why are big cities more liberal

[Douger]

I think it's the reverse. People who live outside of cities are more conservative. It makes sense. If your nearest neighbor is half a mile away, it's easy to live your life in a bubble where your only concerns are your concerns.

I'll agree with that

Is that the view from your house, Douger? Beautiful.

That a view OF my house from the water sources in the upper pasture.
Thanks. We liking it too mush. Mellow place to be.

 

[FJO]

It's a simple fact that the average level of education is higher in urban areas than rural ones.

Why are you excluding suburban areas?

You mean areas that are more urban that rural ones. ROTFL

Of course, the average level of education of inner cities and generally, urban areas, is higher than that of rural or suburban ares.

It should be obvious! The best schools are in the inner cities. They must be the best, because the per student spending there is higher than anywhere else.

On the other hand those poor little kids who have to face life with the burden of having gone through school at home, taught by loving and caring parents or in some charter dumps where no government and union largesse were visible, instead of public schools where the main objective from principal down is, was and ever will be maintaining and improving the early pension and three month per year vacation.

Those who have got their 'education' in unionized indoctrination centers, commonly known as public schools will not understand or appreciate the sarcasm in this post.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Cities attract people who tend to be more liberal, more social, and more inclined to want the things that only a complex society can provide.


People in cities tend to better understand that if one wants the things that collectivism can provide, then one needs to pay taxes and give up some freedoms for those benefits.


People who don't live in cities tend not to care so much about those things that civilization can provide and since they also don't benefit from those things (they don't live near) they also quite reasonably object to having to PAY for those things, too.


This divide between urban dwellers and rural dwellers isn't new and it isn't particular to America, either.

This difference in POV is found thoughout history and thoughout various cultures, too.

And when revolutions against the government happens, often what we find is that the revolution is started and supported by most city dwellers, and the rural folks tend NOT to support those revolutions and often fight for the King

We certainly saw that difference between city v rual folks in both the French and the Russian revolutions, as well as in the US revolution, too.


Rural people TEND to be have more conservative outlooks in just about every way one can have an opinion about anything.

Here's something to consider. If, as you say, urban dwellers are more likely to foment rebellion than their rural counterparts, could that possibly be because rural residents have a much more fulfilling, satisfying, and happier lifestyle?

 

[francoHFW]

Of course, the minorities vote Dem because they know where the racists are, so “why are cities Dem” should really be the question…

I saw two African American clergy men with Bill O'Reilley on the Factor. The main topic was the endorsement and approval of gay marriage by President Obama. One of them agreed with the President, the other did not. One agreed with the President on just about everything so it was no surprise when he declared that he would vote for re-election, when asked by O'Reilley. The other guy opposed Obama the President on just about every other topic, including the contentious issue of abortion, yet he said that he would also vote for Obama.

Were either of these two guys offended when Herman Cain said that black are brainwashed?

Yes, because Cain is a bought off moron. Blacks know which party includes the racists and has racist policies.

 

[FJO]

I wanna hear your reasons why. What is the main reason ?

Liberals tend to have a more "worldly" and "sophisticated" view.
I've lived in big cities and in the country.
People in the country have often never personally knew or spent a lot of real, close, personal time with a hispanic, a gay or often times, even a black.
People in the cities couldn't avoid personally knowing every kind of person you could imagine. So they learned those people weren't as evil as they were led to believe.

There are very few major universities in small towns. Even then, those universities have people from every race, denomination and persuasion you could imagine. Direct exposure to something different than that to which you are accustomed, teaches you the difference between the prejudices that you have been taught, and the reality. Sometimes, people from Europe are nice! Gay people are nice! Whatever you have been taught to hate, is really not as bad as you've been told. Hell, even Muslims can be nice, beer-drinking people! I know a couple. Imagine that!
That's why.

Of course, you must have met all kinds of Hispanics who did their best to learn English and attended charm school that might have taught them that it is ignorant to yak in typical North American pigeon Spanish when there is someone there who doesn't understand what you yak about?

Of course, you must have met any number of African Americans who preferred Mozart to Snoop Dog, and/or ballet to break (brake??) dancing.

And, of course, there is no upper limit of how both African-Americans and Hispanics long for the day when their daughter marries another girls or their sons marry another guy.

After all, public "education" in inner cities teach them that it is the only decent thing.

 

[francoHFW]

Cities attract people who tend to be more liberal, more social, and more inclined to want the things that only a complex society can provide.


People in cities tend to better understand that if one wants the things that collectivism can provide, then one needs to pay taxes and give up some freedoms for those benefits.


People who don't live in cities tend not to care so much about those things that civilization can provide and since they also don't benefit from those things (they don't live near) they also quite reasonably object to having to PAY for those things, too.


This divide between urban dwellers and rural dwellers isn't new and it isn't particular to America, either.

This difference in POV is found thoughout history and thoughout various cultures, too.

And when revolutions against the government happens, often what we find is that the revolution is started and supported by most city dwellers, and the rural folks tend NOT to support those revolutions and often fight for the King

We certainly saw that difference between city v rual folks in both the French and the Russian revolutions, as well as in the US revolution, too.


Rural people TEND to be have more conservative outlooks in just about every way one can have an opinion about anything.

Here's something to consider. If, as you say, urban dwellers are more likely to foment rebellion than their rural counterparts, could that possibly be because rural residents have a much more fulfilling, satisfying, and happier lifestyle?

or they're more ignorant, uneducated, and easily duped, percentage-wise. Let's not forget it's a matter of percentages.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't buy the premise. Not all big cities are liberal. Big cities are diverse (sorry, I know this word strikes at the bowels of some) in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, language, education, income, political philosophy, etc. etc. So are our suburbs today. Big cities differ in many ways from small rural communities but in one major area the difference is striking: Cities and many large suburbs have institutions of higher learning.

However, one cannot surmise that all persons exposed to higher education become 'liberal' in the pejorative use of the word. Exposure to higher education, and in particular a liberal arts education does open ones eyes to other ideas, historical and contemporary, and I suspect most learn that change is inevitable and not something to be feared.

It's change that differentiates the liberal from the conservative within the conventional use of these terms. The liberal seeks change, rapidly; the conservative values tradition and accepts change slowly.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Having lived in one of the most densely populated cities in the country for almost ten years now, I can say with confidence the reason why it's more LOLberal here is because people are dumb. Not all, not even some, but LOTS of them. Herd mentality is easily manipuated.

 

[FJO]

Of course, the minorities vote Dem because they know where the racists are, so “why are cities Dem” should really be the question…

I saw two African American clergy men with Bill O'Reilley on the Factor. The main topic was the endorsement and approval of gay marriage by President Obama. One of them agreed with the President, the other did not. One agreed with the President on just about everything so it was no surprise when he declared that he would vote for re-election, when asked by O'Reilley. The other guy opposed Obama the President on just about every other topic, including the contentious issue of abortion, yet he said that he would also vote for Obama.

Were either of these two guys offended when Herman Cain said that black are brainwashed?

Yes, because Cain is a bought off moron. Blacks know which party includes the racists and has racist policies.

The REAL paid off morons are Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Calypso Farrakhan, Eugine Robinson and any and all blacks appearing on MSNBC, those who forget that the bloodiest Ku Ku Klux cross-burner was Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd and Bull Connor, all DEMOCRATS, while Abraham Lincoln, who waged a civil war against slavery, was assassinated by a guy who - if he lived today - would be the President and revered head of the Democratic Party.

No surprise, though! Blacks today, by and large, have been "educated" by union driven indoctrinators. They would have no clue who and what an "Uncle Tom" is or was, because they would not know who that the person who first wrote about Uncle Tom was a white woman.

And the real morons, because they not even paid off, only brainwashed are the morons who keep on voting for the party that is sworn to keep them in poverty.

After all, what would the scum like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do if suddenly there were no black poverty?

Would they take up arms to fight for the poor in Appalachia?

 

[naturegirl]

I grew up in Chicago, I saw more hatred and prejudice than I have ever seen in Georgia. I lived in the city with over 50 houses on one block, many of them two and three flats. I didn't know but a handful of my "neighbors". Why?? Because you might say something that offends them, you might do something against their culture, you might just have a different color skin. 'Cause if you do you might get your tires slashed, you might get your house burned down, you might get jumped walking down the street. Diverse does not mean tolerant, it means you do what you can to "avoid" taking your life in your hands. It's easier for the "government" to do it because it just might save your car, your house and your life.

I live in a very rural area, know most of my neighbors within a 5 mile radius and have been helped when needed. I just had major surgery and had people bringing over meals they cooked, deserts they made and had offers to clean, mow and run errands even from people I barely know. That would never happen in the city, ever!! Most of my neighbors don't know and don't care what color I am, how much money I make or my political affiliation. They help anyway, any way they can.

So if helping your neighbor isn't politically correct and depending on the government to "solve" your issues is, I'll take rural any day!!

So are big cities more liberal or are the people that live there forced to be more liberal thinking government is the answer because they can't control anything themselves.

 

[blastoff]

Big cities are more liberal because they've got a larger concentration of dumb asses.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Liberals tend to have a more "worldly" and "sophisticated" view.
I've lived in big cities and in the country.
People in the country have often never personally knew or spent a lot of real, close, personal time with a hispanic, a gay or often times, even a black.
People in the cities couldn't avoid personally knowing every kind of person you could imagine. So even if they started with the prejudices of Gomer McHick, they eventually learned those people weren't as evil as they were led to believe.
I moved from a small town to L.A. and worked alongside a really great woan for a year before I realized she was a lesbian. I mean it was SO obvious but I was clueless at the time. OMG she was nice, caring, funny and.... a human being. Turned out there was a gay man working at the same company but he wasn't so obvious about it. I didn't understand! Where was his pink silk pants!?!?! How could he be so normal and likeable?!?!? Direct interaction is the biggest enemy of prejudice.

There are very few major universities in small towns. Even then, those universities have people from every race, denomination and persuasion you could imagine. Direct exposure to something different than that to which you are accustomed, teaches you the difference between the prejudices that you have been taught, and the reality. Sometimes, people from Europe are nice! Gay people are nice! Whatever you have been taught to hate, is really not as bad as you've been told. Hell, even Muslims can be nice, beer-drinking, funny people! I know a couple. Didn't meet them in the country.
That's why.

 

[kiwiman127]

People with more exposure to those who are different are generally more tolerant.

Cities have more educated people.

Those would be my guesses.

As a lifetime city dweller, I agree. Living in an environment that offers diversity opens one's mind.
I have a co-worker that grew up in a rural environment and when he first started with the company he was , should I say somewhat of a racist and pretty much into his own world. Now ten years later his views have changed. His friends are from diverse backgrounds and ethnicities, he also volunteers at an intercity youth club as a basketball coach and mentor. He has commented about all the things he missed when he lived "in the sticks".
I certainly believe that one's environment goes to into developing one's outlook on life and the world.

 

[Meister]

More money in the cities and more social programs in place.

 

[Charles_Main]

I think it's the reverse. People who live outside of cities are more conservative. It makes sense. If your nearest neighbor is half a mile away, it's easy to live your life in a bubble where your only concerns are your concerns.

[/QUOTE]


I think that is flawed Logic. People in rural Communities, Which do tend to be spread out, are much more likely to know a High% of the People that live in there Area than people living in a Big City.

In Big Cities everyone becomes just another face in a See of Faces, in small towns it is much easier to get to know your Neighbors.

I am guessing from your Logic that you have spent most of your time in large Metro Areas?

 

[The T]

More money in the cities and more social programs in place.

And detracts from rual people that are no less of a citizen than city dwellers.

Of course rual citizens are mocked as 'hayseeds' that live in flyover country.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Because living in more densely populated areas requires more community decision making with regards to land use and caring for community members.

Quite the opposite. Cities are run top down. Smaller suburbs, villages are run bottom up. The people know what they need, just have to figure out how to pay for it. They tend not to run to the federal government on the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd attempt to get something done.

you must have missed my point. Let's take zoning and land use planning: Governments in densely populated areas are much more involved in zoning and land use restrictions. That's because people living in more densely populated areas have a greater need for an established set of community norms related to the issue.

You're exactly right - when your nearest neighbor is two miles away - no one cares how loud you play your music. When your nearest neighbor is a quarter-inch sheet of plywood away - you care.

In urban areas activity has to be more strictly controled to prevent folks from impeding on the rights of others. Has absolutely nothing to do with "top-down" or "bottom up." Small town political bosses are not a myth.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's a simple fact that the average level of education is higher in urban areas than rural ones.

Why are you excluding suburban areas?

Because the most easily accessible census data doesn't cut it that direction.

The rural areas are less educated than the urban areas, so the assumption you dismiss is not "hogwash", it's fact.

Easily accessible?....Conservative view.,....WORK HARDER....
Don't come here with low hanging fruit statistics. Excluding an entire demographic based solely on geography is at best, lazy. At worst, negligent.

 

[uscitizen]

Becuase those who live incities are always dependent on others for their basic necessities in life.
Food is not raised in cities.
Neither is oil or coal, etc produced.
Building materials?

They have lost their independence and function more as a hive/pack mind.

 

[8537]

Why are you excluding suburban areas?

Because the most easily accessible census data doesn't cut it that direction.

The rural areas are less educated than the urban areas, so the assumption you dismiss is not "hogwash", it's fact.

Easily accessible?

Yes. The most easily accessible census data cuts urban / rural.

....Conservative view.,....WORK HARDER....
Don't come here with low hanging fruit statistics.

Oh, I see. Go work harder yourself and prove me wrong instead of yapping your "conservative" ass values. I'll wait.

Excluding an entire demographic based solely on geography is at best, lazy. At worst, negligent.

They aren't excluded. I can't be held accountable for your ignorance here.