Why are cities more liberal?

[PeninsulaKiddo]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that's an accurate analysis. It's impossible to argue the social leanings of a city's citizens, but you can measure democrats v. republicans by the poll and election numbers at least

[Dale]

I think that's an accurate analysis.  It's impossible to argue the social leanings of a city's citizens, but you can measure democrats v. republicans by the poll and election numbers at least 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very true.

[MJLO]

Dale I would somewhat agree with statement, although most of the minorities I know, that are "socially conservative" attend church every sunday, but generally don't adhere nearly as strict to the "ten commandments" if you will, as there suburban, and backwoods counter parts.

[dixiecupdrinking]

One reason is economics. The argument of whether urban or suburban environments are more diverse or more comformist is largely irrelevant. I'd argue that a large portion of the urban vote that leans left comes from a lower- to lower-middle class segment of the population that understands the Democrats' agenda is more in line with their needs. Likewise, a higher proportion of suburbanites fall into those income brackets where increasing social welfare programs is a drain on their income, and they're far less likely to reap the benefits.

Granted, the very very rich often are still concentrated in cities, but just comparing median incomes and percent of population in poverty between suburbs and cities tells the economic story.

Also, on the "who is better educated" issue, city versus suburb dwellers are rather self-selecting. Those highly-educated people who make the conscious decision to live in cities and forego property ownership and more physical conveniences for their money are likely those ideologically aligned with the left. Those who choose to live in the suburbs are placing more importance on home-ownership and on privacy than on whether or not they can walk to the grocery store. It's not so much that one is "smarter" than the other, but rather that where people live reflects enormously on their values, which in turn are reflected in their voting patterns.

[Dale]

One reason is economics. The argument of whether urban or suburban environments are more diverse or more comformist is largely irrelevant. I'd argue that a large portion of the urban vote that leans left comes from a lower- to lower-middle class segment of the population that understands the Democrats' agenda is more in line with their needs. Likewise, a higher proportion of suburbanites fall into those income brackets where increasing social welfare programs is a drain on their income, and they're far less likely to reap the benefits.

Granted, the very very rich often are still concentrated in cities, but just comparing median incomes and percent of population in poverty between suburbs and cities tells the economic story.

Also, on the "who is better educated" issue, city versus suburb dwellers are rather self-selecting. Those highly-educated people who make the conscious decision to live in cities and forego property ownership and more physical conveniences for their money are likely those ideologically aligned with the left. Those who choose to live in the suburbs are placing more importance on home-ownership and on privacy than on whether or not they can walk to the grocery store. It's not so much that one is "smarter" than the other, but rather that where people live reflects enormously on their values, which in turn are reflected in their voting patterns.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

dixie, I'm afraid you're being entirely too nuanced for the likes of us.

[MrSmith]

As the person who posted the original question, I am pretty happy with the discusssion thus far but have a couple of comments and questions:

First, I didn't intend for this to become a suburban/City argument. There are liberal suburbs -- I simply wanted to know opinions as to why cities are almost always are liberal at least relative to the surrounding area.

Second, the argument that cities are liberal because the people who live in them "are used to, and accept, a larger degree of control and government" is totally off the mark in my opinion. Suburbs have way more zoning codes, and covenants and rules. We have suburbs of Minneapolis that not only dictate the materials that can be used in housing but the types of plants and trees you can plant. In fact, I would argue that suburbanites like those controls. The argument also implies that conservatives don't believe in controlling people and liberals do. I think a lot of African Americans, immigrants and gay people who have fought conservatives for basic equality would beg to differ.

Third comment: There are smart people and educated people in both the city and the suburbs. But, if you compare people of similar incomes,education, race and age etc. it seems to me the people who live in the city will be more liberal than those that live in the suburbs. Again, I wonder why?

Fourth comment: After reading all the comments, I think the diversity thing has a lot to do with it. There seems to be something about being exposed to different ways of living and different view points that seems to make people more liberal. And, perhaps liberal people move to the city to find this diversity. Perhaps city dwellers see a beauty in the chaos of this diversity --both the physical diversity of city buildings as well as the diversity of individuals. And perhaps this love of diversity translates into more liberal empathy? more acceptance?

[Dale]

As the person who posted the original question, I am pretty happy with the discusssion thus far but have a couple of comments and questions:

First, I didn't intend for this to become a suburban/City argument.  There are liberal suburbs -- I simply wanted to know opinions as to why cities are almost always are liberal at least relative to the surrounding area.

Second, the argument that cities are liberal because the people who live in them "are used to, and accept, a larger degree of control and government" is totally off the mark in my opinion.  Suburbs have way more zoning codes, and covenants and rules.  We have suburbs of Minneapolis that not only dictate the materials that can be used in housing but the types of plants and trees you can plant. In fact, I would argue that suburbanites like those controls.  The argument also implies that conservatives don't believe in controlling people and liberals do.  I think a lot of African Americans, immigrants and gay people who have fought  conservatives for basic equality would beg to differ.

Third comment: There are smart people and educated people in both the city and the suburbs.  But, if you compare people of similar incomes,education, race and age etc. it seems to me the people who live in the city will be more liberal than those that live in the suburbs.  Again, I wonder why? 

Fourth comment:  After reading all the comments, I think the diversity thing has a lot to do with it.  There seems to be something about being exposed to different ways of living and different view points that seems to make people more liberal.  And, perhaps liberal people move to the city to find this diversity. Perhaps city dwellers see a beauty in the chaos of this diversity --both the physical diversity of city buildings as well as the diversity of individuals.  And perhaps this love of diversity translates into more liberal empathy?  more acceptance?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All-in-all, a thoughtful response. However, in your #2, I think there is something a little disproportianate in attempting to correct the conservative accusation of liberal control, seeing as how the accusation of control generally issues from liberals.

And to your #4, if by 'diversity' you mean things like ethnicity, political views, income levels, I have already argued that one is as likely to find these in the suburbs - these days - as in the city.

[rusthebuss]

Me personally you see more low income people in the city and most welfare recepients tend to want more and more for free and thats generally what liberals want. Liberals tend to have a communist ideals as well with the rob the rich and give the poor everything type ideology. There seems to be a higher gay populations in the cities as well.

[Dale]

rusthebuss gets right to the point, doesn't he ?

[Ruso]

Me personally you see more low income people in the city and most welfare recepients tend to want more and more for free and thats generally what liberals want. Liberals tend to have a communist ideals as well with the rob the rich and give the poor everything type ideology. There seems to be a higher gay populations in the cities as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Communist? Not really. Historically, there has been some understandable confusion about the conception of terms such as, "liberalism", "Leftists"", "communism", etc. This confusion is not because of ignorance, dogmatism or anything like that, but, instead, because of a general linguistic interpretation of history. The term "leftist" curiously comes from the French Revolution, more exactly, from the way in which they arranged their meetings. As it is natural in politics, revolutionaries were divided among those radical ones, unwilling to accept any counterrevolutionary idea, and the progressive ones, who promoted change . The progressive ones sat in the left, while the ones that wanted to "conserve", sat in the right. Thus, in theory, left would mean change and liberalism, while right should imply conservatism.

After the rise of communism, many liberals, seeking change and progress by accepting new ideas, were related with communism. From then, a

[Dale]

Communist? Not really. Historically, there has been some understandable confusion about the conception of terms such as, "liberalism", "Leftists"", "communism", etc. This confusion is not because of ignorance, dogmatism or anything like that, but, instead, because of a general linguistic interpretation of history. The term "leftist" curiously comes from the French Revolution, more exactly, from the way in which they arranged their meetings. As it is natural in politics, revolutionaries were divided among those radical ones, unwilling to accept any counterrevolutionary idea, and the progressive ones, who promoted change . The progressive ones sat in the left, while the ones that wanted to "conserve", sat in the right. Thus, in theory, left would mean change and liberalism, while right should imply conservatism.

After the rise of communism, many liberals, seeking change and progress by accepting new ideas, were related with communism. From then, a

[monsoon]

In reading through this thread I want to thank everyone for being very civil.

One thing that I noticed however is that people make the mistake in defining themselves and others based on the political party they vote for. i.e. we vote for Democrats, we vote for Republicans. He is conservative, she is liberal, etc. Its never really the candidate. In other words, we let these definitions come from these party's platforms. What's the danger in this? Well the parties exist to get their candidates elected and that includes polarizing people to either one side or the other on just a few issues. Issues that in the scheme of things are not even that important, but that is what happens and we end up with these labels conservative and liberal. Not to mention a national government that exists to serve the purposes of the parties more than the people.

In this thread and most other places conversations such as this take place I've never really seen a good specific definition on what makes a one a conservative or a liberal. Is that something that should be tackled here?

[Dale]

^ I think it's a very good idea. But let me throw out a further thought. Are there really two parties ? There are some who contend that there is only one: Call it the 'American Socialist Party' (that might be a bit overwrought), wherein the Republicans are the right wing of the party, and Democrats the left. And of course the need for votes generally serves to obviate significant differences, each party moving towards the other.

[dixiecupdrinking]

"Liberals tend to have a communist ideals as well with the rob the rich and give the poor everything type ideology."

Interesting. Sounds more like a Christian-type ideology to me.

/controversial baiting response

[Ruso]

I must adnit that I've never heard this particular version of the origin of leftism. Although certainly I've read that the left has its origin in the likes of de Sade and the Jacobins - the folks who brought us that horrific blood orgy that was the French Revolution.

And it is my understanding that classical liberalism was of the right, whereas only in America does the term seem to connote left. For example, Canadian and Australian liberals are on the right, pretty much.

Lastly, it is incontravertibly true that American liberals are liberal with other peoples money. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Politics are just too relative. And now, it is true, it is very hard to mark strong differences between parties or opinions. Personally, I could be labeled as a "liberal", but I do not follow any party. Am open to ideas from every political spectrum.

[Ruso]

"Liberals tend to have a communist ideals as well with the rob the rich and give the poor everything type ideology."

Interesting. Sounds more like a Christian-type ideology to me.

/controversial baiting response

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excuse the double post, but I just read this post.

Dixiecubdrinking: You just posted something that has been the reason for many, many, many conflicts, and the question that has caused many philosophers to fight between each other. B) Be ready for harsh responses. Lol

[Dale]

Politics are just too relative. And now, it is true, it is very hard to mark strong differences between parties or opinions. Personally, I could be labeled as a "liberal", but I do not follow any party. Am open to ideas from every political spectrum.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While it is true that differences between parties are somewhat obscured, I would maintain that 'left' and 'right' are quantifiable. The former is embodied in, as you said, the French Revolution, and later Marx, Lenin, et.al. Whereas the right is embodied, I would say, in the monarchial systems, which of course are becoming increasingly rare.

Continuing, the left is identitarian, nationalistic, anti-clerical, centralizing, revolutionary, redistributing income, etc. The right is traditional, religious, favoring conservative approaches, rule of law, concerned with merit and not entitlement, etc.

These are historical generalizations, of course.

[Dale]

Oh, and I would go so far as to say that democracy is a child of the left.

[Ruso]

While it is true that differences between parties are somewhat obscured, I would maintain that 'left' and 'right' are quantifiable. The former is embodied in, as you said, the French Revolution, and later Marx, Lenin, et.al. Whereas the right is embodied, I would say, in the monarchial systems, which of course are becoming increasingly rare.

Continuing, the left is identitarian, nationalistic, anti-clerical, centralizing, revolutionary, redistributing income, etc. The right is traditional, religious, favoring conservative approaches, rule of law, concerned with merit and not entitlement, etc.

These are historical generalizations, of course.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are right. Nevertheless, currently these differences are kind of dissapearing, dont you think?(postmodern, modern world) Very accurate and appropiate generalizations, the ones you just made.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Excuse the double post, but I just read this post.

Dixiecubdrinking: You just posted something that has been the reason for many, many, many conflicts, and the question that has caused many philosophers to fight between each other. B)  Be ready for harsh responses. Lol  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

: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.

[Dale]

You are right. Nevertheless, currently these differences are kind of dissapearing, dont you think?(postmodern, modern world) Very accurate and appropiate generalizations, the ones you just made. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ruso, if you were to ask me, I'd say that leftism has won the day. It's a leftist world. There's left and 'left-er'. Even Bush rhapsodizes about 'democracy', how it's the answer for a kinder and gentler world.

Or maybe I'm just having a bad day.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Excuse the double post, but I just read this post.

Dixiecubdrinking: You just posted something that has been the reason for many, many, many conflicts, and the question that has caused many philosophers to fight between each other. B)  Be ready for harsh responses. Lol  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Ruso, if you were to ask me, I'd say that leftism has won the day. It's a leftist world. There's left and 'left-er'. Even Bush rhapsodizes about 'democracy', how it's the answer for a kinder and gentler world.

Or maybe I'm just having a bad day. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose it's all relative, but I'd imagine that most people here consider democracy a human right rather than a left-wing ideology.

[Ruso]

: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 cannot find it, but there is a great comic bit, about a "republican jesus". It is a shame I can not find it to name the author. But it is very funny. I think anyone would enjoy it, regardless of their political views.

[Ruso]

Ruso, if you were to ask me, I'd say that leftism has won the day. It's a leftist world. There's left and 'left-er'. Even Bush rhapsodizes about 'democracy', how it's the answer for a kinder and gentler world.

Or maybe I'm just having a bad day. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are not a big fan of democracy?

I suppose it's all relative, but I'd imagine that most people here consider democracy a human right rather than a left-wing ideology.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You all should read the posts from "british colonies and spanish colonies" in the Americas forum. There you'll find some interesting views on an alleged democracy.