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.
You can believe anything incorrect that you want; it just shows ignorance.
If you've never heard of the U of NE I'm not going to be the one to bring you up to speed, bub.
Wow. I would really appreciate being able to keep it focused on urban influence on political philosophy. I noticed that from the list of states by population density, the top 10 states trend Democrat and the bottom 10 states trend Republican. That lends credence to the idea that the urban tends to lend toward more Democratic voting. Also, I personally think the urban influence actually DECREASES ignorance with regards to diverse people, with respect to aspects like race, religion, culture, etc. all of which inform political philosophy. I know personally my urban upbringing and urban college experience exposed me to that sort of diversity of people and indeed has influenced my political outlook, lending credence to the OPs suggestion of a link between cities and liberal political philosophy.
Wow. I would really appreciate being able to keep it focused on urban influence on political philosophy. I noticed that from the list of states by population density, the top 10 states trend Democrat and the bottom 10 states trend Republican. That lends credence to the idea that the urban tends to lend toward more Democratic voting. Also, I personally think the urban influence actually DECREASES ignorance with regards to diverse people, with respect to aspects like race, religion, culture, etc. all of which inform political philosophy. I know personally my urban upbringing and urban college experience exposed me to that sort of diversity of people and indeed has influenced my political outlook, lending credence to the OPs suggestion of a link between cities and liberal political philosophy.
Well, speaking of anecdotes, the friend I mentioned did not change his political beliefs. Changed his perspective on other things, but not politics. Don't think they change easily. Changed his perspective on cities and became a bit more used to diversity, but he never was the anti-immigrant type anyway.
The more exposure to diversity = more tolerance is a bit naive. The opposite could occur; encounter more diversity and don't like it very much. There's always Archie Bunker:
and then the expression "a conservative is a liberal who's gotten mugged". Seeing those with social issues and urban poverty may produce more understanding or just compassion fatigue. Fear of street crime might convince otherwise liberal types to support conservative law-and-order rhetoric. Another anecdote: Know of a rather left of typical liberal Brooklyn family that thought rather positively of Giuliani for mainly crime reduction reasons.
I think it might be oversimplifying to say that a place that voted 80% for Obama is 80% liberal though. New York voted overwhelmingly for Obama, but they still elected Michael Bloomberg as their mayor.
Michael Bloomberg is very liberal, and he avidly supported Obama in the 2012 Presidential election.
The more exposure to diversity = more tolerance is a bit naive. The opposite could occur; encounter more diversity and don't like it very much.
That is true for me. For example, because I have an advanced education but I haven't been able to find a job where I can apply my knowledge and skills, I have been forced to take a temporary, Christmas seasonal job at a fulfillment center for a large online retailer. The warehouse I work at is located in the lower-class, industrialized portion of the metropolitan area where I live, and the job requires only a high school education. The overwhelming majority of the people who are doing the same job that I doing are minorities (Hispanic and Black).
I don't like most of the people with whom I contact with at work, and I have no interest in spending any time with them outside of work. However, tonight I went to two Christmas parties, one at a Christian church and other at a private home of a member of a Meetup.com group, both located in two suburban communities in the metropolitan area where I live. I did enjoy socializing with most of the people I met with at these two events. These two events were located in middle class communities and most of the people were white and educated, or were doing relatively well in their jobs without an advanced college degree (such as an acquaintance with a very attractive girlfriend who operates a swimming pool cleaning and maintenance company, a business in high demand in the hot metropolitan area in which I live).
Thus, I find as increase my contact with people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, where there are higher percentages of minorities, the less I favor those types of people.
Your opinion. People's personal life experiences are completely relevant. All of the journalist exposes on social issues and the politics of certain places are people's life experiences and are completely relevant even if some consider them anecdotal. When people have first hand experience with the urban environment influencing their politics, that is completely relevant to a discussion about the urban influence on political beliefs. So your opinion is your opinion, but many will understand it to be wrong since examples of the urban influencing politics is relevant to the topic of the urban influencing politics.
Furthermore the states list by density shows the top 10 to lean Democrat and the bottom 10 to lean Republican. Plus the electoral maps across the nation show a greater concentration of the Democratic vote in urban areas. All of that is relevant and proves the point that the urban experience DOES tend to lead to more Democratic politics. Which is basically what I have advocated from the outset. QED.
The more exposure to diversity = more tolerance is a bit naive. The opposite could occur; encounter more diversity and don't like it very much.
I disagree with the first sentence and agree with the second. A solid trend will typically HAVE exceptions. But exceptions don't negate the trend. The exposure to diversity in the urban environment (and BTW diversity goes beyond just race) does tend to equal to a more "our shared experience" perspective. But sure there will be exceptions.
A parellel- it is undeniable that blacks tend to vote Democrat. All the data proves it. But the opposite could occur; blacks vote Republican. Michael Steele is one example. Nonetheless the existence of that 8% or whatever of blacks who vote Republican does not negate the trend of blacks voting Democrat, and if someone were to take those exceptions as a way to try to disprove or negate the idea that blacks tend to vote Democrat, people would readily understand how exceptions don't negate a trend. I believe urban influence on political philosophy is the same way. The data shows a strong bias toward Democratic philosphy in urban areas, but even so there are numbers who DO vote Republican in urban areas. So the argument isn't about totality and isn't in absolutes, but rather about tendencies.
Now the OP's question doesn't specifically address if "cities make you more liberal" is intended as an absolute or intended as the prevailing tendency, but the reality is that the outcomes/results show it as the prevailing tendency/trend, but with exceptions of course as trends will have. So the concept is not naive at all IMO. Even in the south in red states that a Democratic candidate for president isn't going to even TRY to go after, the urban vote trends Democrat- because the urban philosophy trends further away from the conservative end and closer to the liberal end.
And I treat the whole "liberal" label in this context as more of a trend, because any single issue can be picked out to try to negate a trend erroneously. My personal social stands runs more liberal, however, I disagree with rulings that have prevented teachers for example from even being able to say they are Christian, etc. even if they aren't indoctrinating students. And I disagree with removing the 10 commandments from courthouses. Those two beliefs are typically considered conservative. But it would be erroneous to use them to conclude my social philosophy is conservative when I am pro-woman's choice, pro-gay rights, pro-universities attempting to get racial diversity, pro-equal pay for equal work, pro-path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, etc. Liberal is a general placement on a political spectrum, and cannot be nailed down to 100% of positions fitting the liberal label. A person with 75% of social positions fitting the liberal label has more liberal views, even though they may have 25% of social positions fitting the conservative label. Again the point is exceptions don't negate the overriding tendency/trend.
Even Archie Bunker's attitude benefitted from his interaction with George Jefferson and softened somewhat. Plus, his daughter and "meathead" had attitudes completely different from his, arguably due to their exposure to the urban environment. Archie's attitudes came from his father, but again he softened somewhat due to his urban experiences and of course his daughter and in-law continued that trend towards less hardlined attitudes. So despite Archie's bigotry, even All In The Family had a theme of urban influence on lessening hardened attitudes. Archie saw enough diversity and debated with those different perspectives enough for it to benefit him moreso than if he had always just been around people just like him.
Michael Bloomberg is very liberal, and he avidly supported Obama in the 2012 Presidential election.
Good point. That is the benefit of local and state politics- you can wear a particular political label but have more freedom to move further away from the national platform of that party in your various governing activities. Mitt Romney has always been Republican, but when he ran for governor of Mass and when he governed as governor of Mass, he governed there with a considerable amount of left-leaning activity. So you often find the lines between liberal and conservative in the context of (Democrat is liberal, Republican is conservative) more blurred in local and state politics. A democrat as a presidential candidate or a republican as a presidential candidate is not going to be seen advocating a great deal of the other party's platform or promising to govern with a great deal of the other party's platform as is seen in local politics particularly but state politics to a certain degree.
Just the prior year, during the Watergate mess, people from MA were driving around with these bumper stickers that said "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts" (the only state Nixon lost), pointing their fingers at the rest of us lowlifes. Then busing came to their home, and everything was "different". I know we've discussed this before, and a rehash is not necessary, just saying, some people don't know how to "walk the walk" even if they "talk the talk".
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.
