Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

MrSmith

Why are cities more liberal?

Recommended Posts

It has been 44 years since Minneapolis had a Republican Mayor and I can't remeber any Republican city council members. In fact, I don't know if the Republicans even run any candidates.

Makes me wonder-- have the Republicans given up in the cities? -- or is it that they simply have no solutions for urban problems and therefore can't win an election?

This is not a Jab --but an honest question. Why, in general, do Republicans fair so poorly in Urban areas?

Even among upper class whites --those in Urban areas are more liberal?

What's going on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I have no credible knowledge of this, it's just my opinion.

I think people move to a city when they want to do whatever they want, and have everything they could need at their fingertips. Cities also tend to have more colleges and universities, thus bringing culture and a carefree attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been 44 years since Minneapolis had a Republican Mayor and I can't remeber any Republican city council members. In fact, I don't know if the Republicans even run any candidates.

Makes me wonder-- have the Republicans given up in the cities? -- or is it that they simply have no solutions for urban problems and therefore can't win an election?

This is not a Jab --but an honest question.  Why, in general, do Republicans fair so poorly in Urban areas?

Even among upper class whites --those in Urban areas are more liberal?

What's going on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really ? No Republican city council members ? Even NYC has several Republicans on the city council.

To one of your questions, yes, I believe it's true that Republicans have given up on the large cities, at least to some extent. And in any case, the 2004 election served to underscore the increasing political irrelevance of the large cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the mayor of NYC Republican? (At least the ex-mayor was)

You're correct though, cities tend to be more liberal. It's a combination of economics and social issues. These days, a lot of city dwellers tend to be people who didn't have enough money to flee to the burbs. These poorer people tend to trend Democrat, but that doesn't necessarily equate with liberalism on their parts.

The people that choose to remain in the city do so because they embrace diversity and want to experience it on a day to day basis. These are the liberals. The more exposure one has to a certain element of society, the greater chance that they'll develop a sympathy to their cause. People in San Francisco aren't genetically gay-friendly... They're gay-friendly because they deal with gay people on a day to day basis and understand more about them. People who are willing to sacrifice personal space, personal mobility, and forego suburban selfish indulgences are the people who choose to live in the cities. And these traits are far more common in liberals than conservatives.

Conservatives tend to want to live in a place where everyone is just like them. Less tension, less people to "corrupt" their children, and a perceived lack in crime (due to lack of diversity) are reasons why conservatives tend to flock to suburbs, not to mention an overindulgence lifestyle. The burbs are comfortable, because they're homogenous. It's all about living behind a facade.

City dwellers are more comfortable being around that which isn't "everyday" to them. Having so many options at hand is what makes living in a city great. Liberals are more willing to embrace this type of atmosphere, and thats why they make up such a large proportion of our cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in any case, the 2004 election served to underscore the increasing political irrelevance of the large cities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree. New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsyvania. These are all very important states that went blue because of the pull of the cities.

Ohio, Florida: These states are close contests because of the cities. Without South Florida, Florida would be an easy red state. Without Cleveland (and to an extent Columbus), Ohio would be a dark red state.

The cities are still extremely relevant in national elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the mayor of NYC Republican?  (At least the ex-mayor was)

You're correct though, cities tend to be more liberal.  It's a combination of economics and social issues.  These days, a lot of city dwellers tend to be people who didn't have enough money to flee to the burbs.  These poorer people tend to trend Democrat, but that doesn't necessarily equate with liberalism on their parts.

The people that choose to remain in the city do so because they embrace diversity and want to experience it on a day to day basis.  These are the liberals.  The more exposure one has to a certain element of society, the greater chance that they'll develop a sympathy to their cause.  People in San Francisco aren't genetically gay-friendly...  They're gay-friendly because they deal with gay people on a day to day basis and understand more about them.  People who are willing to sacrifice personal space, personal mobility, and forego suburban selfish indulgences are the people who choose to live in the cities.  And these traits are far more common in liberals than conservatives.

Conservatives tend to want to live in a place where everyone is just like them.  Less tension, less people to "corrupt" their children, and a perceived lack in crime (due to lack of diversity) are reasons why conservatives tend to flock to suburbs, not to mention an overindulgence lifestyle.  The burbs are comfortable, because they're homogenous.  It's all about living behind a facade.

City dwellers are more comfortable being around that which isn't "everyday" to them.  Having so many options at hand is what makes living in a city great.  Liberals are more willing to embrace this type of atmosphere, and thats why they make up such a large proportion of our cities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On my typical suburban street live: whites, blacks, conservatives, liberals, well-to-do and just-getting-by, Americans, Puerto Ricans, Congolese, Indians, Chinese, Cubans, Vietnamese, Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists.

And that's just the people I know of on my street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.  New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsyvania.  These are all very important states that went blue because of the pull of the cities.

Ohio, Florida:  These states are close contests because of the cities.  Without South Florida, Florida would be an easy red state.  Without Cleveland (and to an extent Columbus), Ohio would be a dark red state.

The cities are still extremely relevant in national elections.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*increasing irrelevance"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are cities more liberal?

Generally because they are inhabited by better educated people and the population is more diverse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps to the first, if by 'better educated' you mean higher levels of formal education.. Depends on what you mean by the second. Arguably, cities have their own culture of conformity.

And I daresay my suburban neighborhood is more ethnically diverse than is downtown Orlando.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my typical suburban street live: whites, blacks, conservatives, liberals, well-to-do and just-getting-by, Americans, Puerto Ricans, Congolese, Indians, Chinese, Cubans, Vietnamese, Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists.

And that's just the people I know of on my street.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course there's exceptions, and I try to not make sweeping generalities. My suburban street is quite diverse as well (and majority Democrat). But in newer, more exurban locations, you'll find the diversity doesn't come close to the average for the region. Even in my suburban Orlando neighborhood, the exodus of life-long white residents is really increasing now that the area is becoming more diverse. People are packing up and moving to Avalon Park, or new subdivisions in Oviedo/Chuluota, or Winter Springs, etc...

In a state as diverse as Florida (where its hard to find an all-white neighborhood), the homogenaity increasingly lies in income level. It's very difficult to find a neighborhood in Orlando (outside of downtown) where people with drastically mixed incomes live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there's exceptions, and I try to not make sweeping generalities.  My suburban street is quite diverse as well (and majority Democrat).  But in newer, more exurban locations, you'll find the diversity doesn't come close to the average for the region.  Even in my suburban Orlando neighborhood, the exodus of life-long white residents is really increasing now that the area is becoming more diverse.  People are packing up and moving to Avalon Park, or new subdivisions in Oviedo/Chuluota, or Winter Springs, etc...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Topher, say what you want about the suburbs, I think it's just silly to caricature suburbanites as the people who desire to be around people just like themselves, whereas urbanites are the opposite.

And I don't think my neighborhood is exceptional. I've canvassed all over Orange County and have witnessed the sort of diversity I referenced everywhere, even in the gated-communities (those I can get into).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topher, say what you want about the suburbs, I think it's just silly to caricature suburbanites as the people who desire to be around people just like themselves, whereas urbanites are the opposite.

And I don't think my neighborhood is exceptional. I've canvassed all over Orange County and have witnessed the sort of diversity I referenced everywhere, even in the gated-communities (those I can get into).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree in that I think America is quickly becoming that caricature... I live in a gated community where we have 1 Asian and 2 black families. Everyone else is white and all the homes are rather pricey. All the other gated neighborhoods in my area are the same and while my school is diverse, the majority of the students who are not white live in an area called Bethel Manor, right by Hampton (a city). I think it's fitting in that way. While we may be just "ill-informed teenagers", I've found that most of the Bush supporters live in the communities such as my own and the Kerry supporters live in Bethel Manor. It may just be the case in my area, but it seems the same with all the other area schools as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the mayor of NYC Republican?  (At least the ex-mayor was)

City dwellers are more comfortable being around that which isn't "everyday" to them.  Having so many options at hand is what makes living in a city great.  Liberals are more willing to embrace this type of atmosphere, and thats why they make up such a large proportion of our cities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. Giuliani was and Bloomberg is.

Why are cities more liberal?

Generally because they are inhabited by better educated people and the population is more diverse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree. There are more people that have a high eductation, which may play a part of it, but I don't think they are inherently "smarter." Infact, you could probably argue that you run into more stupid people in big cities.

Anyway, I believe it is becuase city dwellers are used to, and accept, a larger degree of control and government, so they vote in a similar manner. This can be in the form of anything from zoning to taxes. More taxes are generally needed to support their way of life from a civic point of view- (eg: transit system). Liberals are usually supportive of these types of things.

Suburban areas tend to want less government, less taxes, and less control on their lifestyle, which conservatives are usually better proponents of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree in that I think America is quickly becoming that caricature...  I live in a gated community where we have 1 Asian and 2 black families.  Everyone else is white and all the homes are rather pricey.  All the other gated neighborhoods in my area are the same and while my school is diverse, the majority of the students who are not white live in an area called Bethel Manor, right by Hampton (a city).  I think it's fitting in that way.  While we may be just "ill-informed teenagers", I've found that most of the Bush supporters live in the communities such as my own and the Kerry supporters live in Bethel Manor.  It may just be the case in my area, but it seems the same with all the other area schools as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, rather than pit anecdote agaisnt anecdote, allow me to suggest that urbanites are no more immune to the charge of conformity than are suburbanites.

And I'm not really even arguing that conformity is a negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...The people that choose to remain in the city do so because they embrace diversity and want to experience it on a day to day basis.  These are the liberals.  The more exposure one has to a certain element of society, the greater chance that they'll develop a sympathy to their cause.  People in San Francisco aren't genetically gay-friendly...  They're gay-friendly because they deal with gay people on a day to day basis and understand more about them.  People who are willing to sacrifice personal space, personal mobility, and forego suburban selfish indulgences are the people who choose to live in the cities.  And these traits are far more common in liberals than conservatives.

Conservatives tend to want to live in a place where everyone is just like them.  Less tension, less people to "corrupt" their children, and a perceived lack in crime (due to lack of diversity) are reasons why conservatives tend to flock to suburbs, not to mention an overindulgence lifestyle.  The burbs are comfortable, because they're homogenous.  It's all about living behind a facade.

City dwellers are more comfortable being around that which isn't "everyday" to them.  Having so many options at hand is what makes living in a city great.  Liberals are more willing to embrace this type of atmosphere, and thats why they make up such a large proportion of our cities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This sentiment can be refuted by what Dale just said.

Well, rather than pit anecdote agaisnt anecdote, allow me to suggest that urbanites are no more immune to the charge of conformity than are suburbanites.

And I'm not really even arguing that conformity is a negative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its all about choice and options. Inner-city dwellers tend to be more liberal (or Democrat) because they prefer more government controlling things, but they could be seen as wanting a different "facade" since they despise conservative "surburban" living. Liberals usually depend on government more, and living in the city allows them to experience this. Conservatives tend to go surburban because they prefer less government in their lives; however, they want the conveniences and amenities of the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone,

We're being silly in this discussion, narrow minded, if not ignorant to politics. I am Fully aware that Democrats tend towards the more liberal state of mind, whereas republicans are seen as staunchly conservative. I however feel the need to remind everyone, that there ARE liberal republicans, and conservative Democrats. Cities tend to be more Liberal, Metro areas as a whole, however look at New England, do you honestly think, that Guliani or Bloomberg would have EVER been elected mayor of NYC if they ran on the conservative platform? Not a chance New York is Definately in the top five liberal cities in the country. Gulliani, is pro gay, pro Roe v. Wade, pro progressive-diversity. The only thing conservative about him, is his stance on smaller government, lower taxes, this is the "libertarian platform" and we commonly refer to these people as "RINO's" ( republican in name only). The size of a city Doesnt always predict whether it be liberal or conservative. Take Pheonix, Big city, Big Metro, It tends to be more moderate, than out right liberal, and voted for Bush, in both Elections.

But the whole notion of Suburbs being conservative, while core-cities are liberal, is absurd too. The Red-Blue divide, rarely stops, where one city line stops and another begins, but encompasses whole regions. Look at Detroit, not only is the city liberal, but the surrounding counties, that are not only affluent, but heavily populated, also tend to vote, liberals in. It is suburban Detroit that controls politics in Michigan, and not the city itself.

All in all I'd say the values card, tends to play a bigger role in politics. While there is always the debate, big gov't vs. lower taxes. The core issue is diversity. People in large urban areas tend to be progressive, and accepting, of cultural issues, such as the Gay rights debate, and abortion. Whereas people who live in the country or smaller communities tend to be more religion oriented, and much narrower in their definition of morality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone, 

We're being silly in this discussion, narrow minded, if not ignorant to politics.  I am Fully aware that Democrats tend towards the more liberal state of mind, whereas republicans are seen as staunchly conservative.  I however feel the need to remind everyone, that  there ARE liberal republicans, and conservative Democrats.  Cities tend to be more Liberal,  Metro areas as a whole,  however look at New England, do you honestly think,  that Guliani or Bloomberg would have EVER been elected mayor of NYC if they ran on the conservative platform?  Not a chance New York is Definately in the top five liberal cities in the country.  Gulliani, is pro gay,  pro Roe v. Wade, pro progressive-diversity.  The only thing conservative about him, is his stance on smaller government, lower taxes,  this is the "libertarian platform" and we commonly refer to these people as "RINO's"  ( republican in name only).  The size of a city Doesnt always predict whether it be liberal or conservative.  Take Pheonix,  Big city, Big Metro,  It tends to be more moderate, than out right liberal, and voted for Bush, in both Elections.

But the whole notion of Suburbs being conservative, while core-cities are liberal, is absurd too.  The Red-Blue divide, rarely stops, where one city line stops and another begins, but encompasses whole regions.  Look at Detroit,  not only is the city liberal, but the surrounding counties, that are not only affluent, but heavily populated, also tend to vote, liberals in.  It is suburban Detroit that controls politics in Michigan, and not the city itself. 

All in all I'd say the values card, tends to play a bigger role in politics.  While there is always the debate, big gov't vs. lower taxes.  The core issue is diversity.  People in large urban areas tend to be progressive, and accepting, of cultural issues, such as the Gay rights debate, and abortion.  Whereas people who live in the country or smaller communities tend to be more religion oriented, and much narrower in their definition of morality

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In order to allay my suspicion about where you stand politically, do you believe that it is better to be 'progressive' and 'accepting of cultural issues ...', than to be 'religion oriented' and 'narrower' in one's definition of morality ?

Let's see if you're as above the fray as you appear to project that you are. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am progressive, and mutually tend to be more liberal

I do however like to hear both sides of an arguement, I dislike people

who do not understand that "different strokes make different folks" , and that

not everyone will see things their way.

I was trying to be as objective as possible in choosing my words

are your impressions correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very progressive, and mutually liberal

I was trying to be as objective as possible in choosing my words

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gotcha !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am progressive, and mutually tend to be more liberal

I do however like to hear both sides of an arguement, I dislike people

who do not understand that "different strokes make different folks" , and that

not everyone will see things their way.

I was trying to be as objective as possible in choosing my words

are your impressions correct?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I had you pegged for what I would call a 'leftist', just based on the terminology you used. And while I don't ascribe much traction to terms like 'progressive' and 'diversity' and 'tolerance', by the same token, I acknowledge that we have little choice but to live peacebly together.

And I would argue that suburbanites have little to learn from their urban counterparts in that regard. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am progressive, and mutually tend to be more liberal

I do however like to hear both sides of an arguement, I dislike people

who do not understand that "different strokes make different folks" , and that

not everyone will see things their way.

I was trying to be as objective as possible in choosing my words

are your impressions correct?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought that your choice in words was particularly objective and non-offensive to any particular group, so if no one else doesn't applaud you, I applaud you for that.

I too am very liberal, but if I was 18 in the '04 election I would've gone for Bush. Please do NOT respond to this with your 2 cents on my political views because that is my business and no one else's and that is the furthest thing from the purpose of this site in its entirety. If you want to debate the validity of someone's politics, then go onto a political forum, not one devoted to urban developments and information.

Dale, I respect all opinions, but you're a very abrasive person and you seem to not ascribe to any point of view but rather attack all points of view rather curtly and cynically. If you (or any other forumers for that matter) are attempting to pick fights or stir up anything, please stop. This is a volatile enough subject (politics, I mean) without resorting to deriding opinions and insulting others. I'll quote something said in another thread (conservative cities, actually), please don't ask a question unless you want an answer and saying you want 'good answers' is insulting and purposely degrading, so please back off that. I agree with you, Dale, on certain things, but you won't get across any sort of point if you remain so abrasive. Just a thought. Maybe now we can make some sort of attempt at getting back to the subject at hand after 5 or so very off-topic posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are cities more liberal?

Generally because they are inhabited by better educated people and the population is more diverse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Johnson County, Kansas which is KC's largest suburb has a much higher percentage of the population who have graduated high school, graduated college, and have graduate degrees than Kansas City itself. I mean very much higher, 1 in every 2 Johnson County adults has a college degree. In KC the number is much lower. Are these people liberal? Hardly, they are strongly conservative and very much republican.

The better educated people are more likely to be republican, at least here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that your choice in words was particularly objective and non-offensive to any particular group, so if no one else doesn't applaud you, I applaud you for that.

I too am very liberal, but if I was 18 in the '04 election I would've gone for Bush.  Please do NOT respond to this with your 2 cents on my political views because that is my business and no one else's and that is the furthest thing from the purpose of this site in its entirety.  If you want to debate the validity of someone's politics, then go onto a political forum, not one devoted to urban developments and information.

Dale, I respect all opinions, but you're a very abrasive person and you seem to not ascribe to any point of view but rather attack all points of view rather curtly and cynically.  If you (or any other forumers for that matter) are attempting to pick fights or stir up anything, please stop.  This is a volatile enough subject (politics, I mean) without resorting to deriding opinions and insulting others.  I'll quote something said in another thread (conservative cities, actually), please don't ask a question unless you want an answer and saying you want 'good answers' is insulting and purposely degrading, so please back off that.  I agree with you, Dale, on certain things, but you won't get across any sort of point if you remain so abrasive.  Just a thought.  Maybe now we can make some sort of attempt at getting back to the subject at hand after 5 or so very off-topic posts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you'll find me quite a delightful fellow once you warm up to me. It just takes a little time (and an extra layer of skin, perhaps). ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dale leftist is not what I would use to describe myself. Rather I'd say centrist/realist. If I were liberal, I'd say that I'm a liberal in the truest sense of the word, in that I feel everyone has a valid opinion, and I embrace all views, well within reason that is. I vehemently disagree with people on both sides of the political spectrum, for being to one sided and blind.

I also agree with your statement that suburbs have little to learn from their urban counterparts. I very much disagree that the people who live in the city are simply smarter than those who don't.

If your going to present an arguement as to why people are a certain way, what better way to show your colors than to say well the people who live in cities tend to be more educated.

So let me say this, liberals are no smarter than conservatives, I know som brilliant conservatives, and some pretty dimwitted liberals and vice versa.

And I still don't think i've heard a valid arguement as to why Urban areas are more liberal than suburanized zones.????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dale leftist is not what I would use to describe myself.  Rather I'd say centrist/realist.  If I were liberal,  I'd say that I'm a liberal in the truest sense of the word, in that I feel everyone has a valid opinion, and I embrace all views, well within reason that is.  I vehemently disagree with people on both sides of the political spectrum, for being to one sided and blind. 

I also agree with your statement that suburbs have little to learn from their urban counterparts.  I very much disagree that the people who live in the city are simply smarter than those who don't. 

If your going to present an arguement as to why people are a certain way, what better way to show your colors than to say well the people who live in cities tend to be more educated.

So let me say this, liberals are no smarter than conservatives, I know som brilliant conservatives, and some pretty dimwitted liberals and vice versa.

And I still don't think i've heard a valid arguement as to why Urban areas are more liberal than suburanized zones.????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

MJLO -

Perhaps it would be more advisable to argue that urban areas are more Democratic than Republican ? This would at least account for minorities who, though Democrat, tend to be more conservative socially (thought they may be fiscal liberals). But though they may be social conservatives, nonetheless, they tend to vote for liberal Democrat candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.