. Your insight would be valuable...
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.
I think your response is ignorant and unworthy the ether it travels on... Take your racism elsewhere...
Because everyone knows one another in rural areas. The 'rats can't cheat there.
Somewhat moderate, not a surrogate voter for the Democrat party machine.
Most of the big 'Rat cities are coastal. These urban areas have a mix of factors that tend to attract (over a long time) a lot of the people cranked out in the interior that, for one reason or another, can't subsist on real, asset producing work.
Over the ages these people collect around institutions like Universities and "Think Tanks" like the rime of scum around the water line of a seldom cleaned toilet. There they are fed off of government and rich prior attendees and patrons handouts. They have a lot of time and mind altering substance access which enables them to think up grandiose, utopian schemes and ideas which will "make life better for the rest of us" or "make us more equal" or "save the earth from our destructiveness" while they drift net in hoardes of youth (frequently our own) to convert to their way of thinking.
If you look at the county map of the countries electoral results you can get a handle on it by considering the country as a host organism and all of the blue areas are a virulent parasitic infestation or a particularly nasty fungal infection. The biggest question is whether it's gotten rid of by eradication (revolution, which hurts the host organism) or, like common house ants, by securing the food source (money in the form of entitlements, grants, etc...) against them and allowing them to drop off or migrate to a new host organism.
I think that this is very dependent on ones' definition of "urban area". Do you mean the deep inner city, the city and surrounding suburbs, large cities like New York, or medium-sized cities like Cleveland or Nashville? There are some enormous differences in the demographics that occur with these different characteristics.
It's the Rat effect. It has been shown that overcrowding of Rats in captivity causes insanity.
People who live in the rural communities are much more self-reliant. They understand the gun ethic and view themselves as independent.
People who live in the large metropolitain areas are much more likely to see themselves as part of the global community. "Can't we all just get along?" These people view guns as anti-social.
IMO, single moms with kids are much more likely to live in large metropolitain areas. Minorities in inner cities learn to survive on government programs. Once you've had regular government checks coming for a few years, the idea that safety net wouldn't be there for you really bothers people.
The liberal politicians have demagogued government handouts for generations. Minority leaders have convinced their constituents that the government must help them.
Government workers live in large metropolitain areas. Union workers live in large metropolitain areas. University professors generally live in large metropolitain areas.
The dynamics of inner city life, the large collective mentality that overwhelms people in the cities, is very pervasive. Living in the city, one is much more likley to become involved with the psychoanalysis community at some point in time.
The liberal influences in the settings I've mention above, are nearly unavoidable. Women who see themselves a nuturing are much more easily swayed by other entities that feign a nurturing component. Bill Clinton really cared. He wanted women to be able to choose. Big nanny government is there for you. Women buy into this. That's why women voted for Clinton around 65%. I realize that this wasn't supposed to be about women, but women who remain in the rural setting generally get married, start a family and fend for themselves. They can bounce their ideas off their husbands. Single women in the city feel vulnerable. Whether they realize it or not, big government many times becomes their husband by proxy, it providing income, health services and other things a good husband should help provide.
Well, this is the way I see it.
Take care.
Urban dwellers tend to rent rather than own their home, and rely on, or look for, government services. The Democrat Party is in the business of making people dependent on government services, and offers the help of the Party to help secure government services, in exchange for political support
And in that expected good old reliable order, big in that, is the establishment press, the major media.
In the cities and dense areas people are exceedingly unwilling to deny that those they have long trusted, are comfortable with as infalliable reporters of what needs be reported are in all fact not so, but instead are unreliable, cravenly schemeing and mind stealing bastards.
When people voted for Kerry against Bush it was because they were unwilling to and unable to deny that old comfort. The old comfort has insisted and insisted and insisted that Bush was the sum of all evils.
To question that is to question all the expected and normal day-to-day infrastructure of life.
That is unbearably hard for most people.
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.