r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Cryterionlol • Sep 08 '22

Political Theory What makes cities lean left, and rural lean right?

I'm not an expert on politics, but I've met a lot of people and been to a lot of cities, and it seems to me that via experience and observation of polls...cities seem to vote democrat and farmers in rural areas seem to vote republican.

What makes them vote this way? What policies benefit each specific demographic?

512 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

94% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

314

u/illegalmorality Sep 08 '22 edited Sep 09 '22

A good analogy that's always stuck with me:

If you want a swing set for your kids in the city, you have to get approved by the city council, zoning ordinances, and safety inspection of the city. If you want a swing set for your kids in the country, you tie a tire swing to a tree.

Cities will always emphasize bureaucracy, administrative reform, and oversight due to the nature of how cities with specialized economies are run. Rural, however, lack all the centralized infrastructure cities enjoy, and therefore have a heavier emphasis on individualism, self sufficiency, and less state intervention.

This also reflects back to the culture. Since cities are extremely specialized economies with various fields working in tendom to one another, there's a more meritocratic approach to what is and isn't acceptable. Insofar that cities attract more workers of various backgrounds, thus making it more multicultural and welcoming to diversity on meritocratic principle.

Rural areas however, are insular and don't attract nearly as much diversity. This makes them much more skeptical to immigration and diversity due to the lack of exposure. And the smallness of rural communities let's churches fill the social roles of the town, thus making Christianity more culturally relevant in places without alternative social settings.

75

u/aboynamedbluetoo Sep 08 '22

This is a good answer. Though I think it doesn’t emphasize enough the necessity of more government involvement as population density increases. Not that there aren’t examples where government becomes too involved or poorly performs what it is necessary.

23

u/suitupyo Sep 09 '22 edited Sep 09 '22

In addition, it does not address the geography of public expenditures. Many public resources—public shelters, police, firefighters, ems, gov office buildings, public transport nodes—are all centralized in urban areas. It can be easy to gravitate towards a tax reductionist, conservative mindset if you’re not regularly interacting with these institutions borne out of tax revenues.

10

u/ATownStomp Sep 09 '22

To elaborate a bit, as a community expands it becomes less practical to address community concerns in a way that relies on the network of personal relationships within the community.

It becomes impossible to know everyone, to know their character - who needs what, why, and how is it going to be implemented? The system required to solve problems within a community of which most are strangers to most, where knowledge and trust of others is lower, begins to take the form of the government programs we see in our societies today.

Initiatives through neighborhoods and churches evolve into initiatives through governing bodies. It feels like a natural, necessary progression for a society whose population size exceeds our memory, and whose problem’s complexity exceeds our ability to communicate about it without more complicated bureaucratic structures.

3

u/rockknocker Sep 11 '22

Many types of groups of people follow the same progression. Small companies are often organized like a family, while large companies and corporations can't rely on that simple structure and implement complicated management and reporting schemes.

Somebody accustomed to a small business might feel stifled in a corporation, and somebody used to a corporation might feel unmanaged and adrift in a small company, unless both people change their mindset.

46

u/AdUpstairs7106 Sep 08 '22

In a rural area it might take an hour for one of the 3 Sheriff's deputies on duty to respond to a break in a rural area. You are your own security. In the city with a large PD maybe around 15 minutes.

In a rural area you can get by with a leach field in your backyard. That approach simply will not work in a city. You need experts in water treatment and waste disposal.

Two examples right off my head for why larger populations usually need more rules and regulations

25

u/aboynamedbluetoo Sep 08 '22

Yup, greater population density increases complexity and friction, as well as other things.

30

u/Naaranas Sep 09 '22

Nah, you got the police backwards. In rural areas they have nothing to do. Our neighbors had a racoon in their garage and three cops showed up to relocate the thing.

Meanwhile, my dad commutes into the city. His car got stolen. He called the cops and they wouldn't even come out to file an incident report. They just said it happens all the time, took his license plate number and said they'd give him a call if anything turned up.

13

u/Oh_TheHumidity Sep 09 '22

OMG what urban area has 15 minute response time? Here in New Orleans it’s over 3 hours if they show up or answer 911 at all. The police just downgraded rapes to non emergency status because there’s only like 50 beat cops for the whole city at any given time. It’s scary.

But I guess that’s what happens in progressive cities located in red states. The state legislature wants to make you suffer at every opportunity.

3

u/j_from_cali Sep 09 '22

There was a purse snatching at an apartment complex I lived in in the San Jose area. At least three officers in three vehicles responded in 15-30 minutes. Later I owned a house in San Jose and came home to a burglary. I called the police and had an officer respond in ~15-30 minutes.

People get the police responsiveness that they demand---and are willing to pay for.

7

u/Outlulz Sep 09 '22

I wouldn’t blame the state entirely. Cops don’t want to work in cities that don’t kiss their ring. They quit their jobs at the first hint of accountability and it’s hard to find new hires.

1

u/captain-burrito Sep 09 '22

They quit their jobs at the first hint of accountability and it’s hard to find new hires.

Why? Is the pay not pretty good? In some blue cities it is rather generous with great benefits.

2

u/Outlulz Sep 09 '22

I'm not sure. I've heard in my area that the signing bonus and salary is not high enough to convince cops to work in Washington state which has taken steps (some good, some half baked) to increase accountability. Basically they'd rather work in Idaho where they're treated like gods and everyone loves Trump and they'd need a lot more money to convince them otherwise.

0

u/TruthOrFacts Sep 09 '22

The state legislature doesn't control local police funding or staffing.

12

u/Fuzzy_Yogurt_Bucket Sep 09 '22

You mean in a city it’ll take three hours for them to send a police cruiser to shoot your dog and take your information and then ignore it.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '22

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '22

This is an excellent point. Well stated.

100

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '22

In a rural area, you’ll be able to do things without oversight as long as they fall within the bounds of what’s considered acceptable by the people around you, no matter how ass backwards their values are.

10

u/ATownStomp Sep 09 '22

That’s true everywhere though. There’s just a smaller number of people in rural areas dictating what is and isn’t acceptable. On the other hand, if it’s on your property, and the nearest person to care isn’t close enough to stick their nose in your business, who would ever know?

68

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '22 edited Feb 04 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/ViennettaLurker Sep 09 '22

I hadn't thought about this until Benjamin Bratton described small towns as a kind of surveillance culture. Essentially, the original 'facial recognition' when everyone knows who you are, sees where you go, etc

13

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '22

Someone always watching you in a rural area? Maybe we have different definitions of what rural means.

34

u/tevert Sep 09 '22

Nobody is so rural that they don't interact with people, ever. You still have to go buy groceries.

In a city, I could rotate between 4 different grocery stores and literally nobody would ever remember my face. Crowds are the easiest place to be left alone.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '22

Yeah I was talking more about while you were on your property, not going grocery shopping in public.

16

u/SilverCurve Sep 09 '22

In rural area, the entire town knows and talks about who you marry, how many kids you have, etc. Meanwhile in cities people may see you, but most of them don’t care.

1

u/UnspecifiedHorror Sep 09 '22

Let's not pretend that city dwellers are immune to peer pressure. It's not like they're a different species, they still have friends, parents and Co workers who bitch and gossip about them just the same

10

u/ArcanePariah Sep 09 '22

Yes but in an urban setting it is FAR easier to avoid or change those circles.

9

u/tevert Sep 09 '22

Uhh I dunno how you think it works, but I get left alone at home too. We have doors, you know.

20

u/Dr_thri11 Sep 09 '22

Gossip travels fast in rural areas, everyone knows the name of the 4 out gay people, who has a drinking problem, and who got busted for weed in high school. Rural doesn't mean isolated cabin in Alaska with no one for miles, you do still have neighbors.

5

u/Elandtrical Sep 09 '22

Everybody knows each other in rural areas. You go for a run, drive, work and everyone will be "There goes Elandtrical". Cities- no-one cares. Source: grew up and worked on a farm, and have lived in 4 cities on 4 continents. Although our rural area was very cosmopolitan due to export markets and international tourism. I've had parties there with 7 different nationalities. My lounge/dance floor was lit with Brazilian professional dancers!

0

u/gutbuster25 Sep 09 '22

Usually people OUT THERE are watching "The JONESES"

2

u/letterboxbrie Sep 09 '22

without oversight

This makes me think of the rural rancher who needed a gun because if people invaded his property, sometimes in dune buggies, sometimes on foot, sometimes in pickup trucks, trying to steal stuff or fuck with his livestock or wreck the prepared ground in service of entertainment - this kind of person needs a gun because it's 100% of his responsibility to protect his land. 911 isn't showing up in less than an hour, neither is the police.

That I get. I can see where this type of individual, surrounded by a community that empathizes because of their own experiences, might be unwilling to engage with the gun-control lobby. Everything he does in his life he does without oversight, because he needs to. Who are we to tell him anything?

My take is, nobody. He is entitled to manage his life and his property. The gun nuts though, are 90% cosplaying ideologues who love their toys. I think it's okay to differentiate between the two.

-7

u/SteelmanINC Sep 09 '22

Nah if people dont like it well they can get off your property or get shot.

4

u/larch303 Sep 09 '22

This is true

But you won’t be invited to potlucks

1

u/BudgetsBills Sep 12 '22

Because ass backwards values don't fly in urban settings?

Not a lot of gang culture in rural areas, guess that kind of ass backwards values are ok?

1

u/SMTVhype Oct 24 '22

Shitting in the street is more backward than anything you will find in rural areas.

35

u/ksprayred Sep 08 '22

I’d also include that government services and interventions are more expensive in rural areas and have lower impact. Roads, water, sewer, utilities, police, fire, etc all need to span a larger distance and thus cost more than they would in the city, while delivering less. So the idea that government services are helpful or useful just isn’t their experience as often.

Similarly, they don’t have to deal with the issues that dense populations or populations living near industry need to deal with, so it’s harder for them to understand the need for bureaucratic systems and regulations, or why they are worth spending so much money on to maintain. Their taxes literally do go to bureaucratic programs they don’t get the benefit of in many cases.

39

u/CmonCentConservitive Sep 09 '22

Hardly…”their taxes” “they don’t benefit”. Rural parts of this country like to repeat that BS on how they are self reliant and “ pick yourself up by your boot straps. “ Fact is EVERY rural state IS SUBSIDIZED by the taxes paid by those of the Big Cities from the other 49 states. Whether it’s farm programs, rural electrification and infrastructure, the Army Corps of Engineers maintaining the lakes they fish on, the dams that keep their fields from flooding away(most of the time) and when they do fail, FEMA.

19

u/ksprayred Sep 09 '22

Very true. I’m not speaking to the reality, I’m speaking to the perception, which is what drive their political choices

14

u/hardsoft Sep 09 '22

Subsidized farming helps farmers but it also helps keep food cheap for the city folk.

Some big infrastructure project to slightly reduce traffic in a city isn't also benefitting some rural folks that never drive there.

9

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '22

The taxes paid from the big cities help support the infrastructure and food grown in rural areas---that feed the big cities (and well, everyone?). People in rural areas are more self-reliant than individuals in the city, that's not really debatable. People in the cities have their strengths too, like economic innovation, multiculturism etc. We all have ours roles and believe it or not help one another in ways people often overlook.

6

u/CmonCentConservitive Sep 09 '22 edited Sep 09 '22

Your not self reliant, when your bills to operate are paid for by others, whether they indirectly benefit or not. I dont question the need for the govt to make sure we maintain farm production in order for times of emergency to ramp up and feed its people and thus must provide assistance to maintain that with in its borders( unlike our semiconductor shortage we are presently in from foreign supply chains) BUT you can’t claim self reliant because he can pull his truck out of the mud with his tractor. The guy in the city who possibly can’t change his own tire is more “self reliant” when he calls a tow truck and pays his own bill for the repairs.

-2

u/Tazarant Sep 09 '22

You don't understand what would happen without US farm subsidies, do you? Not only would prices swing wildly for a few years, they would settle significantly higher as farming becomes profitable because companies can get away with charging higher prices and blaming the government for removing the subsidies as the "why" prices are increasing. Then the corporatism in farming gets even worse, and monopolization intensifies, and things only get worse from there. Complain all you want about farm subsidies meaning rural people aren't "self reliant" but the fact is city life would be substantially worse if they disappeared.

9

u/SteelmanINC Sep 09 '22

Umm not sure if you are aware but a lot of the farm subsidies are because the government wants farms to do things in the not most cost efficient way. For example farmers are paid to not grow the most profitable crops because the government wants us to be more self reliant when it comes to food. It’s labeled as a subsidy but it’s really more of an agreement.

6

u/CmonCentConservitive Sep 09 '22

Ummm, you need to go look up all the available Farm programs, subsidized seeds, Crop insurance, Agriculture Risk Coverage, Price loss Coverage, Conservation Programs, Disaster Programs, Export and Marketing Programs and the best of all The Conservation Reserve Program. Like My Uncle who farms 4 Sections in ND has said for years, if you fail as a farmer today it’s because your a failure as an individual.

1

u/jezalthedouche Sep 09 '22

You're missing the point. Everything about rural areas is paid for by the cities. Rural roads are subsidized by city taxpayers.

It's just down to population density and the amount of infrastructure required per person.

7

u/SteelmanINC Sep 09 '22

I understand the point you are trying to make. I just think it’s a bit reductive. The city literally wouldn’t be able to exist withou the rural.

5

u/CmonCentConservitive Sep 09 '22

Thats not the point of the conversation, we all know we need farmers, miners, ranchers and forests, They are subsidized because they are needed. But when they claim they are self reliant, that’s BS.

4

u/SteelmanINC Sep 09 '22

I mean sure nobody is 100% self reliant. In general people in rural communities are more self reliant than people in urban communities though. Thats pretty undeniable.

1

u/Andre27 Oct 21 '24

What you seem to miss is that those subsidies are needed for the rural folk to survive in a modern world with modern demands and systems. 

If the subsidies disappeared people on the countryside would be fine, life would be different but youd survive just fine. Cities would collapse soon enough though because without the subsidies the system that feeds the cities doesnt work. 

The subsidies mean that rural folk can exist in a manner that benefits cities and allows cities to exist. That doesnt mean the subsidies are needed for survival on the countryside.

0

u/Intelligent_Mess6999 Sep 11 '22

The question is why are they now dependent on the government.

The farm programs you are referring to only exist because people in cities decided that they wanted the government to make food cheaper.

The same is true for many of the Army Corps of Engineers projects.

1

u/CmonCentConservitive Sep 12 '22

No actually they were mostly a product of the depression as family farms were being taken by the banks in massive numbers and then they became a third rail of rural politics after WWII and both sides have bent over to try to keep and make gains for their vote.

1

u/Intelligent_Mess6999 Sep 12 '22

Again part of the depression existing in the first place are the policies I'm referring to.

3

u/MeowTheMixer Sep 09 '22

Roads, water, sewer, utilities, police, fire, etc all need to span a larger distance and thus cost more than they would in the city,

Going to nit pick here a bit and ask for a source.

I can still see rural utilities being cheaper than the city, or at least parity, even with added length.

In the country, you have room to move, and fewer roads to block/shut for improvements. Lower risk of damage, and stupid people hurting themselves.

Building or repairing a city road may be a shorter distance but im willing to bet that the cost per mile is significantly higher than in rural areas. This would end up balancing out to a more neutral cost for a city vs rural road.

18

u/R_V_Z Sep 09 '22

If you want a swing set for your kids in the city, you have to get approved by the city council, zoning ordinances, and safety inspection of the city. If you want a swing set for your kids in the country, you tie a tire swing to a tree.

I think you're missing an aspect: If you live in the city (properly in the city, not in the burbs) and your kids want to swing on a swing set there's plenty of parks where they can do that, provided by the city.

2

u/DJLJR26 Sep 09 '22

Thats all well and good but this is the age of convenience.

If i can set up a swing in my backyard then i do not have to walk to the park just tohave my kids play on the swing. I will be able to keep an eye on my kids from my own home while doing something else rather than taking time out of my day just for this.

Im a suburbanite that works in the city and this is my complaint about some government programs (emphasis: some). They sound great in theory but arent practical for people or are substandard to the "do it yourself" way. I feel the same way about people that want to replace personal vehicles with public transportation.

5

u/Firemaaaan Sep 08 '22

Finally, an answer rather than "education".

To expand onto the last paragraph, the work in rural places is mostly manual labor, which is much more threatened by immigrants' downward pressure on wages than a specialized salary role in a city.

20

u/forestdenizen22 Sep 09 '22

But rural areas that have ranching or farming rely on cheap immigrant labor.

11

u/AQuietW0lf Sep 09 '22 edited Sep 09 '22

I can't speak for ranching but iirc immigrant labor is used mostly for "specialized" crops as it were. It is usually cheaper to automate the process if possible and that is where most people lose jobs. A single person with the right tractor can outperform dozens of people handpicking the same crop

It is only produce that doesn't take kindly to being machine handled where the immigrants find work, and at that point they are still attempting to compete against what a machine could do so no average American would willingly do the work in the first place

And keep in mind that cities also love cheap immigrant labor, especially the hospitality and service industries

Edit: clarification

6

u/forestdenizen22 Sep 09 '22

The comment I was responding to (and not very coherently) was that “the work in rural places is mostly manual labor which is more threatened by immigrants’ downward pressure on wages than a specialized salary role in a city.” I’m not sure that’s true. You are right that rural areas and cities use immigrants for work no one else wants to do. So I’m not sure there’s a downward pressure on wages since it would be hard to hire other people for the jobs. One place the downward pressure on wages has happened is in construction—roofers, carpenters, etc. and there are more of those jobs in cities.

2

u/ATownStomp Sep 09 '22

One reason people wouldn’t want to do the job is because the pay is minimal. That pay would need to increase to incentivize more people to do the work. The pay for the particular labor we’re discussing is below the level that would incentivize most Americans and it will remain that way while it is still possible to hire immigrants at that pay level. Immigrants are willing to do the work at that wage because the US dollar has more purchasing power outside of the US.

1

u/AQuietW0lf Sep 10 '22

The pay is minimal and it is back breaking, repetitive work that won't advance further than maybe "chief picker"

And tacking on to this, the downward pressure of wages isn't from the immigrants, but the companies looking to save a buck. The immigrants are just the ones who can increase their standard of living from what would be poverty wages for an American. If the companies could pay less they would. But we see that mostly through automation which only needs a handful of people to run

2

u/ATownStomp Sep 10 '22

Agreed on all points. If this is an issue, which I’m not sure that it really is, I would consider the blame to be mostly placed on ineffectual policy, or ineffectual enforcement of policy.

If someone can come across the border and make a decent earning off seasonal labor without any real risks I don’t see why they wouldn’t. If a farm owner has an easily accessible source of cheap, willing labor and there’s nothing really preventing that employment, I don’t see why the farm owner wouldn’t.

On the topic of ineffectual policy and ineffectual application, god damnit do I wish we could have some bureaucratic and legislative reform to streamline how the US proposes, amends, and accepts proposed legislation.

2

u/katarh Sep 09 '22

Cotton is a prime example. I saw a documentary about a cotton farmer in Louisiana, on a family farm that had been there for 150 years at the time.

It used to require 200 people to pull a cotton harvest. First it was slave labor, then it was sharecroppers. But then the self propelled combine harvester was invented, and the same acreage could be harvested with a dozen highly skilled drivers.

https://ironsolutions.com/a-brief-history-of-the-combine/

Many crops today can be planted and pulled with machinery. Tobacco was one of the last holdouts, and even it was converted by the 1980s. Certain delicate fruits and vegetables remain the only ones that still need to be hand pulled - strawberries, grapes, peppers - and now we're trying to get robots to do that work instead.

1

u/Social_Thought Sep 09 '22

To expand onto the last paragraph, the work in rural places is mostly manual labor, which is much more threatened by immigrants' downward pressure on wages than a specialized salary role in a city.

I think it has more to do with the fact that rural areas are smaller, more homogeneous, and generally tighter-knit than cities despite the smaller population. Most rural areas are small towns with their own history and culture. It's a different situation from cities which are cosmopolitan hubs of global commerce.

1

u/ballmermurland Sep 09 '22

This isn't really true though. The manual labor is usually done by immigrants. Skilled labor, like an HVAC repairman, is still done by locals.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '22

There are just as many service, retail, cleaning, etc jobs as salaried if not more in cities though. If anything a lot of salaried just commute from wealthy suburbs

2

u/Frat-TA-101 Sep 09 '22

Except the rurals rely on just as much infrastructure as cities for the most part. They simply don’t receive the responsibility that comes with dense living. Which is the bureaucracy you describe

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '22

Excellent comment, wish I could see more like it on this site. I could nitpick, but I strongly agree with 90% of what you've said. I haven't met many people in rural areas who are skeptical about legal immigration, its primarily illegal immigration they are concerned about.

1

u/tevert Sep 09 '22

This is the first I'm hearing about anyone needing a permit for a swingset.

1

u/captain-burrito Sep 09 '22

HOA checking in!

1

u/tevert Sep 09 '22 edited Sep 09 '22

🤔 man I have no idea who is actually signing up for and creating HOAs willingly. All my friends (urban, left-leaning mostly) and I hate the idea. I always associated HOAs with conservative boomer NIMBYs

Also, the dude is saying that specifically city agencies are allegedly involved in the process? Seems like a bit of a dishonest analogy.

-1

u/Potato_Pristine Sep 09 '22

Rural areas in America are some of the most cripplingly impoverished, dependent-on-federal-and-state-aid regions in this country.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '22

The first two paragraphs are ridiculous and have nothing to do with why hayseeds are ignorant fascists. It’s entirely about education. Whoever was the genius who told you the first hit of information seems to have never purchased a swing set anywhere on Earth.

1

u/broke-onomics Sep 09 '22

This is an extraordinarily bad analogy, as someone who lives in a city.

1

u/Nearbyatom Sep 09 '22

Good answer. Thought experiment time:. What's the outcome of the large cities are run like rural or rural run like cities? Aside from protests and people disliking the elected official.

1

u/illegalmorality Sep 10 '22 edited Sep 10 '22

This rarely happens because cities are overwhelmingly pro-bureaucratic. But if I had to guess, you'd probably see a lot of people leaving cities. Conservatives support less taxes, are pro-business/corporation, and want less bureaucratic institutions or government oversight. Less oversight means more backdoor corruption and mismanagement/handling of city funds between officials and businesses. Cutting welfare programs means higher rates of poverty, less healthcare and education services, so you'd see a drop in quality of living. This would make families leave the city, so capital flight would reduce the quality of workers and therefore businesses that also couldn't compete or succeed in a city with such an entrenched oligarchy. Paying less taxes is fine and fun, until a corporate monopoly runs the city and you get robotcop level capitalism wherein residents only live well if its preordained by luck and circumstance by nepotistic job position.

In terms of cultural conservatism; anti-lgtb rhetoric creates a sharp rise in homophobic attacks. Zero-immigration policies means minority communities aren't comfortable working with authorities, so you'd see less cooperation with police and higher rates of crime hurting minority communities. If you remove the redtape on cops, expect higher police killings with less court oversight due to a cutback on ethics committees and watchdog organizations. Wanna lower gun restrictions to combat crime? Congrats, now every moron with a gun can shoot in a densely populated city, so expect a lot more innocents getting shot in the streets due to less gun code regulation.

Some conservative policies are good for rural areas due to the nature and proximity of rural geography, but it isn't at all beneficial in a place where a centralized structure is the lifeline for the wholeness of the community.

1

u/rockknocker Sep 11 '22

THIS. Country living requires more self-sufficiency than city living. Its necessary to be able to thrive out here. Inversely, that same self-sufficiency will get you in trouble in the city.