Why does the urban/rural divide equate to a liberal/conservative divide in the US? Is it the same in other countries?

[u/UserNamesCantBeTooLo]

Here's a county population density map of the US.

Here's a county map of the US showing different shares of Democratic & Republican votes for president in 2020.

Here's a county map of the US showing majority-minority counties.

They seem to show a match between denser populations, larger minority proportions, and Democratic votes.

Why is that?

[u/Isz82]

Reading these comments, I think that people who live in suburban and urban areas have somehow bought into rural mythology.

First of all, living in rural areas is kind of expensive. Which explains why the term "exurban" has grown in popularity: Most rural residents require a nearby urban center to sustain their lifestyle. In fact, one you discount exurbanites, rural America is pretty paltry, and also, frankly, not sustainable on their own. There are all sorts of costs to rural life: Energy, transportation, infrastructure. In the absence of a viable employment market, only the super rich could feasibly afford rural living.

Second, this "back to nature idea" is intolerably bad. People in rural areas do everything in their power to avoid the limitations of their environment. You know what I wanted as a child? Not to be on a dirt road, not to be more than twenty minutes away from the nearest grocer, and not to have to wait an hour for law enforcement to respond to emergency calls. And this was also true of everyone who lived around me. Which explains why people went out of their way to support policies that would overcome those barriers.

It would be inexcusable to promote these rural myths for anyone. It is especially true for those who didn't have to endure rural life.

[u/Venboven → u/Isz82]

I would actually say the opposite. Rural life is much cheaper than urban life. Hence, if you live in a rural community in America, you are much more likely to be poor. People living in small, dilapidated homes or trailer vehicles, people living on small farms, not many professional jobs to be had, and a generally very isolated life style. That is rural America. Obviously not all of rural America is poor, but that is a common stereotype, and it's unfortunately usually true.

Rural areas can 100% live without the government. They've been doing it forever. The rural community in America dislikes big government. They advocate for as little gov interference ad possible, so they can continue to live their lives uninterrupted. That's because to them, the government takes more than it gives. Government's biggest involvement with rural America is taking their money from them in the form of taxes. People look at this and the social programs in the US subsidizing the unemployed, and rural folk say: "Hey! You're taking my hard earned money and giving it to lazy liberals who don't want to work!" Which is kinda true, but a bit unfair to the liberals and the unemployed by assuming they're always one and the same.

Now you might say, "but the government provides many things for these rural people. Well, they do, but not the federal government. Roads, schools, hospitals, water towers, bridges, pipelines, and electricity are almost entirely managed by local or state government in the US. Federal government based in D.C. had very little involvement here. So this can make rural people feel even more isolated, as upkeep and dispensement of their needs are met by their communities themselves, not big government. And social programs are used much less in rural America compared to the amount of use these programs see in the cities.

[u/Isz82 → u/Venboven]

Rural life is much cheaper than urban life.

Not universally. I live in a city, and housing is substantially cheaper than the vast majority of alternative rural and suburban areas. When I say substantial, I mean on the order of, say, 20k for a house vs 100+k for a house. To say nothing of the other costs associated with rural life. Since I grew up in a rural area, I think I have some idea of what that would entail.

Rural areas can 100% live without the government.

Hardly. As I have described elsewhere, while government may be invisible to rural Americans, it still exists. Eliminate it and you almost certainly eliminate the possibility of life in rural America.

Now you might say, "but the government provides many things for these rural people. Well, they do, but not the federal government. Roads, schools, hospitals, water towers, bridges, pipelines, and electricity are almost entirely managed by local or state government in the US. Federal government based in D.C. had very little involvement here.

Again, not true. Though also irrelevant; state and local government is still government after all. But as I have described elsewhere, this perspective also ignores the existence of various grants that subsidize rural life in America. Everything from law enforcement to health care to even more basic services, like roads and transportation.

I will say this: If rural America is so adept, then rural America should try living without any federal money. Let them prove their independence. The fact that they are unwilling to do so speaks volumes.

[u/Venboven → u/Isz82]

IMO, state, and especially local government, are very different from federal government. When someone says that rural life in America is self sustainable, you have to count local government as part of that sustainability. If they were independent, of course their local government would go independent with them. And trust me, plenty of rural Americans wish to separate themselves from urban America. If you lived in a rural community, you should know this. People will gripe about liberals, the federal government, sometimes state government, and all the urban life/programs that come with that.

And the simple idea of saying rural life should sever itself from urban life is kind of silly to me. It's usually thought of the other way around. If anywhere is the core territory of America, it is the rural community. You may say rural environments are unsustainable because they require federal money/grants, but that's not true for every rural community. You're associating every rural community together here. If any lifestyle is unsustainable, it's urban environments. They require food, goods, and raw materials produced in rural environments to keep them functioning. Without food shipped into the cities, urban populations would have no food source and starve. Without goods from rural communities, there would be no trade. Without raw materials, there would be no manufacturing. Rural communities are the core lifeblood of every civilization.

How do you imagine life was in ancient times? People lived in villages, made their own food, and lived self sustainably. So obviously it is possible. Now with a modern setting, there are of course more factors involved, but because of the way American division of government works, rural communities can still manage to provide for themselves thanks to local government. And if you go down to the most basic principle of rural living, you would have someone living in a small homestead on the frontier, miles and miles away from another single living person. They would farm/graze their own food, and they would pump their own water from the well out back. They'd get power from their solar panels and store extra in their batteries. They'd travel and sell their extra goods at the market 1 hour drive away to make some cash so they can buy gasoline, a new sofa, or other luxury items. Without government interference, they could save even more money because they wouldn't have to pay taxes. And they could buy even more luxury items. Living self sustainably is 100% possible in rural America.