This is probably better suited to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I live in one the more rural places in Arkansas. It’s not that I don’t interact with my neighbors. I have no neighbors. I am Democratic and kind of a misfit. I have no urge to be in a more densely populated area. I prefer non-conservative people to be around but I am not in the market for acquaintances. I like being on my own, out here. Mr.Wrekker and my kids are about all I need. To be a part of the human species I volunteer, and I have a few friends in that endeavour. That’s enough. For me. YMMV.
What services do rural people feel they don’t need that urban people need?
Public transit is about the only public service I can think of that urban people benefit from that rural people do not. Rural areas still need roads, schools, police, fire departments, military, medicaid, medicare, social security, WIC, SNAP, etc.
Rural people may be better at self sufficiency in some other ways though. I’d wager they are better at fixing/repairing their own homes and cars, growing their own food, obtaining wood for heat (rather than using electric or propane), etc.
But as far as government services, it seems about the same.
Also rural counties that are minority-majority aren’t conservative. Only the white rural counties are conservative.
Sorry to mangle your post like that, but I was trying to highlight the points I had this question about: Do you have cites for those points?
I am currently living in a very rural area in Eastern Europe: out houses; heat, cooking, and hot water from burning wood, only one paved road; pigs, cows, and chickens everywhere; etc.
I can build a house of less than 600 sqft with no permit whatsoever, get my water from a spring, and put in an outhouse. It would cost less than $20,000. If, like my neighbors, I planted a large garden and had chickens I could live on a couple hundred dollars a month.
It would be much more difficult and expensive if I had to get permits, put in code compliant plumbing and electricity, have an engineer do percolation tests on the soil so I could put in a septic tank, pay property taxes, pay for water, and do all the other things you have to do in a more urban area (for good reasons).
I’m a city boy and life long liberal, but I can now understand the appeal of the “smaller government” ideology. I think liberals need to understand that one size does not fit all. You don’t solve the problem of inner city gang violence by limiting the rights of a farmer in Iowa who wants to shoot varmints.
At the same time, there needs to be a base level of human rights for people where every they live.
In fact, some of those things, like roads, rural folks need even more of. If your nearest neighbor is ten miles away, then you, personally, need at least ten miles of road. Probably more, if you and your neighbor ever want to get anywhere else.
Well they sure do get most of the government spending for folks that don’t need it. How about you give up some of those farm subsidies.
AIUI, it’s more that liberal people move to cities, or are born and grew up in cities, than that cities make people liberal.
I’ll give up all my farm subsidies if you give up making posts where you haven’t spent five seconds figuring out anything about the context of the person you’re responding to. (Hint: I’ve never gotten a farm subsidy in my life.)
scoring high on authoritarianism is connected to being more likely to support the GOP presidential candidate.
As far as exposure to diversity and authoritarianism, I have read that going to college reduces authoritarianism because it increases exposure to different kinds of people. I believe I read that in Bob Altemeyer’s book ‘the authoritarians’.
However going online, I found this article.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688078
According to that, exposure to diversity makes prejudice worse among authoritarians, but reduces prejudice among non-authoritarians. It makes no mention of whether exposure to diversity increases or decreases authoritarianism, but exposure to diversity makes racial intolerance worse among authoritarians, but makes intolerance better among non-authoritarians.
Living in a high density area promotes the belief that we are “all in this together”. That, in turn, promotes voting Democratic.
I really think this is key. It is harder to be homophobic when you’re not thinking of “the gays,” but rather thinking of Bob and Richard who live three floors down, and Bob is a computer programmer, and Jim is working on his Master’s degree, and you play Catan with them sometimes. It’s harder to be Islamophobic when you meet Samir in your book club at the community college.
For being so “self sufficient”, rural folk sure like their food stamps:
Rural families rely more on food stamps than those in large cities, study shows
IMHO it has nothing to do with Big Government. Conservatives are find with government spending so long as it’s to fund military or provide corporate subsidies.
It has to do with rural and less dense suburban areas providing fewer experiences and interactions that challenge the thinking of people who live there. These areas also experience a significant “brain drain” as those seeking more education and diversity tend to head off to the big cities.
So what you are left with is a relatively homogenous, isolated group who gain most of their information about the outside world from TV and internet.
So back to my OP - is one “cause” more likely and prominent than the other? I.e. - do conservative people move to rural areas because of the perceived fit for them, or does living in a rural area cause people to be more conservative? Or replace “conservative” with “liberal” and replace “rural” with “urban.”
(This line of questioning comes from reading “What’s The Matter With Kansas,” where a woman is quoted as saying that living in a city makes people Democrats.)
I think you are overemphasizing the impact of people relocating, and also overemphasizing the nature of “cause”.
I am of the opinion that it is more likely that a person is born with a political predisposition. Relocating from a less urban area to an urban area for “out-groups” is definitely happening. And I would submit that there is a segment of the population who tend toward conservatism who move out of the cities. But a great majority of people stay near where they were born. But I really don’t think people migrate based on political persuasion. Even in an urban area, a conservative can have an active political life with like minded individuals.
Regarding “cause”, I think it is more subtle than that. It is more that the predominate surrounding culture creates a comfort level in displaying ones political propensities and intensities. Just like the out-group individuals finding kindred spirits in a more populated area, conservatives are more likely to find kindred spirits in less populated areas, so in both cases ones outward displays of tribal loyalty are more overt. But it’s not that either environment “caused” a belief.
Post #6 was my attempt to answer this question.
TL/DR version: Many of the exceptional / misfitty people who have a reason to be liberal tend to move to the cities, or to immigrate there from outside the country.