Urban Rural Political Divide: Part II

So. As promised, (or threatened) I want to also talk about this from the other direction: does politics lead to geographic separation. I think that this is mainly the case for low-density urban development, as there are little empirical data on folks fleeing the city for very rural places (anecdotally I am sure many do, as I would like to, but its nothing like a phenomenon). 

David Brooks wrote an interesting book on this called Paradise Drive, but the focus there was a bit different. In a nutshell, right of center people choose to live in lower density and left of center folks choose to live in higher density. Why? 

1. Children–More children equals more conservative. There are so many available data to support this idea that I will leave the cites up to the reader (as again I lack the time). The most liberal women are the least fecund, conservatives are the most. When you have a child (or especially more than one) city living is difficult and annoying. Even without children, married couples, who don't need to go to bars etc are likely to live in the burbs. This is the most obvious reason, but there are subtler ones.

2. Religion–This directly relates to point #1 (religious are much more fertile), but I think there is a more nuanced ancillary reason. I have no children and I prefer lower density. In the Jeffersonian sense religious people like some kind of nature, rather than the paean to man that cities are. Second, Christians in particular, which obviously make up the vast majority of religious in the US, at least partly desire to remove themselves from pagan culture. That is easier in the suburbs where you can be alone. The more dense, the more you are constantly exposed to any number of objectionable sights and sounds etc. As strange and silly as this may sound, I think it is a powerful motivator. 

3. Taste Culture–Liberals, yuppies, activists, these are all taste culture people. This often coincides with religion. If you worship created, rather than Creator, you are likely in this 'taste culture' idea. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is anything wrong with it per se, but I think it can be related to the worship thing. What do I mean? Well, religious folks might draw their friends from church or school or scouts etc. Yuppies et al tend to derive friends from taste culture. They are 'foodies' or hikers, or insert social category here. High density living caters to this more simply because there are more opportunities for interaction and specialization.

4. Legal–This is a catch all category but perhaps the most profound. Firstly that the zoning laws of cities (along with higher density) make property more expensive. Therefore families move to the suburbs. But it is more complicated. Taxes are often lower in the suburbs, which is obviously a concern of conservatives (b/c you know, we are honest and actually pay our taxes, unlike Dem pols). It is also often easier to do what you like with your property in the suburbs, though with neighborhood covenants this is increasingly less true. The big one is of course that the draconian gun laws of cities drive conservatives out. 

About 80% of the country according to the census is urban.  Obviously, this does not mean urban urban, but rather developed vs. rural. There are those who believe that culture emanates like a radio wave out of the cities, and there is some truth to that. But I believe one of the reasons the U.S. is still tolerable compared to some other Western societies is that we have allowed for semi-urban development, without the problems and pitfalls. We need to encourage this. The lefties decry this as 'sprawl' and there is something to that argument that we can't ignore. Some suburban spaces are ugly, wasteful and dehumanizing. But hello! So are a lot of very high density urban spaces! What we need to is develop sensibly for a variety of needs. If we let the left command suburban policy to make it more dense, we will lose these spaces and the heart of America.

There is a lot more to talk about here so feel free to chime in. Next I will deal with the future, and how I think these categories are going to become even more difficult as I believe we are on the cusp of a transport revolution along the lines of the auto 100 years ago. 

Urban Rural Political Divide

So. We all know that for the past several elections, and increasingly so, there has been a distinct urban/rural political divide.  Why is this? I would be interested in exploring reasons for this. Armchair style since I definitely don't have the time or the resources to do real research. 

First the Purely Geographic:

1. Exposure Theory–Lefties often argue that when you are urban you encounter people unlike you more often and this leads you to an enlightened 'progressive' worldview.' Clearly the bias in this theory clouds its reasoning. But if more finely tuned there is something to it. Urban people are more likely to be moral morons because they are over exposed to sinful humanity and therefore become desensitized to it. 

2. Jeffersonia–The sort of converse is the country Jefferson hoped to create as a founding father. He believed that the yeoman farmer learned the best values from a) reaping rewards from his own hard work, and b) immersing himself in God's wholesome creation. There is clearly something to this. Exposure to nature shapes your character, and generally in a direction toward 'conservative' values. Please note that most lefty 'nature lovers' are urban yuppie folks who shop at REI and like to go to rural places while looking down on the inhabitants, or hippie 'activist' people who are also actually urban and like to go to rural places and imagine that all of the people there are poor and desperately waiting to be radicalized.

3. Urban Dependency–Urban dwellers are dependent on the government. Also a sort of yang to Jeffersonian yin, this theory is that urbanites are unable (and unwilling–see Katrina) to take care of themselves. When and if economic collapse happens these folks will riot and become brutally violent. Rural people will tighten their belts and survive. Suburbanites will do a mix of the two depending on how suburban they are and what city they surround (i.e. can they have guns). 

4. Firearms–Which brings me to the last point. Guns are loud and dangerous and tend to be more difficult to safely use in urban areas. For this reason, folks who live in less dense places are more likely to learn how to hunt and or defend themselves. Isn't this you ask rolled into the other categories though? Well, yes, but I place it as a stand alone because guns are a pivotal political issue. No Democrat campaigns on a platform of 'you are a dependent urbanite who needs government and is so overexposed to sinful behavior that you have mistaken tolerance for depravity.' But they do campaign on 'we need to take guns out of the hands of scary people.' 

This post is already well over the 1timmy4 word limit, but I will briefly close on the geographic reasons. Most folks vote on one or two issues, if they vote on issues at all (rather than say, 'hey that guy is black and doesn't scare me!'). But, their general political makeup is a complicated mix of surroundings, worldview and influence. These geographic categories are clearly powerful, and pervasive. Sure there are folks in urban areas that are conservative (me, though I wish I lived in a rural one–there are old school urban conservatives who will remain so), but they are clearly the minority. Our country is likely to progress mostly in the direction of urban. However, the density we do this at will likely affect our political character. The things I have mentioned all kind of have a geography influences political affiliation assumption though. Next post I will explore the idea that maybe it is also the other way around. Then, I will explore the religious dimension of these.  Please feel free to chime in!