Is Tulsa conservative or Liberal (Owasso, Ada: sales, condo, loan)

[flyingcat2k]

Originally Posted by Griffis

I think Tulsa is conservative in more of the sense that conservativism once was. You know, like back when the Republican Party was actually conservative and not the neo-con wackadoos they are now.

In my opinion and experience (and I've spent many years in Tulsa) the town has a more traditional conservativism happening, but as a whole is socially rather liberal (for Oklahoma, at least!)

For instance, I think the more true, pure forms of conservative principles dominate Tulsa, where there is the least amount of government involvement in peoples lives as possible, and where people don't attempt to legislate morality (i.e. same sex marriage, reproductive choice, etc.)

Wasn't that VERY different from when Oral Roberts ran this town? In the 1970's and 1980's, it was my impression that the city complied with whatever his majesty's wishes were and kissed off the oil industry to Houston. Granted, that was started in the 1960's and the county option in Texas didn't help but large on-shore companies such as ARCO and Cities Service (at the time) had no reason to up and move to Houston other than everyone else was doing it.

The sad part is that once his majesty Oral fell, the City got stuck with some real ugly eyesores in South Tulsa such as City Towers. Oral's church (I think Victory was his church) is making headlines again but for hiding pedophilia rather than hiding extortion and embezzlement. I hope they now tear down his former eyesore on Boulder soon as the building recently killed a homeless man and has been boarded up for years.

I do believe the City of Tulsa is more Libertarian now (fiscally conservative, socially liberal) than wacked out Limbaugh/Coulter warriors who live in Jenks, BA and Bixby. Mounds and Liberty apparently belong to the Pat Buchannan and John Birch wings of the GOP. Tulsa is no longer the "belt buckle" of the bible belt.

[e_cuyler]

From what I used to remember, Tulsa was Republican oriented but at the same time, a good portion of the liberal population in Oklahoma made their home in Tulsa---usually just not enough to sway elections. Still, the most conservative area I've ever lived in was Central California. Tulsa at least would have Democrats getting around 40% of the vote and had candidates with a viable campaign.

Never lived in OKC, always heard they were a lot further right but I've heard you have more liberal/diverse type areas of the city now.

[bchris02]

Moderator cut: off topic

Can anyone familiar with both Oklahoma cities compare the political zeitgeist between OKC and Tulsa. Tulsa is more Republican but maybe more of the libertarian ilk, and I think OKC is more neo-conservative, but thats just my hunch and I don't have anything to back up that assertion.

[swake]

Tulsa is more Libertarian and less religious/socially conservative than Oklahoma City. But still REALLY religious and socially conservative. Tulsa also does have a real swath of truly liberal people in midtown that I don't think exists much in Oklahoma City. But not enough to win any kind of elections.

[MOKAN]

Midtown Tulsa may be "liberal" compared to much of Oklahoma, and OKC may have something similar, but let's not forget that Tulsa and OKC are in in a conservative state and are 2 of the most conservative cities for their size in the country. Tulsa County and Oklahoma County (Tulsa and OKC respectively) are 2 of the largest and most urban (if not, the 2 largest and most urban) counties in the United States to be RED counties, and that's despite having a considerable number of black people, Hispanics, and Native Americans! Typically any county with a major/urban city will be blue anywhere in the country, even the deep South, but on the Plains there's a certain brand and depth of conservatism. I believe Wichita and Topeka are also in counties that are similarly red, for example.

That said, there's nothing wrong with that, especially if you like that sort of thing. It's great that not every place in the country is the same. Personally, I do like Oklahoma and Tulsa quite a bit (I'm mostly unfamiliar with OKC). I find Oklahoma's culture very refreshing, and find it interesting that there's not such an rural/urban divide like in other places, at least not in the case of Tulsa - which is very much Oklahoma, whereas cities in many places are basically 'islands' largely culturally separated from their more rural surroundings.

[flyingcat2k]

I would agree that Tulsa and OKC are not treated like "islands" of urbanism. I think that is for a couple of different reasons.
1) OKC and Tulsa grew up with number of feeder cities around them like Midwest and Sand Springs that most modern cities in other states have annexed/absorbed by now.
2) There are A LOT of mid-tier towns (10k-75k) in Oklahoma that are dispersed across the state. In many rural areas of the plains states, other than TX, where these don't exist so you have a big urban area or small rural county seat (5k or less).
3) The distances between the "big city" and the very rural areas are shorter than in other states like MN or NE. As such, rural populations are more likely to travel to the city for events.

Tulsa's midtown won't swing federal elections but it certainly contains enough votes to swing state elections. Maybe we will get wine in the grocery stores next year.

[#1soonerfan]

Originally Posted by swake

Tulsa is more Libertarian and less religious/socially conservative than Oklahoma City. But still REALLY religious and socially conservative. Tulsa also does have a real swath of truly liberal people in midtown that I don't think exists much in Oklahoma City. But not enough to win any kind of elections.

Not trying to start trouble, but I'm really confused by this as it is not the first time I've heard this.

I think Tulsa used to have a more libertarian tradition, but now I'm not so sure. Could be the influence of ORU/Rhema College grads on the city? During the GOP primary I'm pretty sure Tulsa County went for birth control-aficionado Rick Santorum. At least OK County went with Romney.

I had to make a few business trips to Tulsa during 2009-10 when the whole Tea Party thing was at its peak and I can definitely say I saw way more "don't tread on me"-type right wing bumper stickers than I did in OKC. That's certainly not to say it was absent in OKC, and one could argue that the who tea Party thing was more of a libertarian movement, but it was just an observation on my part. I know that in 2010 two Tea Party types tried to run for OKC city council and were soundly defeated; plus there was council member from the southside who opposed MAPs3 on some sort of Tea Party platform; MAPs3 passed anyway and he ended up getting voted out shortly after that.

OK County was also one of the few in the nation that voted more Dem than GOP between 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. Not by a lot, maybe a few hundred votes at most, but significant nonetheless. As far as I know OK County is the only county in the state that has LGBT politicians, with Al McAffrey, Kay Floyd and Jim Roth being the most high profile. The mix of liberal whites and minorities mean most areas in the inner portion of OKC (bounded in by 44, 240 and 35) now are securely Democrat.

Both cities have streaks of blue in them but are otherwise some of the most conservative big cities in the US. OKC definitely does not have the libertarian tradition of Tulsa, but I do feel the "decibel level" of politics in Tulsa is more intense overall.

[MOKAN]

Originally Posted by flyingcat2k

I would agree that Tulsa and OKC are not treated like "islands" of urbanism. I think that is for a couple of different reasons.
1) OKC and Tulsa grew up with number of feeder cities around them like Midwest and Sand Springs that most modern cities in other states have annexed/absorbed by now.
2) There are A LOT of mid-tier towns (10k-75k) in Oklahoma that are dispersed across the state. In many rural areas of the plains states, other than TX, where these don't exist so you have a big urban area or small rural county seat (5k or less).
3) The distances between the "big city" and the very rural areas are shorter than in other states like MN or NE. As such, rural populations are more likely to travel to the city for events.

Tulsa's midtown won't swing federal elections but it certainly contains enough votes to swing state elections. Maybe we will get wine in the grocery stores next year.

After originally recognizing how Tulsa (and I've always assumed OKC) is not an urban island or, in other words, not culturally divided from its state, I figured it was because most folks in those cities are from Oklahoma. Oklahoma has urbanized to some extent, but mostly by pulling from population within it's own boundaries - whereas many other cities, especially northern industrial cities, have people more from all over the place. For example, Kansas City had a whole slew of Jews, Italians, Eastern Europeans, and working-class blacks and whites from the South, which created a much more diverse population and fragmented cultural dynamic. Another reason might be that Tulsa and OKC are younger cities in a younger state.

[flyingcat2k]

The reason the "decibel" level here is higher is because the suburban areas act independently or contrarian to whatever the City of Tulsa does. BA is a fine example. 1 HS instead of several. Different street naming convention than the City of Tulsa but having to list it anyways as the City's convention is used by the County of Tulsa. Refusing to use City of Tulsa's methods of trash collection which, while controversial at first, have turned out to be very well liked by residents.

OKC's suburbs are FAR more compliant with what OKC wants to do than Tulsa's so things are messy here. On the other hand, Jenks, Bixby and even BA to a lesser extent, have a different feel than Tulsa. I can't say that I noticed a huge difference between Midwest and Edmond and OKC The local State Reps also have different agendas and don't always vote as a bloc. Again, the 'burbs are more socially conservative than Tulsa.

[bchris02]

Originally Posted by MOKAN

After originally recognizing how Tulsa (and I've always assumed OKC) is not an urban island or, in other words, not culturally divided from its state, I figured it was because most folks in those cities are from Oklahoma. Oklahoma has urbanized to some extent, but mostly by pulling from population within it's own boundaries - whereas many other cities, especially northern industrial cities, have people more from all over the place. For example, Kansas City had a whole slew of Jews, Italians, Eastern Europeans, and working-class blacks and whites from the South, which created a much more diverse population and fragmented cultural dynamic. Another reason might be that Tulsa and OKC are younger cities in a younger state.

If OKC and Tulsa are ever to become more blue, there will need to be an influx of people from out of state and not just suburban whites. Diversity always breeds more liberalism. So far, most of the growth in Oklahoma's cities have been at the cost of the rural areas within the state of Oklahoma. It's not like Tulsa and OKC are places many people outside this region are itching to move and most out of state transplants tend to be from neighboring Kansas or Arkansas.

OKC is extremely right-wing outside of the I-35/I-44/I-240 ring. It's so right-wing that it makes "conservatives" from other states seem liberal. Inside the ring though there is more of the type of liberalism typical of larger cities. I would assume Tulsa to be more conservative since they are more Republican, but then again Republicans are different depending on where you go. Republican in Orange County, CA doesn't mean the same thing as Republican in Edmond, OK. Tulsa may be more Republican, but it has traditionally had less extreme politics. I can't think of anybody like Sally Kern coming out of Tulsa (correct me if I am wrong).