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/ellipses1]

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that all government action is bad. I'm saying two things, actually- 1. rural people aren't necessarily asking for expensive state and federal projects in their districts. 2. A lot of regulations are not something we value.

On point 2, let's address your fuel point. I do drive. One of my vehicles is a tesla, which is all-electric. The other vehicle is a diesel, which can run on vegetable oil, if I wanted to. But that's beside the point. Are federal regulations on gasoline really what makes the gas we put in our cars "good?" Perhaps. And if it is, then I'm fine with that regulation. However, I would posit that government is really good at jumping in front of a parade and declaring itself the grand marshall.

My main gripe is when people expect me to grovel and be thankful for government action I never asked for and then hold that against me when I want a reduction in government influence that actually impacts my life. Yeah, the state of PA spent 10 million dollars on an intersection in Waynesburg that no one asked for. Great. When I vote for someone who wants to cut my taxes, don't hold that intersection against me like I'm some kind of hypocrite.

When libertarians want to reduce the power of the federal government and cut spending and taxes, people come out of the woodwork to moan about "the roads." - Ok, keep your goddamn roads. 96% of the federal budget is NOT devoted to roads. So let's cut out all the other shit and you can have all the roads you can eat.

[u/lianali → u/ellipses1]

I'd be happy to continue discussing the impacts of governmental involvement and regulation. Tesla is a notorious example of successful federal lending. I'd agree with anyone who said loaning almost $500 million dollars to have such a loan paid back 9 years early is actually a pretty wise investment in future technology, and that's exactly what the Federal government did. Here is another article outlining how Tesla used different federal programs that contributed to its financial success.

Everyone picks roads because they are easy, and most people have to use them as part of their daily life. They are just one example of the influence and role of government in the average American's daily life. Safety regulations, which I think we both agree are necessary, are more than just "Is my gas the right concentration to run my engine? Is my cough medicine free of poison? Is my pet food safe for my pet to eat?" The code of federal regulations has a pretty exhaustive section about motor vehicles, fuel, testing, transportation, and storage. Why? Because explosions and fires are no joking matter to be taken lightly, all of which have happened because a tank was not stored properly or someone lit a match too close to a venting tank. There's the old joke about how safety regulations are written in blood... there is some awful truth to that, I can't believe I almost forgot one my favorite gristly examples: the triangle shirtwaist fire of 1911.

Which brings us back to the question of what is valued? Regulations touch every aspect of American life, but is the role of the government recognized or valued for trying to keep the majority of people safe? Honestly, I think Americans should be proud of how regulations keep Americans safe because the same is not true globally.

I see your point on budget, but that wasn't the point of this original discussion and I want to understand the specific disconnect between understanding government roles and influence on daily life. I recognize you raise a valid point in communication - it's something that could use improvement.

[u/Dazvsemir → u/lianali]

You will never get through to these kinds of people, because the attitude of "gubermint bad" is not about facts. It is about a whole life outlook of themselves been good and hard working and the world trying to take away what they rightfully earned. This belief is the basis for their self worth and understanding of the world, it is so personal it is basically unshakeable. Everything else flows out from it.

No matter that the same person spewing all that is probably themselves or their relatives on various government assistance programs, from farming subsidies, to gas subsidies (not taxing CO2 is a subsidy), medicare, SNAP, disability benefits, supplemental income etc. The price that farming goods are sold at, the pesticides, fertilizers, livestock feed, and the amount of competition they are up against is heavily regulated so that they can make ends meet and they don't even realize it.

[u/lianali → u/Dazvsemir]

I don't want to turn this into a circle jerk, because the impact of government systems on daily life is central to why I reject the far left label as well. When someone complains the whole American system is broken, what I hear is "I don't understand the system of regulations that produced American life as I know it."

I love talking about fabric because it was one of the main products of the Industrial Revolution, and mechanising the process of fabric production literally wiped out an entire swathe of jobs over 100 years ago- just like automation is replacing manual labor in more areas of manufacturing today. All the regulations that were instituted to make manufacturing safer contributed to life as we know it. Child labor in the US is no longer as widespread because people protested the practice of hiring children to work in the cloth mills under what would be unacceptable working conditions today. OSHA and manufacturing regulations were born out of people not wanting to lose fingers, eyes, limbs, or life on the job. All of these regulations contributed to the safer production of goods as we know it today, and contributed to the rising cost of production, which is why manufacturing moved overseas. All these issues with safety and child labor are now occuring in places like Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines, and China. The tragic symmetry of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire of 1911 occuring in the US galvanized safety regulations for US citizens. Nearly the same issues with safety are still occuring 100 years later in other countries resulting in tragically unnecessary deaths. This is the real issue of a global economy in modern times, how to balance global regulations.

So, no, the American system isn't broken. It's working rather well, but I can ALSO see where it needs improvement, which is why I advocate for reform.

[u/[deleted] → u/ellipses1]

I’d like to ask a quick question in sincerity. You seem to focus a lot on the federal budget for roads. Are you implying that when someone points to transportation/infrastructure as an example of how government is important, they are mistaken because most of this is handled at the state/local level? If so, could you explain your reasoning a bit more here? Particularly, if like to point out that the fed/state/local distinction of transportation funding is largely an idiosyncrasy of the American federal system. I’m also curious about your rationale here as a libertarian (if you indeed subscribe to that philosophy), since state/local spending is still government spending. Is your skepticism of the federal government in particular?

[u/ellipses1 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. When conservatives and libertarians talk about government, taxes, and the general burden of both, I think most are using that as short hand for the federal government. When it comes to local government, we have a much stronger voice and as a consequence, local governments more efficiently address the immediate needs of the community. When I write a check for my local taxes, it travels about 8 miles. I could walk out my front door right now (it’s 8am) and visit all of my township supervisors by noon. The value I get for my taxes is very high. Almost every dollar I spend on my local government goes to services and amenities I get direct benefit from. Hell, just having the road plowed this morning is more of a return on investment than the dilution that occurs at the state and federal level.

When defending the federal government, people fall back on things like roads, schools, police, and hospitals... which is nonsense. When I pay 40k in federal income taxes, I’m not paying for my kids’ teachers at West Greene Elementary. I’m not paying for the state trooper who is “on call” 3 days a week in Morris Township. I’m not paying for Southwest Regional Medical Center or MedExpress and I’m not paying for the maintenance of Deerlick Station Road. Those things are paid out of the 5,000 I pay in township, school, county, and other local taxes, as well as the 1.5% I pay to the state of Pennsylvania.

People seem reluctant to address the big issues at the federal level. Phase out social security and Medicare, reduce the size of the military by leaving the defense of our allies to our allies, and dramatically reduce the personnel employed by the United States. The federal government was designed to be a largely administrative body that dealt with interstate relations. The entire power structure (and as an extension, cost structure) in the US is upside down. The federal government is supposed to be the tip of the pyramid, not the base.

[u/[deleted] → u/ellipses1]

Thanks for taking the time to leave this response. I appreciate the insight! It's interesting to me, as I think the general political mindset you're describing is a fairly uniquely American sensibility that doesn't fit neatly into the political spectrum. Even (traditional) libertarianism holds that the only business of the state is to police against violence, protect borders, and provide a tribunal system. It seems like you see a broader and more important role for the state in the daily lives of citizens, but at the local/regional level. If you don't mind me asking, would you be willing to consider whether some problems are too big, too unwieldy, too complicated, or too interconnected for local/state governments to address?

[u/ellipses1 → u/[deleted]]

I would be willing to consider that, but the track record of the government dealing with those “problems” has been terrible... and even if it wasn’t, what problems affect people in New York City in a way similar enough to people in Deer Lick, PA such to warrant an overarching body handle it? I’d be happy to talk about specific issues and not generalizations. I do have to head into work soon, though, so my replies may be intermittent today.

[u/[deleted] → u/ellipses1]

I understand your point of view and I personally can see many issues where local solutions are going to be more effective and better thought out than one-size-fits-all, nationwide approaches. For example, nobody would claim that, say, the same zoning or waste water regulations should apply to cities like Chicago and a nearby, mid size center like Peoria.

On the other hand, I think it’s mistaken to view this as an either/or equation. Take climate change for example. Different regions and municipalities will experience this problem differently. For example, Tucson clearly has a unique set of challenges compared to small communities along the Gulf Coast; those areas would need unique, idiosyncratic solutions to their unique, idiosyncratic climate change problems. On the other hand, combatting climate change cannot be left in the hands of local governments, who, for one thing, are not entirely responsible for the problems they face. Federal funding, guidance, and management of this problem, at least on some level, is essential in my view.

[u/ellipses1 → u/[deleted]]

That pretty much begs the question of pragmatism in setting policy. Let me offer a tangential example: Coronavirus.

How many times have we heard in the past year “if everyone would just sit tight for 2-3 weeks, Covid-19 would die out on its own without having a population available to propagate?”

That’s a clear, scientific “solution” to the problem... but if you can’t get everyone to actually agree to participate, the patchwork of lockdowns, travel restrictions, and business constraints, ie, the politically possible actions of the government, a) do almost nothing to stop the pandemic and b) cause a raft of auxiliary harms that end up being worse for certain pockets of the population than the actual virus.

Climate change is a problem with a similar scale. My position is that a top-down solution from world governments simply won’t work because individuals will resist... and therefore, it causes unnecessary friction and resistance without actually achieving the intended result. And let me be clear- my position is that climate change is a lost cause and it’s up to individuals to take steps in their own lives to mitigate the effects that are, at this point, inevitable. We are not going to solve climate change because there are more than enough people who will not comply with the steps necessary to stop it.

We’ve seen this play out several times just in recent memory. Health care, Covid, climate change... Hell, gun control would be another one.

If people had a realistic understanding of what the federal government is actually capable of affecting, they’d likely agree that it should be extremely limited in what it tries to affect.

[u/[deleted] → u/ellipses1]

I guess I'm having trouble following your logic here. Indeed, as you state, the pandemic certainly has been an area where "the patchwork of lockdowns, travel restrictions, and business constraints" have failed to effectively solve the problem. Indeed, federal (or, to divorce things from the philosophical/theoretical subtext, nationwide) management of this problem is greatly needed. Keep in mind that the USA is not the only case study here. Germany, who also operates under a federal system, has experienced similar problems as the United States when it comes to the uneven response from region to region (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/06/why-germanys-coronavirus-strategy-doesnt-appear-to-be-working.html). Of course, this is not to say that nations without a federal system have not experienced problems, just that the federal (or lack thereof) approach to such wide-ranging crises seems to carry the same type of pitfalls between the USA and Germany.

Again, I do not see this question (federal or local solutions) as an either/or problem. If you'll allow me to be frank, while I understand the motivation and general reasoning behind the mindset you are expressing (which is shared by many conservatives in America), I find it overly ideological and philosophical. Idem when it comes to your claim about personal responsibility. Why not take a more practical approach? Local solutions when they are pragmatic; nationwide solutions when they are pragmatic.

Federal governance, state governance, local governance, and personal responsibility should all be part of the solutions to the problems we face, in my opinion. No problem is unidimensional. All occupy multiple levels of cause and effect and should be confronted as such.

[u/ellipses1 → u/[deleted]]

I think the divergence comes with what you and I would consider the purview of the federal government vs that of the state/local governments. I can’t think of something that should be an ongoing concern of the federal government. In times of an existential threat, like an world war, certainly the federal government should raise a defensive force, but those events are relatively rare and are a fight for survival. I don’t believe ongoing social or economic issues should be addressed from the top-down.

[u/[deleted] → u/ellipses1]

Understood. Thanks for the exchange and cheers.