Urban Democrats and Rural Republicans

[Missourian]

I get what you're saying and I don't feel threatened by it. I think others are reacting to an unspoken implication of your conclusion. What exactly that is... I don't know, but I think if we could get them to articulate that point we might learn something (at least about the way they think, if nothing else ).

I don't think they like the implication of becoming accustom to dependency. It goes against the American Spirit of Individualism. I still think it's a good hypothesis.

 

[Luissa]

2000

2004

2008

So I'm looking at these maps that I posted yesterday in another thread and it brings be around to thinking once again about the enigma of the city Democrat and the country Republican.

I have had some theories about that such a perhaps country folks are more religious or city folks see more of the crime and homelessness or country folks are closer to nature but none of them held up under scrutiny.

But yesterday something new came to me, a new hypothesis regarding the political divide between urban and rural.

I think urban dwellers have become accustom to being dependent.

Now don't take this as any kind of insult. It takes a lot of infrastructure when so many live in such a small area.

When a water main breaks or the power goes out in my town it's an inconvenience. When the same thing happens in the city, it's an emergency.

No one comes to pick up the garbage? No biggie, I got a burn barrel. In the city, big problem, refuse everywhere.

Streets don't get ploughed? So what, I got a freezer full of food AND a 4wd. In the city it would be mayhem.

What I'm getting at is if the government shut down in my county, I might not even notice, but if the same thing happened in a metropolitan, it would be a disaster.

Now this is just a theory and perhaps one that others before me have advanced.

Feel free to poke holes in it or trash it completely.

In the city you are usually not allowed to have a burn barrel, when you loose power that also means traffic lights go out which is a safety hazard. Also when you live in a larger city you have more elderly who need such things as being plowed out. And when you get as much snow as we did this winter, the neighbor guy with the plow on the front of his truck is not going to cut it and even a 4x4 might not be able to get around.
But I do have to say my mom who was married to a Wyomning rancher for awhile keeps plenty of food in her house for blizzards.
And we did shut down here for two days and most survived, of course being stuck at home for a few days I wanted to pull my hair out but other then that I was fine!

 

[Luissa]

Also by the way, where I live is red on your map
People here don't want to pay the taxes but bitch when their street isn't plowed and our roads suck!

 

[del]

I remember a class I had in college in which a study compared mental health in the city as opposed to suburban areas, the conclusion was people are healthier in the city because the city offers more. The more was people, organizations, churches, schools, and basically help. Wo/man is a social animal and being a social animal we have survived by helping each other. Just this week I helped an elderly neighbor unfreeze their water line.

A second wrong assumption is that republicans are rural? Most repubs I know are very much city people or populous suburban area folk. Myths die hard but the small percentages that define red or blue are pretty much meaningless. Next theory please.

maybe that's because you live in the city?
duh

 

[del]

Yet another bubbameitzer.... I'll remind you a democratic president signed welfare reform into law.

and if you really believe what you're saying after 8 years of the repubs wasting our money to enrich the rich... well, sorry, I think real people's issues should be addressed before corporatists are enriched. living on the national credit card is now a republican hallmark. aren't you proud?

And I do vote republican locally when the republican candidate is better. I won't ever vote for a repub on the federal level again, though... too much perversion of the Constitution by right wing loonies; too much fiscal irresponsibility.

And voting repub got you GWB...

so no thanks. I wouldn't take responsibility for having put him in power on a bet.

drafted by a republican and passed by a republican congress.

you can have DOMA, though, he signed that, too.

 

[Anguille]

A rural American can live off his property just fine without the produce of cities--

Sure, if he wants to live like a survivalist.

 

[Amanda]

Sure, if he wants to live like a survivalist.

You say it like it's a bad thing.

Seriously tho Ang, if you tried it you might like it. It's like camping with a house.

 

[Anguille]

You say it like it's a bad thing.

Seriously tho Ang, if you tried it you might like it. It's like camping with a house.

How do you know I haven't?

Camping is fun but not a great lifestyle.

 

[Old Rocks]

2000

2004

2008

So I'm looking at these maps that I posted yesterday in another thread and it brings be around to thinking once again about the enigma of the city Democrat and the country Republican.

I have had some theories about that such a perhaps country folks are more religious or city folks see more of the crime and homelessness or country folks are closer to nature but none of them held up under scrutiny.

But yesterday something new came to me, a new hypothesis regarding the political divide between urban and rural.

I think urban dwellers have become accustom to being dependent.

Now don't take this as any kind of insult. It takes a lot of infrastructure when so many live in such a small area.

When a water main breaks or the power goes out in my town it's an inconvenience. When the same thing happens in the city, it's an emergency.

No one comes to pick up the garbage? No biggie, I got a burn barrel. In the city, big problem, refuse everywhere.

Streets don't get ploughed? So what, I got a freezer full of food AND a 4wd. In the city it would be mayhem.

What I'm getting at is if the government shut down in my county, I might not even notice, but if the same thing happened in a metropolitan, it would be a disaster.

Now this is just a theory and perhaps one that others before me have advanced.

Feel free to poke holes in it or trash it completely.

Rural roots, presently living in a city. You are very correct. We raised most of what we ate. Hunted for our meat. Had a huge pantry completely full in November. Raised chickens, pigs, and had a milk cow. If civilization shut down, we would have had months before we felt the full effects.

Living in the city, we very well realize that we are only a week from being hungry. We depend on the electrical grid and natural gas pipelines for heat and light. And if the neighbors house is on fire, our own is in dire danger, because of distance.

In the country, if you drive a bit erratically, people just watch out for you. In the city, you are the subject of a newcast. Each type of living has differant rules because of each reality. Each has differant advantages and dangers.

I prefer very rural living, and intend to retire to such a community. In fact, were it not for my wife's needs, I would be living very far from any community at all. But those that prefer the city have just as rational of reasons for doing so as I do for liking very rural areas. Urban versus rural is mostly for people that have not experianced both.

 

[Red Dawn]

Ah, the myth of the self-reliant rural dweller.

Let me let you in on a not so closely guarded secret.

The rural folks who are sitting in houses lighted with electricity, using the internet, and making cell phone calls only have that luxury because of the government.

In the true "free market", telecom companies couldn't make money providing service to mostly unpopulated urban areas. The electrical grid, the cable tv service, high speed internet, and the cell phone grid are provided to you courtesy of the US Taxpayer and government subsidies to companies to build infrastructure in rural areas. FDR gave the rural south electricity. Those fuckers would be living by kerosene lamp without the government.

But you could use kerosen lamps, give up the internet, and live off the land you say? I hate to break the news to you, but the fertilizer, pesticides, and hybrid seed products for growing foodstock were developed in largely in public land grant universities, often in urban areas, from research subsizidized by the US taxpayer.

 

[Anguille]

Rural roots, presently living in a city. You are very correct. We raised most of what we ate. Hunted for our meat. Had a huge pantry completely full in November. Raised chickens, pigs, and had a milk cow. If civilization shut down, we would have had months before we felt the full effects.



Living in the city, we very well realize that we are only a week from being hungry. We depend on the electrical grid and natural gas pipelines for heat and light. And if the neighbors house is on fire, our own is in dire danger, because of distance.

In the country, if you drive a bit erratically, people just watch out for you. In the city, you are the subject of a newcast. Each type of living has differant rules because of each reality. Each has differant advantages and dangers.

I prefer very rural living, and intend to retire to such a community. In fact, were it not for my wife's needs, I would be living very far from any community at all. But those that prefer the city have just as rational of reasons for doing so as I do for liking very rural areas. Urban versus rural is mostly for people that have not experianced both.

Both lifestyles complement and rely on each other. In the country you are closer to your food source but farther from medical care, education, etc.

I love being in the country and spend a lot of time there but choosing city life is more environmentally responsible than living in the suburbs or the country. Unless you work at home, grow your own food and use renewable non polluting energy sources to heat your home and hot water, a rural or suburban person is likely to use much more petroleum than a city dweller.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dolly is of course wrong. If anything it is the other way around. Population density alone sees to that.

Sorry but in rural areas if your septic tank clogs up you don't call the mayor you call a plumber and that after you've called the guy that opoerates the local honey pump truck.

Some government is always going to be necessary, Jillian, the argument is largely over what constitutes too much of a necessary evil. Governments by their very nature tend to reduce human freedom usually to simplifyy things for the bureaucrats who if they were the sharpest knife in the drawer to begin with would be somewhere else making more money in the private sector.

First, some of those sharp knives have put us where we are today. Secondly, the reality of living in a rural community is very differant than living in an urban community. Just the technical aspect of the daily neccessities is differant. A bridge fails in a rural communtiy, and everone has to find a way arround it, which affects a few thousand people. In a city, it can affect hundreds of thousands, and the cost is far more than that of a new bridge.

No, government is a necessity, neither evil nor good, until made so by the people running it. Tools can be used to build or to destroy. The characterization of a tool as good or evil simply demonstrates the incapability of the person making that statement to reason rationally.

 

[Chris]

1. Cities outproduce the rural areas by at least 10 to 1.

2. The red states are net consumers of tax dollars; the blue states are subsidizing them, in everything from agricultural subsidies to loans to electrification projects to roads to hospitals to to USDA assistance to welfare to flood coverage. Y'all are welcome!

Republican states are the welfare queens!

 

[Missourian]

But you could use kerosen lamps, give up the internet, and live off the land you say? I hate to break the news to you, but the fertilizer, pesticides, and hybrid seed products for growing foodstock were developed in largely in public land grant universities, often in urban areas, from research subsizidized by the US taxpayer.

Lucky for us, huh? It's a wonder anything grew at all before that.

The roots of farming began in the areas of present day Turkey and the Middle East about 10,000 years ago. Two of the earliest settlements are known as Catal Hüyük and Jericho. Catal Hüyük had, by 6000 B.C., more then 1000 houses. It is at this place that we have discovered evidence of people taking wild grasses and using the seeds for food and planting for the next years food. These seeds are now known as cereals and make up a large percentage of the worlds food supply.

Farming changed very little from early times until about 1700. In the 1700's an agriculture revolution took place which led to a large increase in the production of crops. This increase of crops came about in a large part by ". . . little more then the final destruction of medieval institutions and the more general adoption of techniques and crops which had been know for a long time" (17F, pg 53). Included in some of these changes was also the adoption of crops from the "new world" such as corn and potatoes which produced a very large yield.

In the 1850's, the industrial revolution spilled over to the farm with new mechanized methods which increased production rates. Early on, the large changes were in the use of new farm implements. Most of these early implements were still powered by horse or oxen. These new implements combined with crop rotation, manure and better soil preparation lead to a steady increase of crop yield in Europe. (17F)

The advent of steam power and later gas powered engines brought a whole new dimension to the production of crops. Yet, even as recent as 100 years ago, four-fifth of the world populations lived outside towns and were in some way dependant on agriculture. Even in 1970's Griggs suggests that half of the worlds working population is still employed in agriculture. (17F, pg 1)

 

[del]

i'm a raging queen!

fixed that for you, chrissie

 

[Chris]

fixed that for you, chrissie

Thanks deli.

 

[Missourian]

Ah, the myth of the self-reliant rural dweller.

If you don't agree that city folks are significantly more depended on government than rural folks, I don't know what to tell you.

Your attempts to make it a black and white issue are failing miserably.

I am not saying that country folk are completely self-reliant. I am saying they are much less reliant on the government, by necessity, than city folk are, also by necessity.


I'm also advancing a hypothesis that the hyper dependence on government thay city inhabitants have by necessity grown accustom leads to high levels of urban democrats.

 

[del]

Thanks del.

no problem, mary.

 

[Anguille]

If you don't agree that city folks are significantly more depended on government than rural folks, I don't know what to tell you.

Your attempts to make it a black and white issue are failing miserably.

I am not saying that country folk are completely self-reliant. I am saying they are much less reliant on the government, by necessity, than city folk are, also by necessity.


I'm also advancing a hypothesis that the hyper dependence on government thay city inhabitants have by necessity grown accustom leads to high levels of urban democrats.

I don't disagree with your theory. But I think that you have to include community in your definition of government. In the country you rely more directly on your neighbors when you need help and community efforts are a sort of government. Rural people are more likely to be jacks of all trades due to being isolated whereas city people are more specialized and live lives that are more communal yet less in direct contact with each other, thus requiring more governing or at least more bureaucracy . I'm not sure if I'm getting my thoughts across. My ideas, as they often are at this hour, are half baked.

 

[del]

I don't disagree with your theory. But I think that you have to include community in your definition of government. In the country you rely more directly on your neighbors when you need help and community efforts are a sort of government. Rural people are more likely to be jacks of all trades due to being isolated whereas city people are more specialized and live lives that are more communal yet less in direct contact with each other, thus requiring more governing or at least more bureaucracy . I'm not sure if I'm getting my thoughts across. My ideas, as they often are at this hour, are half baked.

we still love you, no matter how baked you are.