Why are cities more liberal?

[MrSmith]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure there are exceptions in some cities, but I checked the stats on a few cities and the race diversity is definitely greater in the city than the suburbs. Minneapolis for example is 62.5% white. The next closest suburb or town I could find was Brooklyn Center with 70% white. All the other Minneapolis suburbs I checked were 80% to 95% white. Visit http://www.city-data.com/.

Since cities are so diverse how can it be peer influence? Blacks and gays would probably not describe themselves as peers. And, cities have both rich and poor...educated and not educated and they are not generally considered peers either. The only commonality is that they live in the city.

It is difficult to say whether living in the city tends makes you liberal (which is where the diversity argument comes from), or if you choose to live in the city because you are liberal (which is why gays probably choose city living) --I suspect it is a little of both.

[Snowguy716]

I think the point that someone made about England's liberals was a good point: Being liberal in England in the 1800s was what we would call today complete free market capitalism with little government intervention.

This was considered very liberal at the time because it meant the partial eradication of the class system. It meant that some people on the lower rungs could get rich and move up the ladder. Of course this threatened the conservative "aristocracy" which believed their money should come from taxes on the working class and that you were born into your class.

England has a much different history than the U.S. For example, public schools in England are what we refer to as private schools. Becuase schools were started in England long before government began funding them, so schools for the public were private ventures. Not until the turn of the 20th century did England begin to form "government funded schools" that are more common in the country today.

But I disagree with Mr. Smith. I think being a liberal in this country comes down to two main points I outlined above:

1. Little government intervention in personal and moral decisions. These decisions are best left up to the individual, and as long as it doesn't impose on the rights of others, should be left unimpeded. This includes a minimalist gun control policy. If somebody wants to own to hunt, that's fine. Rather than blocking guns first we should strive to make the desire to own one smaller by taking other steps.

2. More government intervention in decisions out of common peoples' control. This is why liberals favor unions, regulated price control, and government control of industries that are inefficient in the market place (can anyone say airlines???). The best way to make this successful is to elect officials that are trustworthy and do not look at politics as usual. If you have someone you trust in congress, you can trust the government to represent your interests. Many people in Minnesota felt they had a champion on their side when Paul Wellstone sat in the senate. We need to remove special interests from government, and that means from both sides.

These two interests seem, at least to me, to be opposed to the conservative Republican approach of open market policies and low taxes with little government intervention in schools and health care with high government intervention in personal decisions.

[Dale]

I'm sure there are exceptions in some cities, but I checked the stats on a few cities and the race diversity is definitely greater in the city than the suburbs. Minneapolis for example is 62.5% white.  The next closest suburb or town I could find was Brooklyn Center with 70% white.  All the other Minneapolis suburbs I checked were 80% to 95% white.  Visit http://www.city-data.com/.

Since cities are so diverse how can it be peer influence?  Blacks and gays would probably not describe themselves as peers.  And, cities have both rich and poor...educated and not educated and they are not generally considered peers either.  The only commonality is that they live in the city.

It is difficult to say whether living in the city tends makes you liberal (which is where the diversity argument comes from), or if you choose to live in the city because you are liberal (which is why gays probably choose city living) --I suspect it is a little of both.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's an interesting article: "Are Cities and Suburbs really becoming more alike ?"

www.rpa.org/spotlight/issues/spotlightvol4_13.html

And instead of 'peer influence', perhaps I should have used the term cultural conformity. Meaning that we tend to think like, and feel more at ease with those around us.

[Snowguy716]

Mr Smith I think it comes down to this:

Do people become liberal by living in a city, or do they live in a city becuase they're liberal?

I think both. I think inner cities are more economically, religiously, ethnically, racially, and orientationally (is that a word?) diverse. I think this melting pot of peole from all different backgrounds make people more accepting of other ways of life over time.

But I think cities are highly desirable for those that want this kind of life style. The people that have caused downtown Minneapolis to boom are from two distinct demographics: College educated, well-to-do empty-nester baby boomers that are moving in from the suburbs after years in monotonous subdivisions. They are seeking the entertainment, open mindedness, and healthier lifestyles associated with city living.

The other are young businessmen and women fresh out of college that likely grew up in the suburbs or other areas but wanted something close to their job, close to the bars, and support contemporary, trendy living. Things that these two demographics have in common: No children and well educated.

These people were probably liberal in the first place and wanted to surround themselves with a more diverse, liberal surrounding.

[Dale]

I think the point that someone made about England's liberals was a good point:  Being liberal in England in the 1800s was what we would call today complete free market capitalism with little government intervention.

This was considered very liberal at the time because it meant the partial eradication of the class system.  It meant that some people on the lower rungs could get rich and move up the ladder.  Of course this threatened the conservative "aristocracy" which believed their money should come from taxes on the working class and that you were born into your class.

England has a much different history than the U.S.  For example, public schools in England are what we refer to as private schools.  Becuase schools were started in England long before government began funding them, so schools for the public were private ventures.  Not until the turn of the 20th century did England begin to form "government funded schools" that are more common in the country today.

But I disagree with Mr. Smith.  I think being a liberal in this country comes down to two main points I outlined above:

1.  Little government intervention in personal and moral decisions.  These decisions are best left up to the individual, and as long as it doesn't impose on the rights of others, should be left unimpeded.  This includes a minimalist gun control policy.  If somebody wants to own to hunt, that's fine.  Rather than blocking guns first we should strive to make the desire to own one smaller by taking other steps.

2.  More government intervention in decisions out of common peoples' control.  This is why liberals favor unions, regulated price control, and government control of industries that are inefficient in the market place (can anyone say airlines???).  The best way to make this successful is to elect officials that are trustworthy and do not look at politics as usual.  If you have someone you trust in congress, you can trust the government to represent your interests.  Many people in Minnesota felt they had a champion on their side when Paul Wellstone sat in the senate.  We need to remove special interests from government, and that means from both sides.

These two interests seem, at least to me, to be opposed to the conservative Republican approach of open market policies and low taxes with little government intervention in schools and health care with high government intervention in personal decisions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that the gun control issue eviscerates your first point, in that it is typically liberals who desire to remove guns from the hands of their law-abiding neighbors. do you disagree ? In any case, we could probably go tit-for-tat over meddling in personal affairs. In brief, I do not believe that liberalism readily embraces the Libertarian Principle you underscored.

And to your second point, I might argue that unionization is, in effect, an effort to exercise control over one's job-provider. Here, a libertarian would probably say that, while he'd wish for generosity on the part of the job-provider, it is the provider's prerogative to operate as he wishes. And further, that an unkind and miserly job-provider might provide an entreprenurial opportunity for another job-provider, who might secure employees by advertising his geater generosity.

And I suppose I'm referencing libertarianism here as I believe that such is an attempt to regain much of what was classically conservative, or 'rightwing'.

[csedwards72]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought the education/politics connection is that very poorly- and very well-educated people are generally Democrats, while those in the middle are Republican; those with just 4-year degrees are relatively Republican, while those with graduate degrees and those who are high-school dropouts are relatively Democratic. Here are some election results:

2004 Bush/Kerry

No HS Degree: 49-50

HS Graduate: 52-47

Some college: 54-46

College graduate: 52-46

Postgrad Study: 44-55

2000 Bush/Gore

No HS Degree: 38-59

HS Graduate: 49-48

Some college: 51-45

College graduate: 51-45

Postgrad Study: 44-52

[Dale]

Yeah, it's pretty nuanced.

[PeninsulaKiddo]

I thought the education/politics connection is that very poorly- and very well-educated people are generally Democrats, while those in the middle are Republican; those with just 4-year degrees are relatively Republican, while those with graduate degrees and those who are high-school dropouts are relatively Democratic.  Here are some election results:

2004 Bush/Kerry

No HS Degree: 49-50

HS Graduate: 52-47

Some college: 54-46

College graduate: 52-46

Postgrad Study: 44-55

2000 Bush/Gore

No HS Degree: 38-59

HS Graduate: 49-48

Some college: 51-45

College graduate: 51-45

Postgrad Study: 44-52

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Honestly, I feel like the less educated a person is, the more likely they are to go liberal. I say that because of what I see in my school... those who are easily influenced by pop culture (which is often inherently liberal) are more likely to follow that lead. The support for Kerry in my school was overwhelming and if people were ever asked to defend their opinions they would often either quote SNL or say "I hate Bush".... Saying that last part just made a little connection in my brain so brace for rambling.

Perhaps people vote liberally (often translating into democratically) because they like the candidates better because they're more like them. People in cities voted for Kerry because he lived in an urban area whereas Bush (urban transplant to rural Texas) fit the opposite demographic? I think that might be a good point to discuss. I don't think that teenagers (going back to the previous paragraph) are any less-informed than a lot of adult voters. I think it comes down to likeability often and who is closer to the demographic. Just my thought and I'd like to see what others think of that.

[dixiecupdrinking]

I thought the education/politics connection is that very poorly- and very well-educated people are generally Democrats, while those in the middle are Republican...

That's interesting. I always thought that it was a direct correlation. Maybe that's only if they control for income levels? Or maybe I'm just wrong about it. Anyway, if this is the case maybe it actually further supports the idea that cities tend to be more liberal because more people at both extremes of the spectrum live there -- in income level and in education level as well.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Honestly, I feel like the less educated a person is, the more likely they are to go liberal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I bet that the way uninformed kids vote ends up being close to a zero-sum issue. I don't know where you're from, but for every herd-instinct Kerry vote you saw I probably saw one for Bush in Georgia.

It's very interesting, actually, because I go to a very liberal school in New York where I witnessed the very uninformed "Bush is evil" kind of attitude you're talking about. But I went to high school in Georgia, and most of my friends I talked to about the election had an equal-but-opposite attitude -- "flip-flopper," "liar," "commie," etc., in reference to Kerry. I find that younger Democratic voters tend on average to be better informed than younger Republican voters, and are much more likely to be actively involved in politics, but that may just be my experience. There's certainly plenty of mindless rhetoric on both parts.

[rusthebuss]

I bet that the way uninformed kids vote ends up being close to a zero-sum issue. I don't know where you're from, but for every herd-instinct Kerry vote you saw I probably saw one for Bush in Georgia.

It's very interesting, actually, because I go to a very liberal school in New York where I witnessed the very uninformed "Bush is evil" kind of attitude you're talking about. But I went to high school in Georgia, and most of my friends I talked to about the election had an equal-but-opposite attitude -- "flip-flopper," "liar," "commie," etc., in reference to Kerry. I find that younger Democratic voters tend on average to be better informed than younger Republican voters, and are much more likely to be actively involved in politics, but that may just be my experience. There's certainly plenty of mindless rhetoric on both parts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with the mindless rhetoric on both sides. You can look at that point for every aspect in life or situations out there. In my opinion when you vote you are choosing the lesser of two evils. I voted for Bush but there are multiple things out there that he has done that I totally disagree with. There really is no perfect canidate and there is always someone who is going to be upset and felt left out. There is no way in this world you can please everyone and not trample on someones rights.

[Charleston native]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, I've read enough on this debate, so I will insert one thing. This is IMO, of course, so I could be wrong...the relationship between higher levels of education and more liberal voting can be seen as a direct correlation. Usually spending more time in academia, research, and with educators in universities where there is an enormously high percentage of liberal voters can make the person become more liberal themselves. Think about it...a person usually isolates him/herself when giving more time to further his/her education. There is less time working in "the real world" where a person would normally experience the stresses of making a living, working with a diversity of people, and trying to make the financial situation better.

Just my two cents...

[MrSmith]

Mr Smith I think it comes down to this:

Do people become liberal by living in a city, or do they live in a city becuase they're liberal?

I think both.  I think inner cities are more economically, religiously, ethnically, racially, and orientationally (is that a word?) diverse.  I think this melting pot of peole from all different backgrounds make people more accepting of other ways of life over time.

But I think cities are highly desirable for those that want this kind of life style.  The people that have caused downtown Minneapolis to boom are from two distinct demographics:  College educated, well-to-do empty-nester baby boomers that are moving in from the suburbs after years in monotonous subdivisions.  They are seeking the entertainment, open mindedness, and healthier lifestyles associated with city living.

The other are young businessmen and women fresh out of college that likely grew up in the suburbs or other areas but wanted something close to their job, close to the bars, and support contemporary, trendy living.  Things that these two demographics have in common:  No children and well educated.

These people were probably liberal in the first place and wanted to surround themselves with a more diverse, liberal surrounding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Snowguy716 --I think you are right. The city enviromenent both attracts liberal people and it creates them.

The reason i asked this question in the first place is because I live in a new building downtown Minneapolis and I notice that the vast majority of people who have some sort of bumper sticker have a liberal one. We have old people, young people, single people, married people, gay people, suburban empty nesters and transplants from other cities --but it is mostly white people. I started wondering --"why are these white people different from their suburban counterparts?" Both groups have money, both are educated, etc. etc.

It is a new building so we certainly have not been influencing one another. The bumper stickers were on before they moved in. Many of these residents have children so it can't be that either.

I guess people who choose to live in the city seem to embrace the diversity of the city. And, you can't embrace the diversity without also understanding and getting to know diverse people. And, once you know different people you become more empathetic to their struggles --which tends to make you socially liberal.

It reminds me of the statistic where they say that if you know a gay person you are far more likely to support gay rights. Likewise if you live in the city and are more affected by or see more guns and crime, perhaps you start to support gun control (plz don't get into a gun contol debate).

[Dale]

Snowguy716 --I think you are right. The city enviromenent both attracts liberal people and it creates them.

The reason i asked this question in the first place is because I live in a new building downtown Minneapolis and I notice that the vast majority of people who have some sort of bumper sticker have a liberal one.  We have old people, young people, single people, married people, gay people, suburban empty nesters and transplants from other cities --but it is mostly white people.  I started wondering --"why are these white people different from their suburban counterparts?"  Both groups have money, both are educated, etc. etc.

It is a new building so we certainly have not been influencing one another. The bumper stickers were on before they moved in.  Many of these residents have children so it can't be that either.

I guess people who choose to live in the city seem to embrace the diversity of the city.  And, you can't embrace the diversity without also understanding and getting to know diverse people.  And, once you know different people you become more empathetic to their struggles --which tends to make you socially liberal.

It reminds me of the statistic where they say that if you know a gay person you are far more likely to support gay rights.  Likewise if you live in the city and are more affected by or see more guns and crime, perhaps you start to support gun control (plz don't get into a gun contol debate).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You say the vast majortiy with bumper stickers have liberal ones, but these are people who move downtown to embrace diversity ? Maybe you mean ethnic diversity in particular ?

[MrSmith]

You say the vast majortiy with bumper stickers have liberal ones, but these are people who move downtown to embrace diversity ? Maybe you mean ethnic diversity in particular ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ethnic, cultural, socio-economic, age etc. --architectual diverity cultural diversity --they are all related.

[Dale]

Ethnic, cultural, socio-economic, age etc. --architectual diverity cultural diversity --they are all related.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which sounds a lot like my suburban neighborhood (but without skyscrapers and deisel fumes).

[MrSmith]

Which sounds a lot like my suburban neighborhood (but without skyscrapers and deisel fumes). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And your diverse sururb is conservative?

[Dale]

And your diverse sururb is conservative?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, my neighbors are all over the political spectrum.

[MrSmith]

No, my neighbors are all over the political spectrum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What city...let's look up the voting history.

[Dale]

What city...let's look up the voting history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Orlando, in Orange County.

[MrSmith]

Orlando, in Orange County.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unless i am mistaken Orlando is a city --not a suburb. And orange county is a county not a city. Anyway, i didn't say there were never exceptions --and i never said suburbs were not liberal too -- I just notice cties are almost always liberal and the one thing they ahave in common is diversity.

[Ruso]

I call it as I see it!

[Ruso]

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

[Dale]

Unless i am mistaken Orlando is a city --not a suburb.  And orange county is a county not a city.  Anyway, i didn't say there were never exceptions --and i never said suburbs were not liberal too -- I just notice cties are almost always liberal and the one thing they ahave in common is diversity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. cities are always more liberal. And they are overall more diverse. But that is becoming less and less the case. And because the suburbs are growing faster than the cities, suburbia is becoming the new face of America, like it or not.

And I say this as one who finds urbanity stimulating.

[Ruso]

Just had to post this:

I got a Norton Antivirus filter, and funnily enough www.michaelsavage.com is blocked as a page related with "crime".