Why are cities more liberal?

[urbanvb]

Whew, this thread kept me up for over an hour past bedtime. You guys need to slow down a bit!

[PeninsulaKiddo]

First of all, there were probably more than three gay students in your high school.  Estimates range from 5-10% in any randomly selected population.  Since homosexuality defies trends of where people live (For young people anyway, where their choice of living is limited.), it is likely that the figure was more like 50.  But I guess you'd have to ask each person and count on them being honest to really know.

Also, I'm not so sure that diversity is only determined by race or sexual orientation.  First of all, each person is different, so there is always some form of diversity.  Hence the "cliques" in high school.  That's why some people like football or band or hot dogs or tacos.

You'd probably find that the 2 black kids and how many ever asian students in your school could identify with you and the other white kids in your school a lot more than a black kid living in an urban ghetto.  So, I don't think that diversity is so much determined by skin color as much as it is the environment in which you live.

That is why I always felt like I was lucky, even living in a generally rural area.  My high school was hte same size as those in the suburbs with 2000 students, so the same opportunities were offered to me as the big schools, but we had the scope of an entire community/region going to our school.  Rather than 95% white from a few large housing developments, we had kids literally from an area the size of Rhode Island.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First off... I go to Tabb, not the reject "Poquoson High" hahahaha. We have 10-15 students who are out of the closet, Poquoson only has 3. The fact that only 3 students "are gay or bi" at a school would give an indication not of how many gay or bisexual students are actually there, but the tolerance level of the community (which in Poquoson, is negligible).

I do get your argument that a black student at Poquoson High would be very different from one at an urban high school in a ghetto in a much bigger city, and those two students would be very different on all levels. I think I have somewhat oversimplified, however, the point remains that an environment such as Poquoson (population 12,000 in southern Virginia) is perhaps partially as conservative as it is due to lack of influence from diverse groups. That's not the rule to all cities, but perhaps some?

[dixiecupdrinking]

I have been following this thread for a while and though at times many posters began to allude to the answer (at least in my opinion) the conversation invariably drifts towards classifications (education, religion, race...).

Two observations have helped my form this theory. First, I have recently moved into a downtown area, albeit a mid-size city, and I am constantly reminded of my proximity to other people in the city vs. when I lived in the Knoxville

[Dale]

Those are very good points but ones that I'd have been afraid of making myself. You never outright say: does this mean you're associating "a more tolerant attitude" with liberal politics and a more out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude toward those more "alternative" aspects of society with conservativism? That sounds like a presumption that would offend some conservatives. Many seem to be touchy about the idea that they're out of touch with people unlike themselves.

However, it's a presumption that I'm inclined to agree with, personally. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I frankly don't know what nashvillebound was trying to say, although I quite agree that he said it well. But maybe you ought to get out a little more. you know, actually meet a few conservatives.

Of course you're not likely to find many in those alledgedly 'diverse' urban environs.

[Snowguy716]

Dale, what happened to the conservative solutions to our problems?

It seems to me that often times conservatives are so busy finding someone to blame for society's problems that solutions are often lacking.

Simply telling a single mother to get a 2nd or 3rd minimum wage job to support her child may be a solution to getting the baby diapers. But who is going to change the diapers when the mom is working 18 hours a day?

Of course, one could say "Well, the father should have been there"... I say "Shoulda coulda woulda".. sometimes things don't turn out to be like Cinderella and Prince Charming complete with 2.1 kids, a dog, a white picket fence and a great church to bring spaghetti casserole to on potluck night..

i've heard conservatives say that private charity is a better way to provide for the poor. If private charity worked, we wouldn't have welfare systems.

Private schools are better (Perhaps they are)... I think, however, that education as a private enterprise is a bad thing. I don't even want to think about what a school operated by Exxon/Mobil would be like. There would need to be so many government regulations and enforcement costs that you might as well throw up a building, staff it with teachers, and pick the kids up on a yellow bus and call it a day!

Private health insurance. Ugh. The U.S has privatized health care. We also have one of hte lowest life expectancies in the developed world.

My state recently started a program so that Minnesotans can purchase prescription medicine online from Canadian pharmacies to the horror of the Bush administration. When our governor gave the president the one finger salute and kept it up, the drug industry started putting ads in our newspapers telling us that drugs from Canada could really be coming from Columbia.. hidden agenda? I think so.

De-regulated agriculture: Does anybody research this stuff? Obviously not, because most of America's farmers are voting for politicians that legislate their own livelihoods into the pocketbooks of a measly few corporations. Nearly 80% of America's beef comes from a few select companies: ConAgra, Cargill, IBP to name a few. Heard of 'em? Probably not. These are the same companies that rely on the government to provide health care for its workers, but support politicians that don't want government health care.

One company even picked up a busload of illegal immigrants at the Mexican border, drove them to Minneapolis, started them working at a meat packing plant in St. Paul and then at the end of the day dropped them off at hte homeless shelter for a place to stay. Now that's a company that I want telling me what's good for me.

That's a company I want to support through lower corporate taxes, lax regulations, and massive subsidies from our tax dollars.

Here, read this:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/slaughterworkers.cfm

Dale, these are the "conservatives" that make me sick. These are the people who get politicians elected. These are the people who get the likes of Sam Brownback put back into the senate again and again...

And the people in Kansas are going "Good. Sam is a champion of hte people. A man who will instill family values in this country. A man who will fight for the working man." Yet they get angry when downtown loses yet another business.. more farms go bankrupt and their good paying jobs go down the toilet. But it's always the liberals' fault! It's the liberals and their shoddy morals. They did it.

Sam Brownback isn't going to get Roe vs. Wade over turned, and he's not going to illegalize gay marriage, or stop the entertainment industry from perverting the nation's children.

No, no, no... he'll give his verbal support to organizations that protest at abortion clinics, and then give the abortion doctor a tax cut. He'll denounce the schools, saying they're not doing enough to educate our children. Then he'll trim the budget to make up for lost revenue. He'll denounce violence in video games, sex on TV, and swearing in rock songs... and then give them, too, a tax cut.

I'm sorry, people, but these politicians aren't fighting for the "working man", but only for the man with a working pocket book.. and the executives down at Iowa Beef Packers have plenty of that to go around.

As an edit:

I don't mean to offend any Kansans... I am merely pointing out my personal opinion. I think there are more politicians in this country than one senator from Kansas that could easily have been interjected in that little rant of mine.

[Guest]

Thank you for the suggestion 'Dale' but as you can see my conservative credentials speak for themselves: (Full Disclosure)

Former President U of Tennessee College Republicans

Tennessee Youth Co-Chairman for The '88 Jack Kemp Campaign

Member Young Republicans (no elected positions)

Technology Director Alexander for Senate '02

Technology advisor to the Tennessee Republican Party (one among many)

Volunteer Canvasser for GW '04 Campaign (What a party election night)

As for a more tolerant attitude being liberal I would argue that it is not an indicator or liberal or conservative; it is common sense for peaceable cohabitation. Now for me, a Republican that chooses to live in a city environment it helps ensure my good health and peace of mind.

I am friendly but guarded to some extent during the numerous day-to-day interactions-

The homeless person that is obviously under the influence after dark

The Friday late night gathering of 'Bears' at the gay bar on my block

The vast tourist sea of country music fans every time I step out my door

The sports fanatics partying before and after the football and hockey (it is back baby) games

The corporate army that occupies the city M-F from 8-5 and then retires to suburbia

The cur of society looking for an easy mark

The ability to

[Guest]

'Dixie'

You are right that some of it is the "out of sight out of mind" mentality that is more prevalent in suburbia applies to the city. However, in reality you do see most of what goes on in a city and thus I have to go one step further and believe "but for the grace of God" and move on.

[Dale]

Thank you for the suggestion 'Dale' but as you can see my conservative credentials speak for themselves: (Full Disclosure)

Former President U of Tennessee College Republicans

Tennessee Youth Co-Chairman for The '88 Jack Kemp Campaign

Member Young Republicans (no elected positions)

Technology Director Alexander for Senate '02

Technology advisor to the Tennessee Republican Party (one among many)

Volunteer Canvasser for GW '04 Campaign (What a party election night)

As for a more tolerant attitude being liberal I would argue that it is not an indicator or liberal or conservative; it is common sense for peaceable cohabitation. Now for me, a Republican that chooses to live in a city environment it helps ensure my good health and peace of mind. 

I am friendly but guarded to some extent during the numerous day-to-day interactions-

The homeless person that is obviously under the influence after dark

The Friday late night gathering of 'Bears' at the gay bar on my block

The vast tourist sea of country music fans every time I step out my door

The sports fanatics partying before and after the football and hockey (it is back baby) games

The corporate army that occupies the city M-F from 8-5 and then retires to suburbia

The cur of society looking for an easy mark

The ability to

[Dale]

Dale, what happened to the conservative solutions to our problems?

It seems to me that often times conservatives are so busy finding someone to blame for society's problems that solutions are often lacking.

Simply telling a single mother to get a 2nd or 3rd minimum wage job to support her child may be a solution to getting the baby diapers.  But who is going to change the diapers when the mom is working 18 hours a day?

Of course, one could say "Well, the father should have been there"... I say "Shoulda coulda woulda".. sometimes things don't turn out to be like Cinderella and Prince Charming complete with 2.1 kids, a dog, a white picket fence and a great church to bring spaghetti casserole to on potluck night..

i've heard conservatives say that private charity is a better way to provide for the poor.  If private charity worked, we wouldn't have welfare systems. 

Private schools are better (Perhaps they are)... I think, however, that education as a private enterprise is a bad thing.  I don't even want to think about what a school operated by Exxon/Mobil would be like.  There would need to be so many government regulations and enforcement costs that you might as well throw up a building, staff it with teachers, and pick the kids up on a yellow bus and call it a day!

Private health insurance.  Ugh.  The U.S has privatized health care.  We also have one of hte lowest life expectancies in the developed world.

My state recently started a program so that Minnesotans can purchase prescription medicine online from Canadian pharmacies to the horror of the Bush administration.  When our governor gave the president the one finger salute and kept it up, the drug industry started putting ads in our newspapers telling us that drugs from Canada could really be coming from Columbia.. hidden agenda?  I think so.

De-regulated agriculture:  Does anybody research this stuff?  Obviously not, because most of America's farmers are voting for politicians that legislate their own livelihoods into the pocketbooks of a measly few corporations.  Nearly 80% of America's beef comes from a few select companies:  ConAgra, Cargill, IBP to name a few.  Heard of 'em?  Probably not.  These are the same companies that rely on the government to provide health care for its workers, but support politicians that don't want government health care.

One company even picked up a busload of illegal immigrants at the Mexican border, drove them to Minneapolis, started them working at a meat packing plant in St. Paul and then at the end of the day dropped them off at hte homeless shelter for a place to stay.  Now that's a company that I want telling me what's good for me.

That's a company I want to support through lower corporate taxes, lax regulations, and massive subsidies from our tax dollars.

Here, read this:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/slaughterworkers.cfm

Dale, these are the "conservatives" that make me sick.  These are the people who get politicians elected.  These are the people who get the likes of Sam Brownback put back into the senate again and again...

And the people in Kansas are going "Good.  Sam is a champion of hte people.  A man who will instill family values in this country.  A man who will fight for the working man."  Yet they get angry when downtown loses yet another business.. more farms go bankrupt and their good paying jobs go down the toilet.  But it's always the liberals' fault!  It's the liberals and their shoddy morals.  They did it.

Sam Brownback isn't going to get Roe vs. Wade over turned, and he's not going to illegalize gay marriage, or stop the entertainment industry from perverting the nation's children. 

No, no, no... he'll give his verbal support to organizations that protest at abortion clinics, and then give the abortion doctor a tax cut.  He'll denounce the schools, saying they're not doing enough to educate our children.  Then he'll trim the budget to make up for lost revenue.  He'll denounce violence in video games, sex on TV, and swearing in rock songs... and then give them, too, a tax cut.

I'm sorry, people, but these politicians aren't fighting for the "working man", but only  for the man with a working pocket book.. and the executives down at Iowa Beef Packers have plenty of that to go around.

As an edit:

I don't mean to offend any Kansans... I am merely pointing out my personal opinion.  I think there are more politicians in this country than one senator from Kansas that could easily have been interjected in that little rant of mine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry for the delay. I was ought crusading for the little guy, and time got away from me.

As a very preliminary (and very tentative) response, I don't know that there is much in the way of precedent for what I would consider an authentic conservative approach to the various ills of society you've mentioned. I think we squeezed the toothpaste out of the tube, and the toothpaste is al over the bathroom floor, all over the bedroom carpet, and well into the dining room. How to put it back ? I think a truly conservative gameplan would be found repulsive, wholly impracticable. It would amount to a massive, did I mention massive ? retrenching of government, wherein government is another name for subsidizing all sorts of unwholsome behaviors ranging from the boardrooms to the barrios.

Now certainly there's more that I could say. We can go into specifics. But let me ask you a question, if you don't mind. What do you think would happen if welfare were abolished over time ? Say, five or ten years.

[status quo buster]

The best way to understand this phenomenon is by understanding that people choosing suburban sprawl living are intentionally or unintentionally choosing social isolation, while those choosing urban living are choosing social connectivity; it comes down to low or high social capital areas as discussed in Bowling Alone and my book Spam.

[Dale]

The best way to understand this phenomenon is by understanding that people choosing suburban sprawl living are intentionally or unintentionally choosing social isolation, while those choosing urban living are choosing social connectivity; it comes down to low or high social capital areas as discussed in Bowling Alone and my book

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Define 'social isolation'. Define 'social connectivity'.

[MrSmith]

What do you think would happen if welfare were abolished over time ? Say, five or ten years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By "welfare" do you mean the financial aid that paid for my college education? Or do you mean the huge tax break I get on my $475,000 condo mortgage? Or perhaps by wlefare you mean the incredible tax breaks just given to the oil companies or to sports teams for stadiums.

Ok...I am being sarcastic but seriously...the middle and upper class is a huge consumer of government handouts!

Look, I agree that there are some people that are chronic welfare cheats and simply lazy and i think you work to set up a system that prevents this or limits this as best as possible.

But there are people who really need welfare too -- women escaping abusive spouses, people who have had medical problems, people who have lost there jobs, people who are not that smart, girls sexually abused at home, kids kicked out of the house because they are gay and people who have had some bad luck.

If we eliminated welfare you would see more homeless people, more homeless kids and there would be no chance for these people to better themselves --even if they wanted too. How do you get a job when you can't shower? How do you get your kids in a school when you have no home.

If I think about why I have been successful I attribute it to my family. They gave me security, food, clothing, education etc. If anything were to happen to me I know they will be there to help.

Shouldn't we help create good families? How does a single mom with a poor education create a good environment if she makes $10 an hour ($20,000/yr) -- has no healthcare and pays a minimum of $700 rent. How do two or more people live on $13,000 a year? You could not afford a car or insurance and if her child has a medical problem it could cost $5,000 or more.

Think about your own life. Have you ever had a medical condition or gone to the doctor? What if you had to pay out of your own pocket? What if you had young kids and your spouse died and you only made $10 an hour. How do you afford day care?

You are right...these problems go way way back --probably 10,000 years. To use your expression the toothpaste was let out of the tube long ago but what are YOU offering as a solution?

[Dale]

Sure, my question can pertain to all welfare.

And of course we should desire to see good families. But has government served to foster good families ?

Finally, are you suggesting that, if welfare were abolished, over time, that some would fall throught the cracks ? Aren't people falling through the cracks now ? And are you further suggesting that if welfare were abolished, over time, that there would exist no other means of helping troubled souls ?

[MrSmith]

Sure, my question can pertain to all welfare.

And of course we should desire to see good families. But has government served to foster good families ?

Finally, are you suggesting that, if welfare were abolished, over time, that some would fall throught the cracks ? Aren't people falling through the cracks now ? And are you further suggesting that if welfare were abolished, over time, that there would exist no other means of helping troubled souls ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People are now falling through the cracks --but more would fall through the cracks --which does not solve the problem but makes it worse.

There are non-governmental means to help people --but there are not enough for the number of people that need help. In fact the the Catholic church is the largest private provider of social services but when the state was going to kick low income people off a subsidized (not free) health insurance program to save money the church spoke out and said it would be devastating and that they were already spead to thin to help. Likewise, non-profit homeless shelters say there are not enough beds for the number of homeless.

Again, What is the solution?

Welfare was started to solve some of the ills that are inherant in every society and yes, they have created some new ills --- but what is a better workable solution?

[Dale]

People are now falling through the cracks --but more would fall through the cracks --which does not solve the problem but makes it worse.

There are non-governmental means to help people --but there are not enough for the number of people that need help.  In fact the the Catholic church is the largest private provider of social services but when the state was going to kick low income people off a subsidized (not free) health insurance program to save money the church spoke out and said it would be devastating and that they were already spead to thin to help.  Likewise, non-profit homeless shelters say there are not enough beds for the number of homeless.

Again, What is the solution?

Welfare was started to solve some of the ills that are inherant in every society and yes, they have created some new ills --- but what is a better workable solution?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not inclined to suppose that there are problems with welfare. Rather, that welfare is a problem. Since 1965 some *five-trillion* dollars have been spent to alleviate poverty, and, arguably, we've gotten more povety.

Hypothetical question: You have a teenage daughter, who becomes pregnant, and is abandoned by her 'boyfriend'. What would likely befall her ?

[Dale]

And I suppose we will never know the answer to the question that if welfare were abolished, would there be sufficient resources for helping people in need, so long as welfare remains.

[MrSmith]

And I suppose we will never know the answer to the question that if welfare were abolished, would there be sufficient resources for helping people in need, so long as welfare remains.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If she were my daughter I would help her raise the child. But if I were a drunk or abusive father I guess she would end up on the street or helped by welfare.

[Dale]

If she were my daughter I would help her raise the child.  But if I were a drunk or abusive father I guess she would end up on the street or helped by welfare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I know you would act as a good father. And the bleak alternative scenario you posit is the kind of scenario made more likely by welfare.

I believe welfare has been an abysmal failure. Hence, it makes no sense, to me, to attempt to rehabilitate a failed system.

Without the incentive of welfare, it is reasonable to assume that woman would have fewer children out-of-wedlock, this of course being a prime contibutor to poverty. And if there were no welfare, I believe that many (not all) would be inclined to search harder for alternatives.

Finally, there is no toss-up between welfare and poverty. I can easily envision a reinvigorated system of private charity rising to the occaision. Notwithstanding our faults, Americans have always been a generous people. Without the 'easy out' of welfare, I believe that increasing numbers of Americans would become more exercised, more personally involved in the lives of the truly needy around them.

[Ruso]

Yes, I know you would act as a good father. And the bleak alternative scenario you posit is the kind of scenario made more likely by welfare.

I believe welfare has been an abysmal failure. Hence, it makes no sense, to me, to attempt to rehabilitate a failed system.

Without the incentive of welfare, it is reasonable to assume that woman would have fewer children out-of-wedlock, this of course being a prime contibutor to poverty. And if there were no welfare, I believe that many (not all) would be inclined to search harder for alternatives.

Finally, there is no toss-up between welfare and poverty. I can easily envision a reinvigorated system of private charity rising to the occaision. Notwithstanding our faults, Americans have always been a generous people. Without the 'easy out' of welfare, I believe that increasing numbers of Americans would become more exercised, more personally involved in the lives of the truly needy around them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As a few of you might know, Chile, the southern SouthAmerican nation, is already considered a first world nation. For some, because of the bloody dictatorship of the 70s, with Pinochet. Now Chile signed the free trade treaty with the USA. Despite their current "leftist" president, they did implement extremely capitalist policies. The welfare system, for example, was eleiminated. Instead, they promoted a bank-like option. Anyone who needs economical help, asks for bondings , yet they have to pay them later. It is much more complex, but I got to g.

[Dale]

So, to the question, "What would conservative solutions to social ills liik like ?", I would hazard that it would look less like doing, and more like not-doing, or undoing things that have led to our, uh, undoing.

[monsoon]

And I suppose we will never know the answer to the question that if welfare were abolished, would there be sufficient resources for helping people in need, so long as welfare remains.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you want the answer to this question go look at the conditions of the people in countries where they don't have government social programs for the needy.

[Dale]

If you want the answer to this question go look at the conditions of the people in countries where they don't have government social programs for the needy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But are you suggesting that conditions in other countries arise from the lack of a welfare state, or perhaps from other factors ?

[rusthebuss]

By "welfare" do you mean the financial aid that paid for my college education?  Or do you mean the huge tax break I get on my $475,000 condo mortgage?  Or perhaps by wlefare you mean the incredible tax breaks just given to the oil companies or to sports teams for stadiums. 

Ok...I am being sarcastic but seriously...the middle and upper class is a huge consumer of government handouts!

Look, I agree that there are some people that are chronic welfare cheats and simply lazy and i think you work to set up a system that prevents this or limits this as best as possible. 

But there are people who really need welfare too -- women escaping abusive spouses, people who have had medical problems, people who have lost there jobs, people who are not that smart, girls sexually abused at home, kids kicked out of the house because they are gay and people who have had some bad luck.

If we eliminated welfare you would see more homeless people, more homeless kids and there would be no chance for these people to better themselves --even if they wanted too.  How do you get a job when you can't shower?  How do you get your kids in a school when you have no home.

If I think about why I have been successful I attribute it to my family.  They gave me security, food, clothing, education etc.  If anything were to happen to me I know they will be there to help.

Shouldn't we help create good families?  How does a single mom with a poor education create a good environment if she makes $10 an hour ($20,000/yr) -- has no healthcare and pays a minimum of $700 rent. How do two or more people live on $13,000 a year? You could not afford a car or insurance and if her child has a medical problem it could cost $5,000 or more.

Think about your own life.  Have you ever had a medical condition or gone to the doctor?  What if you had to pay out of your own pocket?  What if you had young kids and your spouse died and you only made $10 an hour.  How do you afford day care?

You are right...these problems go way way back --probably 10,000 years.  To use your expression the toothpaste was let out of the tube long ago but what are YOU offering as a solution?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Me personally, I think that giving someone something just doesn't help them. If they want welfare make them earn it. Go clean your city up or give them city jobs of some sort. When people get things that don't earn it they abuse and become lazy and keep asking for more. There is so much they could do. They could make them do community services of some sort. Trash clean up, painting graffiti, etc. Lets not let people live off of others hard earnings and such but make them work for that money that we give them. I know people have their down and outs but people are on it for generations and don't want to get off. People are to dependant on these systems and learn to abuse them instead of learning how to become self sufficient.

[Dale]

Me personally, I think that giving someone something just doesn't help them. If they want welfare make them earn it. Go clean your city up or give them city jobs of some sort. When people get things that don't earn it they abuse and become lazy and keep asking for more. There is so much they could do. They could make them do community services of some sort. Trash clean up, painting graffiti, etc. Lets not let people live off of others hard earnings and such but make them work for that money that we give them. I know people have their down and outs but people are on it for generations and don't want to get off. People are to dependant on these systems and learn to abuse them instead of learning how to become self sufficient. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's a name for what you're proposing here.

It's called a 'job'.

[MrSmith]

So, to the question, "What would conservative solutions to social ills liik like ?", I would hazard that it would look less like doing, and more like not-doing, or undoing things that have led to our, uh, undoing. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly...conservatives will do nothing!! The solution is to do nothing?! Fabulous!!

You confirmed my hypothesis 100%.

And why will you do nothing...becuase you assume you know the types of people who use welfare (unwed mothers, people too lazy to get a job etc...). In fact many of the people on welfare have jobs...they just are not jobs that pay a wage that is livable. In fact the subsidized healthcare program in jepordy of being cut in Minnesota was only available to people who had jobs!!

And, if your premise is correct that without welfare people would search harder for alternatives then why in the world should we give to charities --afterall it is just another form of welfare encouraging these people to be careless.