Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone help me out here, I must have my definitions mixed up. I thought Progressive was somewhat of a different way of saying liberal. Some of the cities being defined as not progressive in this thread, are some of the most liberal places in terms of politics in the country e.i. Detroit, Cleveland. Can someone please tell me the difference?
Chicago, NYC, LA, Detroit, Cleveland, Washington DC, Seattle, Boston etc. are "liberal" cities (though that obviously is NOT always a good thing. I point you to the crime rate in these cities)
Indianapolis, Atlanta, Montgomery, really many southern cities are "conservative", I only guess that's opposite of Liberal.
Chicago, NYC, LA, Detroit, Cleveland, Washington DC, Seattle, Boston etc. are "liberal" cities (though that obviously is NOT always a good thing. I point you to the crime rate in these cities)
Indianapolis, Atlanta, Montgomery, really many southern cities are "conservative", I only guess that's opposite of Liberal.
LA is now the safest large city in the country. I'm not aware of any correlation between a city's political leanings and crime rate. If you have a source on this, can you link to it?
Someone help me out here, I must have my definitions mixed up. I thought Progressive was somewhat of a different way of saying liberal. Some of the cities being defined as not progressive in this thread, are some of the most liberal places in terms of politics in the country e.i. Detroit, Cleveland. Can someone please tell me the difference?
I wouldn't call Cleveland or Detroit "liberal." I think we have a misconception here of "liberal" as synonymous with "Democrat." Just because they heavily vote Democrat doesn't make them liberal. Rust belt cities like the aforementioned, as well as Chicago and Buffalo, are the old union strongholds who have long voted Democrat because of that party's historical pro-labor stance, which paired well with the (formerly) industry-heavy centers of the north. Also, due to white flight many inner city citizens in the Rust Belt are African American, a demographic that almost totally votes Democrat.
Going off on a tangent here so I don't set off a political or racial debate. Nearly all African Americans vote Democrat due to poor relations with the Republican Party stemming from Nixon's southern strategy when he shifted conservative southern supporters to his side (supporters that in many cases had been anti-civil rights). The reason they still vote largely Democrat despite the Southern strategy having been so long ago is because the Republican Party as a whole never really attempted to build bridges with African Americans after this, and most attempts at building a political relationship with AAs have been marred by the occasional racist lunatic under the party banner-usually fringe individuals that are in no way representative of the party, but bring down its image by association. Hope I've clarified myself enough that any political tension is soothed, this is the most objective way I see the issue.
Back to the original topic. Detroit and Cleveland, among other similar cities, aren't really "progressive" either because, in all honesty, they aren't making that much progress. They're losing population and infrastructure as we speak, and abandoned buildings crumble within their borders and crime runs rampant in certain portions of those cities (doesnt mean the cities are unliveable though). Their leaders aren't looking toward future development, they're looking to the present for how to simply maintain the city and have it survive. That's not exactly "progress." On the other hand, cities like Houston, Nashville, or Minneapolis are building new buildings, infill, and transit, and have rapidly expanding populations and economies. Their leaders are open to new ideas in urban planning and design, and are eager and willing to bring about revolutionary (and sometimes risky) changes. That is progress.
Long story short: Democrat=/=Liberal, Democrat=/=Progressive (though Progressive=Liberal). All progressive cities are Democrat, not all Democrat cities are progressive. But they are not one and the same.
Back to the original topic. Detroit and Cleveland, among other similar cities, aren't really "progressive" either because, in all honesty, they aren't making that much progress. They're losing population and infrastructure as we speak, and abandoned buildings crumble within their borders and crime runs rampant in certain portions of those cities (doesnt mean the cities are unliveable though). Their leaders aren't looking toward future development, they're looking to the present for how to simply maintain the city and have it survive. That's not exactly "progress." On the other hand, cities like Houston, Nashville, or Minneapolis are building new buildings, infill, and transit, and have rapidly expanding populations and economies. Their leaders are open to new ideas in urban planning and design, and are eager and willing to bring about revolutionary (and sometimes risky) changes. That is progress.
This is not true at all in regard to Cleveland (don't know about Detroit though). The Cleveland of today is almost unrecognizable compared to the Cleveland of the 90s. Yes, population has gone down, but if you had actually ever been to Cleveland instead of just posting from ignorance, you'd be hard pressed to deny the progress made in many neighborhoods. Hell, Cleveland looks way better than it did since 2008 even. I mean, downtown construction has exploded, high demand for apartments. The Cleveland Clinic, Case Western, and the Cleveland Museum of Art have done huge things in University Circle. Tremont and Ohio City, formerly shady, crime ridden areas are now ideal urban centers. Public transportation service, especially on the light and heavy rail, has increased. I could go on and on and on.
Don't post about "progress" in cities you don't know the first thing about.
On the other hand, cities like Houston, Nashville, or Minneapolis are building new buildings, infill, and transit, and have rapidly expanding populations and economies. Their leaders are open to new ideas in urban planning and design, and are eager and willing to bring about revolutionary (and sometimes risky) changes. That is progress.
Long story short: Democrat=/=Liberal, Democrat=/=Progressive (though Progressive=Liberal). All progressive cities are Democrat, not all Democrat cities are progressive. But they are not one and the same.
Now do we all understand?
Under this definition there are a few cities that meet these qualifications, places that would not historically be considered progressive. I can see where the old Rustbelt strong holds might not be progressive. I do wish as a forum we could widen our view and recognize other places making strides in these areas and not just the establishment answers.
This is not true at all in regard to Cleveland (don't know about Detroit though). The Cleveland of today is almost unrecognizable compared to the Cleveland of the 90s. Yes, population has gone down, but if you had actually ever been to Cleveland instead of just posting from ignorance, you'd be hard pressed to deny the progress made in many neighborhoods. Hell, Cleveland looks way better than it did since 2008 even.
Don't post about "progress" in cities you don't know the first thing about.
Sorry, my mistake. Let me clarify myself some more.
Relative to the new shiny cities like Charlotte, Nashville, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, Seattle, etc., Cleveland is not doing that well. It is still struggling to revive its stagnant economy, and is still losing population both in the city and the overall metro. It is a classic Rust Belt city, and has all the problems that come from being a member of that club. Additionally, a lot of "progress" in Cleveland is merely recovery, rather than a forward march-in other words, the city is playing catch up rather than surging ahead like many newer cities.
However, I do also recognize that Cleveland is doing well for itself, and very well may be the Rust Belt's unsung comeback kid (with Pittsburgh being the RB city that's already turned the corner). It has plenty of cultural amenities and other advantages over other cities that could lead to huge growth. Cleveland is poised for a very bright future, and is rapidly improving and picking up pace. Anyone living in the area has a lot to look forward to for their city. And I wish the best for Cleveland and its residents as it continues to march forward and make up lost ground. I'm honestly excited to see what the future holds for Cleveland, as well as Detroit, Buffalo, Milwaukee, and all other rust belt cities (especially my home city! Go St. Louis!), because it will be spectacular for sure. And Cleveland looks like it just may be the city to lead the way (along with, as I mentioned, Pittsburgh. I strongly believe Pittsburgh's revival has begun and it has entered a new era, from what I hear and what I know).
LA is now the safest large city in the country. I'm not aware of any correlation between a city's political leanings and crime rate. If you have a source on this, can you link to it?
It's just coincidence. Detroit, may I point you to? Chicago is becoming just as bad as Detroit, the only thing keeping it from being entirely like Detroit are the hipsters on the North side and the remaining Polish communities. IL political leaders are corrupt. CA politics are corrupt. CA's crime rate IS high. Look at Compton.
Yeah man CA crime is high! You can totally judge this by just looking at a single city of 90,000 people! Let's forget for a second that homicides have dropped 67.2% in the last 5 years. And that Compton's violent crime rate has been reduced by 30% over the last ten years, and is continuing to be reduced.
Yeah man CA crime is high! You can totally judge this by just looking at a single city of 90,000 people! Let's forget for a second that homicides have dropped 67.2% in the last 5 years. And that Compton's violent crime rate has been reduced by 30% over the last ten years, and is continuing to be reduced.
ALL crime across EVERY city has plunged. Obviously. It's comparing rates to other rates TODAY. Even Detroit and Chicago's crime is "there", but it's not going aware. It's still HIGH. In these LIBERAL cities, most of which push strict gun control (but yet have the highest rates of gun violence hmmm wonder why that is).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ALL crime across EVERY city has plunged. Obviously. It's comparing rates to other rates TODAY. Even Detroit and Chicago's crime is "there", but it's not going aware. It's still HIGH. In these LIBERAL cities, most of which push strict gun control (but yet have the highest rates of gun violence hmmm wonder why that is).
