Why are cities more liberal?

[Ruso]

Again sorry for the double post...

For those interested....

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...60entry168585

[hood]

How about we just say: let people do whatever they want, as long as it does not directly harm another person. Seems reasonable to me, I have no problem if someone wants to do drugs, have an abortion or whatever else, as long as it is not directly harming another person, that would be true freedom. Who do you think would have a problem with that?

Liberals have their fair share of hypocracies too, they scream "personal freedom" and "individualism" but then want more gun regulation (thats the only example I can think of right now, I'm sure there is more). Nobody wants to give the other guy an inch, and thats the real problem, if we stopped worrying about everyone else and minded our own business we could avoid many problems. If you want to raise your kids to shoot guns, never have an abortion, hate gays and to be racist, go ahead, but don't expect others to be kind to you, and don't expect the government to create laws in your favor. This works the other way also, if you want to raise your kids to hate guns, abortions are OK, accept gays and other races, fine, but don't expect the rest of the world to be the same way, right or wrong other people can live their lives the way they want also.

[Dale]

I'm ready for harsh responses...

Maybe I shouldn't have said anything but I just got finished reading a fascinating (and totally accurate) article about how antithetical right-wing America is to legitimate Christian values. This is the religion based on the teachings of a man, after all, who advocated total selflessness, love thy neighbor as thyself and whatnot. But somehow, God forbid anyone suggest we "steal" from the rich and give to the poor. It doesn't even take Jesus to see the logic in that, only Robin Hood.

So that's just something to think about before everyone starts calling liberals godless commie beotchs.

Also, maybe it's just a quick way to start a flame war and get a thread closed. I guess we'll see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I missed the part where Jesus advocated 'stealing' from the rich to give to the poor. Now many contemporary liberals advocate a kind of theft.

Beyond the subject of income redistribution, we'd probably agree that 'right-wing America' and Christianity are not strictly synonymous.

[Dale]

Ruso -

I'm not actually a strong proponent of democracy. Now as soon as one says that, the typical rejoinder comes, "So do you want a monarchy ?" And this is usually asked with an incredulous tone.

And my reply is that there is nothing inherently oppressive in monarchy. Just as there is nothing inherently liberating about democracy.

[Ruso]

Ruso -

I'm not actually a strong proponent of democracy. Now as soon as one says that, the typical rejoinder comes, "So do you want a monarchy ?" And this is usually asked with an incredulous tone.

And my reply is that there is nothing inherently oppressive in monarchy. Just as there is nothing inherently liberating about democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"SO DO YOU WANT A MONARCHY?????"

Just joking, yes I understand, am not big fan of democracy either. But, I do think is lesser of other "evils", and that it can be improved with a variety of ideas.Who knows.

[Snowguy716]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you read the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

While I admit it is not nice to the state of Kansas, it is written by a Kansan who grew up in the affluent suburbs of KC in Johnson County, so I believe he had a right to knit-pick. Either way, "Bible Belt" cities tend to be more conservative, i.e Omaha, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, etc.

[rusthebuss]

:lol I'm ready for harsh responses...

Maybe I shouldn't have said anything but I just got finished reading a fascinating (and totally accurate) article about how antithetical right-wing America is to legitimate Christian values. This is the religion based on the teachings of a man, after all, who advocated total selflessness, love thy neighbor as thyself and whatnot. But somehow, God forbid anyone suggest we "steal" from the rich and give to the poor. It doesn't even take Jesus to see the logic in that, only Robin Hood.

So that's just something to think about before everyone starts calling liberals godless commie beotchs.

Also, maybe it's just a quick way to start a flame war and get a thread closed. I guess we'll see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I call it as I see it! The left deminishes morals and when morals deminish then thats when you see crime and such increase. You notice that some of the most immoral cities have some of the most crime? Its funny that you guys talk down on Christians but then you say its alright for a muslim to pray when they want or they might get offended by anything other than muslims. Liberalism is the fall of the USA as we know it today. I know this will cause a war. Liberals are a waste of breath.If you notice that most of the liberals " John Kerry" can't win in this country, just in the few liberal states. John Kerry was on the defense board and never really stayed in meeting and such. I read that after 911 he didn't attend one defense meeting so is this who we want watching over us. These are the people that allow the stinking terrorist in the country to begin with. Don't want to hurt their feelings. They scale are military back and leave us vulnerable for attack. They want to take our guns away, hold on this sounds familiar, oh yeah the Nazis. Not commies they are nazis.

[Snowguy716]

Ahh.. we tread further and further into dangerous territory.

There are a million reasons why Minneapolis is a liberal city alone. It would be too hard to figure out broad brush reasons why cities are more liberal than rural areas.

That's not always true, though. Northern Minnesota is very liberal. Duluth, Minnesota is 95% white and 70% democrat. Being liberal here has nothing to do with diversity or "government control" over your life.

Being democrat in northern MInnesota is about well paid teachers, good schools, good paying unionized labor, health care for all, protection of the environment, equal rights for all and grass roots politics.

There was a big hoopla in 2002 that "Minnesota was sliding to the right" with the election of a republican governor and a republican senator. Well, that "republicanness" came to an end when we voted for Kerry in 2004, strengthened the democratic majority in the state senate and reduced the republican majority to 1 in the state house. We haven't supported a republican for president since 1972... what was George Bush thinking by wasting so much money on this state?

[Snowguy716]

I call it as I see it!  The left deminishes morals and when morals deminish then thats when you see crime and such increase. You notice that some of the most immoral cities have some of the most crime? Its funny that you guys talk down on Christians but then you say its alright for a muslim to pray when they want or they might get offended by anything other than muslims. Liberalism is the fall of the USA as we know it today. I know this will cause a war. Liberals are a waste of breath.If you notice that most of the liberals " John Kerry" can't win in this country, just in the few liberal states. John Kerry was on the defense board and never really stayed in meeting and such. I read that after 911 he didn't attend one defense meeting so is this who we want watching over us. These are the people that allow the stinking terrorist in the country to begin with. Don't want to hurt their feelings.  They scale are military back and leave us vulnerable for attack. They want to take our guns away, hold on this sounds familiar, oh yeah the Nazis. Not commies they are nazis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How does one even respond to something like that?

As a democrat, AND a Christian, I can tell you right now that I do not "diminish" morals. I simply oppose government restrictions on personal decisions and support government control of issues that people cannot control. For example, if two men or two women want to be united because they love each other, that's their decision, not mine. But if someone cannot afford to goto college (which is a tragedy in the first place), I feel it is the government's responsibility to ensure that they have a job that can support their family, should they choose to have one. Pure capitalism and pro-market policies have clearly failed this nation's less fortunate. *cough* Wal-Mart *cough*

I believe this country was built on the family. But it was also built on the backs of hard working immigrants, farmers, and laborers that are constantly under attack today under the pro-big-business, pro-oil policies of the Republican party.

As a Christian, I find it my moral duty to exercise my right to vote by supporting politicians that fight for those that are dehumanized, spit at, and stepped on by those that breed and instill hatred in this country. I find it my moral duty to support politicians that fight for the little guy.. to redistribute income enough to give those that are working hard a chance at a better life.

As a Christian, I find it my moral duty to keep religion out of government. I also find it my duty to make sure that government stays out of religion. When the Bible calls us to spread God's word all over the world, it didn't tell us to invite everyone to our nation from all over the world only to impose His law on them. Being a Christian, believe it or not, is a choice. Using the constitution to impose the morals of Christians on everyone completely defies the point of our constitution: To protect the rights of the minority, the less fortunate, and those who are otherwise under threat of having their basic human rights impeded on by someone else.

Once upon a time, there was a country that had gone into "moral decline". The country was taxing its people heavily and was accepting of others into their country. This led to high tensions in the country as those "others" were unusually successful in commerce and other well-to-do facets of society. This angered the commoners of hte country. They were becoming more and more angry as the economy went sour and unemployment soared. Many businesses went bankrupt and the people of the country felt disenfranchised.

But there was hope! A man started a new party. He pledged to bring jobs to his country and get rid of unemployment. He appealed to the people because he also believed that these foreigners were leading to the moral decay of the country. He pledged to restore honor and integrity to the homeland. He pledged to spread the good values of his country through-out the world by fighting a war against those that threatened his country's way of life.

He won the election. The changes were sweeping. With wide support from his legislative body, he passed reforms that led to massive job creation and patriotism was rekindled. After a few short years, unemployment was down and morale was high. He began to fight a war against those that represented the evil against his country. At first, this war was kept under wraps but was very successful. After a while he pledged again to erradicate this horrible pest that challenged his values from the planet. He fought hard... but the evil liberals prevented him from finishing what he started and in the end he failed miserably.

Does that sound like the United States?

becuase it isn't. It was Adolf Hitler's nazi Germany.. and it is curiously remeniscent of our country today. Of course I don't agree that the terrorists are innocent... but I think the similarities here are striking.

I realize this post is well, basically throwing flames at dry tinder...

[Dale]

Ahh.. we tread further and further into dangerous territory.

There are a million reasons why Minneapolis is a liberal city alone.  It would be too hard to figure out broad brush reasons why cities are more liberal than rural areas.

That's not always true, though.  Northern Minnesota is very liberal.  Duluth, Minnesota is 95% white and 70% democrat.  Being liberal here has nothing to do with diversity or "government control" over your life.

Being democrat in northern MInnesota is about well paid teachers, good schools, good paying unionized labor, health care for all, protection of the environment, equal rights for all and grass roots politics.

There was a big hoopla in 2002 that "Minnesota was sliding to the right" with the election of a republican governor and a republican senator.  Well, that "republicanness" came to an end when we voted for Kerry in 2004, strengthened the democratic majority in the state senate and reduced the republican majority to 1 in the state house.  We haven't supported a republican for president since 1972... what was George Bush thinking by wasting so much money on this state?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I'd simply like to point out that some of these cherished Minnesota institutions, such as government schools, powerful unions and universal healthcare, though they may represent liberal ideas, do not aount to laudable goals in the eyes of others.

And while you're right about Democratic gains on the state level, Republicans were celebrating the fact that Bush garnered a greater share of the vote than in 2000. It's a mixed bag.

[monsoon]

...

Also, maybe it's just a quick way to start a flame war and get a thread closed. I guess we'll see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aside from closing the thread. adding banning and suspensions. Flame wars are not allowed here.

[rusthebuss]

How does one even respond to something like that?

As a democrat, AND a Christian, I can tell you right now that I do not "diminish" morals.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Why are the liberals so anti guns???? I guess you forgot that the nazis took over their country by illiminating all personal firearms. To me liberals sound like Nazis to me. That is a right as an American citizen  that we have that is being taken away. What kills me is that every liberal is screaming the war is for oil and leaning on the ignorance of alot Americans today to support them. They are finding all kind of weapon caches that Sadaam was not suppose to have. Where Bush screwed up was giving Sadaam time to move his WMDs to Syria. There has always been a connection between Iraq and Syria. Most of the WMDs are mobile and we know that they have them becuase Carter sold them to them in the 70's for the Iran-Iraq conflict. I truly believe that the constitution has been twisted beyond the meaning of it when it was written. I think you need to check this site out and find out why liberalism is a mental disorder. The entire meaning of liberalism is the deminsh of morals and i think you need to search yourself to see if your morals are slipping away. That is not a personal attack or anything but maybe a way to check yourself thats all. Liberals have set an attack against Christians and everything that they believe to destroy it. www.michaelsavage.com. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The right to bear arms deserves to be interpreted in a way relevant to modern-day society. We are not a nation dependent on minutemen or militias to ensure our security anymore. Very few gun-control advocates are in favor of banning all guns -- hunting rifles, for instance, seem legitimate to me. But if you're so worried about terrorists, why fight regulations that would make it harder for them to get weapons?

It just seems very common sense that guns do far less good in the hands of good people than they do bad in the hands of bad people. And to me, that should be the end of the discussion. No one should be shot to death because of road rage or in a feud over a $10 debt, but I've heard stories in the last month or two where both of those things happened.

Other than that questionable right, I'd be interested to hear how you think liberals are oppressing people when they seemingly are pushing on the side of increased personal freedoms pretty much across the board. But based on the factual quality of your other points, I'm probably wasting my breath.

p.s. You didn't respond to my point; aren't an equal distribution of wealth and ensuring the health and safety of our poor the most Christian goals you could ask for? Or do you think Christ himself would support one's right to lavish consumption while people in his own country starve?

Just wondering.

[Dale]

No, 'equal distribution' of wealth is not a Biblical principle, so far as my research reveals.

[Snowguy716]

Sorry buddy. It wasn't Carter selling weapons to Iraq, it was Reagan.

The U.S sold weapons to Iran until the Shah ended and when the war began between Iraq and Iran in 1980, the U.S remained neutral, selling weapons to neither side. At the time, it didn't agree that a victory for Iran would benefit the U.S, so it took Iraq off it's list of nations supporting international terrorism. (In 1982).

It began giving Iraq secure loans to continue fighting the war against Iran, and amazingly, Donald Rumsfeld, then a special envoy of President Reagan, went to Iraq and shook hands with Saddam Hussein. (In 1983).

In 1984, the U.S re-established ties with Iraq formally, and condemned Iraq's usage of chemical weapons on Iran, although it did not take any action in stopping it. The U.S did not want to do anything that would allow Iran to make an advance on Iraq, likely because much of America's oil comes from Iraq, and at the time, oil prices were high. Some U.S companies did sell chemical weapons to Iraq, but were protected when the U.S fought for a "no-decision" to the resolution in the U.N when Iran asked the U.N to condemn the chemical weapon attacks. The U.S kept somewhat friendly relations with Iraq throughout Ronald Reagan's presidency.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

This is something you won't find in the mainstream media.

Also, I must tell you: Minnesota is one of the most liberal states in the country, and we certainly do not want to "take guns away from Americans." Most people in this state hunt, or at least know someone who does. It is a way of life here. Liberals aren't trying to take guns away from hunters or citizens. They're trying to take guns away from criminals. It's one thing to have a hand gun for self defense that is registered... it is another to be toting a sawed off shot gun around the neighborhood shooting into houses of whom you THINK is your enemy and actually hitting an innocent, 13 year old girl.

And perhaps the Nazis did eliminate personal fire arms in Germany. But you have your facts wrong.

Very strict gun laws were put into place in 1919 in Germany. Essentially, all firearms had to be submitted to the government. Under the Weimar government in 1928, fire arms laws were relaxed. Germans could now own guns, but they had to be properly registered.

In 1933, with these same gun laws, the Nazis gained 44% of the vote in the Reichstag and rose to power. The laws that you're referring to are the German gun laws of 1938, 5 years after the Nazis came to power.

And actually, this law didn't do much "controlling." It banned the ownership of hand guns to Germans, but relaxed the other gun laws and lowered the ownership age of 20 to 18.

It outlawed gun ownership all together to Jews.

What you're reading has got it all wrong. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/harcourt_nazigun.html

And if you are intent that we follow the constitution exactly as written, then you should read the 2nd ammendment, which deals with guns:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does say we have a right to bear arms in order to keep a well regulated militia. It does not say that using guns in a criminal way is a right.

And as far as WMDs in Iraq go.. that's a whole different story. You can believe what you want to believe. President Bush already admitted that they weren't there. The stocks they have found had been destroyed for some time. And if it isn't about securing a cheap supply of oil, then you need to examine why our country doesn't get involved with even more tyrannical countries that just don't happen to have oil.

i'll leave it at that. Like your message, I don't attack the person, but the issues. If you don't agree with me, fine! I respect that. I think it's great to know that people can absolutely irk each other but still share the idea of a better America nonetheless.

[dixiecupdrinking]

If you want to split hairs, that's fine. What I mean is that the conservative tendency to guard one's personal material fortune as though it's an entitlement is anti-Christian. That's all.

[Dale]

If you want to split hairs, that's fine. What I mean is that the conservative tendency to guard one's personal material fortune as though it's an entitlement is anti-Christian. That's all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What do you mean by 'the conservative tendency to guard one's personal material fortune' ? Do you mean to suggest that liberals don't object to thievery ?

[MrSmith]

Again, as the person who posted the original question I have a few comments.

First -- Can we get back to the original question. I didn't intend to debate the which is better --liberal or conservative -- there is no winning that debate. I know it is hard --believe me!!

Second -- I think it is dangerous to automatically assume liberal means you are for gun control or for abortion, or stealing from the rich and vice versa for conservatives. Everyone has individual views but they can generally say that they lean liberal or lean conservative but it does not mean they hold every liberal or conservative view -- I just wanted to try to figure out why city residents lean liberal. I have no interest in forcing people into a box nor do i have interest in attacking one side (at least not here --lol)

Third --someone mentioned that Northern Minnesota voted Democrat and that is true. However, in general i would not consider that area liberal. They vote democrat based primarily on labor issues. I also want to point out that I do believe there are liberal suburbs and liberal rural areas but it seems that cities always are the most consistantly liberal area --which again gets me back to my original question.

Fourth comment -- Someone commented on here that suburbs are diverse and therefore did not like my diversity argument. Although some suburbs are more diverse than in the past, the reality is that cities are more so. There also does seem to be a correlation between diversity and liberalness (this is not an exclusive correlation, however). The most conservative suburbs around Minneapolis are the burbs with the least diversity. The suburbs with higher percentages of minorities or higher percentages of people in poverty seem to be more liberal. (also suburbs closer to the city tend to be more liberal than those farther out --but I suspect this is correlated to diversity again)

Maybe the question is really so complex and involves so many factors we will never figure it out.

[Dale]

MrSmith -

I'm just a little nit-picky about the notion that urban is more diverse than suburban because I don't think it's true.

Now it does appear to be the case that city-dwellers are more apt to affirm positions commonly associated with liberalism. Among them: gun-control, unionization, progresive taxation, gay marriage, etc. And much of this, I suspect, can be attributed to peer influence.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Fourth comment -- Someone commented on here that suburbs are diverse and therefore did not like my diversity argument.  Although some suburbs are more diverse than in the past, the reality is that cities are more so.  There also does seem to be a correlation between diversity and liberalness (this is not an exclusive correlation, however).  The most conservative suburbs around Minneapolis are the burbs with the least diversity.  The suburbs with higher percentages of minorities or higher percentages of people in poverty seem to be more liberal. (also suburbs closer to the city tend to be more liberal than those farther out --but I suspect this is correlated to diversity again)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With regard to the diversity issue: It's impossible to make a sweeping judgement that suburbs are diverse or not diverse. There are all kinds now. There are suburbs that are dominated by minority enclaves, there are suburbs that are 95% white. There are suburbs that are economically worse-off than the cities they surround.

However, I think you can make a case that suburbs are generally less diverse economicaly than their corresponding cities. It seems that financial standing is perhaps the largest determinant of political leaning, though by no means is it a perfect correlation. City residents tend to range from the very rich to the very poor. It's rare to find a suburb with the same range; suburban towns are rarely affordable for the poor, or if they are, they are rarely attractive to the rich. The reason people move out of cities is either because the suburbs are cheaper -- for the lower to middle class -- or because they offer better amenities such as schools -- for the middle to upper class. Rarely are the most affordable ones the ones with the best amenities, or vice versa. So the situation breeds homogeneity, at least in terms of economic standing.

This is anecdotal but I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to find demographic information to back it up for most metropolitan areas.

And, of course, while we're speaking in economic terms the simplest fact is that most cities are on average poorer than suburbs, a fact reflected in the median incomes of center-cities.

[Dale]

But how can this be ?! Aren't city dwellers better educated than suburbanites ?! Then how can cities be poorer ?!

[monsoon]

But how can this be ?! Aren't city dwellers better educated than suburbanites ?! Then how can cities be poorer ?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who said that? If you are going to persist in these baiting posts, at least get your facts straight. I don't think anyone here would suggest the inhabitants of suburbs are less educated than anyone else.

[Dale]

Well, a certain forumer posted, in response to the question, "Why are cities more liberal ?" :

"Generally because they are inhabited by better educated people..."

Wonder who that might have been ? In any case, I hear it all the time from my liberal counterparts.

[monsoon]

Well, a certain forumer posted, in response to the question, "Why are cities more liberal ?" :

"Generally because they are inhabited by better educated people..."

Wonder who that might have been ? In any case, I hear it all the time from my liberal counterparts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are not doing yourself any favors by being so sarcastic. That was in comparison to rural areas. You are either not very swift if you thought I meant that in comparison to suburbs or its more likely that you are creating posts just to piss people off. I would advise you to stop it now as you have done this several times in this thread. We have already suspended you once from UrbanPlanet for this. I would have hoped you would have learned your lesson by now.

Feel free to debate this topic as much as you want, but when you cross the line to being insulting then you have gone too far.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Dale,

It is a fact that statistically, level of education is correlated with more liberal voting. With every degree attained the percentage voting Democratic jumps substantially, from high school dropout to high school graduate to bachelors degree to masters and doctorates. I think there may be SOMETHING to the better-educated argument, though it's a very small part of the story.

And of course the education=liberal relationship is confounded by opposing trends. Both age and income level are positively associated with conservative voting patterns, but they're also related to higher levels of education, so it's difficult to isolate one factor.