Why Cities Are So Left-Wing
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- Cities all over the world have a reputation for being more Left-wing than the countryside. But why? And is there any sign that this could be changing?
~
Get new episodes in your inbox once a week: thewhyminutes....
/ whyminutes
/ thewhyminutes
Host: / nickfreitasva
What I don't understand is why are all these people moving from California to Texas because they know their Government is meesed up, but then choose to continue to vote for the same kind of people once they get here?
In the case of California to Texas, it's Republicans moving to Texas mostly. Native born Texans would've given the Senate election to Beto, but because of Californians, Cruz won barely. Different story with Arizona and Colorado though...
It is probably mostly Republicans moving to Texas. Though I wouldn't be surprised if many Democrats are as well. Communismlite screwed up Cali so I am sure the "that is not real leftism" people will love to go to a better state.
Like Muslim immigration n sharia law
The Left is mentally ill. They can't see the connection between how they vote and the results.
@@paulwoodhouse3386 I hope it's mostly Republicans moving to Texas. Don't want the marxists.
I’m not disturbed about large cities being left wing. I’m not disturbed about them literally falling apart from so many failed leftist policies. I’m not even disturbed that the population not only puts up with those policies, but votes for more. What I’m truly disturbed about is the population does all that yet honestly seems to still believe they’re somehow morally superior to “backwards flyover states.”
Its not that surprising, tribalism. Disparage the other tribe to feel good about your own.
And why do the people in the “backwards flyover states” believe they’re somehow morally superior?
Cities aren’t falling apart, what are you talking about? I live in Chicago, have lived in SF and Seattle and all 3 are just fine. Sure there are crappy neighborhoods, but there are crappy small towns too.
Leftist policies led to freedom of speech, voting, separation of church and state, abolishing slavery, etc. Might not seem very left now, but they all were very socially liberal at the time.
@@nwj03aleftist cities are falling apart. Murders up, robbery up, stores closing due to crime. If you don't see it your blind. And you bring up freedom of speech, why do leftist overwhelmingly try to shut down conservatives speeches? Don't get me started on slavery.
@@nwj03a Case in point. "It's just bad neighborhoods." Bitch I've lived 56 years and I remember the "bad neighborhoods" for the 70s, 80s, and 90s. LA looks like a post apocalyptic wasteland. You're gaslighting yourself.
BTW, I was a Democrat for 30 years. I was very proud of those older policies. But now I see the modern Democratic Party working hard to reverse them all. Well, except the separation of church and state. They now want the state to BE the church.
What blows my mind the most is when people leave the place that they have ruined with their voting patterns, only to vote the same way at the new place and turn it into a new cesspool and they still can't figure out what's the problem.
For my own studying purposes, can you give me some examples of where this has happened?
@@ZealousWins You can look at the people who fled Cali and Oregon and went to Idaho and Texas and now you can see their urban centers like Boise, Dallas, Austin are getting more and more blue and the woke ideology is starting to spread further. Austin in particular has seen some of the bigger names like Joe Rogan moving over but still carrying over his Bernie mentality. Or, you can look at Elon Musk relocating Tesla to Texas and bringing over his Cali employees. Another thing to note is that a Cali conservative is not the same as a rural Texas conservative. I'm not even a conservative, but even I can tell which side is more extreme in the recent times and their people are voting for more of it even though it didn't work at where the fled from.
@@Darren_Tay I appreciate your take, thank you.
To be honest, I feel like so many problems are caused by corrupt politicians in these United States in which we live. Why are the high taxes in high-tax locations not benefitting the people more? It seems to me like politicians seem to only line their pockets. Perhaps if such an occurrence did not happen, then people wouldn't be forced to flee places that they once considered their homes.
@@ZealousWins Sure, politicians are part of the problem. What Nancy Pelosi did, she called it the free market, but the same thing sent martha stewart to prison for 5 years. 🤷♀ Lori Lightfoot lockdown people and said haircut isn't a necessary, but she got caught getting a haircut and justified by saying she is a public figure and needed to maintain her appearance. Interestingly, Nancy Pelosi got busted on camera for that too. Then, we have Andrew Cuomo killing elderly folks by sending them into Nursing Homes even though health experts advised him not to. And, recently, he went on Bill Maher's show and said even with hindsight, he still would have sent those people to their deaths. We also have the city council in Minnesota who unanimously voted to "Defund the police" after "Saint George" died and then a few years later, they had to repeal that. Meanwhile, Eric Adams said what they are doing at the border is racist and unacceptable and we should embrace illegals. That is until, the illegals arrive in nyc and made people mad. Now he is walking that back and claiming we need to do something about illegals. These are just some clowns off the top of my head. But, if you really think about it, who voted them in? More importantly, who continues to vote them in even after their policies are proven to be retarded. It's the same type of people of flees their home and set up a new base in order to vote in stupid. 🤷♂
@@ZealousWins Nearly everyone would agree with you there. But corruption is human nature. The only way to limit the reach of corrupt politicians is to limit the reach of government.
When you're in a city, you rely on the government.
When you're in the country, you rely on yourself.
Edit: Lots of butthurt city folk acting like money is more important than food in the replies. Keep your money, and I'll keep my food.
If you “follow the money”, the people in the cities financially subsidize the services in the country. They are NOT relying on themselves for roads, electricity, phone service, hospitals, etc. It’s fun to be a libertarian when the “socialists” make sure that your electricity works.
When you are in the country you rely on federal subsidies. Don't kid yourself, I live in rural Utah, and it's the same story throughout the intermountain west.
@@erictrenbeath9680 You still have some reliance on the government, sure, but in a city you can't go anywhere without help from the government through public transit.
@@erictrenbeath9680You rely on those subsidies only b/c they're taken practically everything from you in the first place.
Says the person who is utterly dependent upon subsidized roads and free parking...
I don’t care about how people want to govern themselves. I care that they want to rule over those that disagree with them.
exactly. I fully believe that cities should be allowed to fully govern themselves without interference from people outside. BUT that also means people who live in cites should have ZERO say on rural life.
but that will never happen because like you said they want to rule over everyone and not just leave well enough alone
@@gusmc2220 The rural areas of the world which they so vehemently hate, are the areas that provide their existence. Cities thrive on "business" while depending on "agriculture."
@@gusmc2220 Cities don't get to govern themselves without input from outside. People have a very mistaken belief about how STATE governments are ran in the areas that have large cities. Let's say I'm a state representative in Illinois. Or NY State, or anywhere else with a large city. Actually.. the best example of this is Texas.
Okay, I'm a state senator and I'm trying to get re-elected. I have two budgets proposals before me on where to spend tax money, actually more but we'll keep it simple. One is for a lot of little projects all around my district that each by themselves don't cost very much on the whole but in agitate is several billion. Each is small enough they'll take a year or two to complete so fit within the election cycle of things, each project doesn't have to accommodate a huge number of people because they're in more rural areas without the overhead of demand, and place I build one of these projects in will more or less be happy that their needs are being seen to by me. On the whole this is a good proposal for me. Lots of small areas of voters made happy that add up into a lot of voters come election day. I'm casting a wide net on things that can be done in my term.
Then there is the other proposal. I could put those billions into a single project that is going to take a decade to complete because I'm not servicing thousands anymore with each project, but millions. With the cost required for a project to serve millions. It won't be done anytime near when my term is done for reelection because it's simply too big. Now I'll make the city happy. They'll have an upgraded water system or something. But those voters aren't going to see what my choice does for them for another 10 years after I've made it.
So where do I spend them money? The first proposal obviously. I'll get some voters from the city just on a party vote, and enough voters from the rural areas will vote for me because I did something they can see. The two will make up enough to secure my win. Meanwhile the city rots.
This has been going on for decades. Here's the rule of state governments on fiscal usage. The city makes the money, the money is spent on areas outside the city, and the federal government will sooner or later step in and pay for everything in the cities that the state government didn't once things get bad enough. The reason for this are always state senators. Their districts are large enough for the population numbers to work out. A senator with a city still has enough rural voters to make it work. The cities rot because of state politics. Not because the cities chose that. Cities get shat on. The biggest problem with the system is it's starting to break down. The federal government isn't stepping in so much anymore to pickup the big ticket items the state didn't pay for while they were playing politics to garner votes. Every city in the country has a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project that needed to be done a decade ago. Usually water, sewage, power, or transportation. With water being the biggest offender. But the federal government started to run things like the state government does. It's the timelines. The projects cities need take too long to show up on the next election cycle. It's a mess.
California is the biggest offender of that. The federal government could fix the big problems with California. The water projects, the housing problems, the traffic problems. In decades past the federal government would have given the state government the middle finger and said this needs done then do it. Now days there is no way in hell a red state US representative is going to vote for a big project in California even if they KNOW it needs done. They are more likely to vote against it and then point out how badly California is failing because "LIberals!". Meanwhile the US economy as a whole is taking a dump because the economic centers are slowing down since they haven't been massively invested into since before Reagan, and they've less money to pull into their state for federal projects because they've spent the last 40 years voting to lower taxes.
THIS, all of this. Is what makes me angry about rural people saying the cities are trying to govern them. It's stupid moronic culture war crap. Who cares. The party of fiscal responsibility has shat the bed. The way the demographics have worked out is rural areas control the purse strings of the country, and they are spending it on tax cuts. Not on fixing stuff. Tax cuts. Infrastructure around the country is a big deal now days. We talk about it a lot. The US says it doesn't have the money to pay for it. Well. The overall tax rate in this country is the lowest it has ever been in my lifetime. And it keeps going down. Everytime a bridge fails, congratulations. You voted for a tax cut. All on the boogieman of "BIg government!". The US government had more employees in the 1950s than it does in 2023. Remember the 1950s? The golden age of the US. Meanwhile the US population is more than double what it was in 1950. There hasn't been a "Big government" in the lifetime of most US voters. Idiots all who parrot that line. It's infuriating. All of it. To just let the US infrastructure rot from inattention and politics.
@halycon404 I started laughing and stopped reading your little novella there the second you started suggesting that politicians cater to rural areas over cities.
They OBVIOUSLY cater to the cities because that is where all the people are!
AND that is exactly why we need the electoral college moved to the county level instead of the state level. There are cities that have more population than the entire original 13 colonies combined now.
Politicians don't do anything for rural areas because the number of voters they can affect are negligible.
Governors win elections and never even campaign outside of just a handful of the states cities.
You are beyond help with your willful ignorance of this issue, and p.s. the reason cities are rotting is because of the policies you lot keep voting for! that is exactly why we don't want you doing the same thing to us!
@jgesselberty exactly! I have said that time and time again only to have these city dwelling rodents insist that it's somehow the exact opposite.
I think we should cut off the supplies to the cities for a few days and maybe then they would finally appreciate where their food comes from (the ones that survived at least)
I suspect one big reason is people who can’t get along. Instead of working their differences out with their neighbors they turn to government to solve their problems. Karen doesn’t like the neighbors’ chickens, so she goes to her alderman (alderperson?) and complains. If enough other people agree, backyard chickens are banned. A neighbor of mine had a very well trained dog that did not need a leash. He walked his dog at night when very few people were outside and everything was cool. Then I started to notice other family members walking the dog on a leash. Apparently someone complained and the police got involved… and on and on…
Read "Violence is Golden" by Jack Donovan. It explains this societal paradigm and why people resort to it.
I don't think that "people who don't get along" has much to do with it. On the face of it, that can just as easily be tied to rural folk as city folk. (e.g. by characterizing the former as hermits)
Militant ideologues along with companies that cater to the status quo and their ER that follow company policies combined with people who just want to live life and go the fuck home instead of spending every day arguing with these militant lunatics. Eventually they get suppressed, stop fighting and potentially even bend the knee or get propagandized. Some companies have DE&I training aka reeducation camps.
Cities are hostile places, with people who give zero fucks about each other cause there are so many people that ethics and strong community bonds get eroded. People in smaller towns have less resistance and are left to think for their own self rather than have shit shoveled down their throats.
It’s about self sufficiency. City folk are dependent on the State and businesses to provide everything and indulge every whim - rural folk depend on themselves and each other to provide the essentials.
and government aid.
@@justbecause9645not really since there’s a well established history of the government failing rural communities.
@justbecause9645 how much govt welfare goes to the govt? 100%, that's how much. Your 'point' is very dumb
@@curious1053he just saying that red districts take far more federal aid then blue ones
I think you've hit on it.
In my psychology 101 class 40+ years ago I was taught that when mice were kept in overpopulated environments they became perverted. I've always wondered if that explains why urban areas lean left.
Beautiful coats but empty lives.
@@uss-dh7909 you mean the mice?
@@alsnyder1660
He meant the urbanites.
Mouse utopia experiments. Basicaly a society gets so big that it begins to prioritize social posturing over personal responsability
@@WarlockFiend exactly, it’s what we’re seeing all over the globe. People in overpopulated cities either grow up privileged or in a literal gang war zone, while people in rural areas tend to actually work for a living with menial tasks that get hands dirty. Speaking from personal experience it’s not always the case but it’s similar to how the mice behave in the same environment
Edit: “environment” wouldn’t type right
I've honestly enjoyed these videos so far because he's not going on long emotional rants about "the damn lefties" he's simply breaking policy and politics at large down and presenting his thoughts on them in a calm professional manner.
It does show the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who saw this as a problem when setting up how our elections are done and the dangers of a pure democracy.
Funny way of saying you agree with the artificial devaluation and inflation of votes.
Meanwhile cities pay the bills while rural areas are more per-capita reliant on outside revenues.
It should be reversed. Low wage, low skill, low revenue, high dependence rural votes should be devalued.
@@Jon-g2d5kmost urban votes come from people living good on welfare, not paying a dime in taxes(which is why they vote for democrats)if any votes should be devalued it should be those.
@@franklinfx Well that's simply not true and factual revenue data from urban centers proves it. In fact, per-capita revenues are significantly higher in urban centers than in rural areas.
Yup, cities have lots of poor people. They also have lots of high-skill labor. All rural areas have is poor people and low skill labor. A worse mix, proven by the revenues they don't generate.
@@Jon-g2d5k Ok smart guy... how about we dumb, low skilled rural voters stop growing and selling food to smart-ass-city-folk like you?!
The
My theory on the differences between them are:
In a city, help is only a few minutes away. Heck, you have neighbors in the same building, and residential buildings on both sides. In the country, your nearest neighbor may be half a mile away, and cops/EMTs could be an hour out.
In a corporate job, if you make a mistake, you get yelled at, lose money, possibly lose your job... If you are in academia and you get a hypothesis wrong, you suffer embarrassment. If you work on a farm, if you make a mistake you (or a coworker) could end up dead.
So, fundamentally, in the city you are mostly safe and your world view says you are entitled to that safety. In the country, everything is a risk and your worldview is you have to learn to take care of yourself because no one else will.
Did you notice how during the (2020 major world event of unknown origin) even the most hardcore liberal dems were clamoring to buy guns? We forget how easily our sheltered world view can be shattered. Our modern way of life is not the mean state of nature, it is the exception
Your analysis is even closer that the narrator's. In a city, one has no natural resources and relies on the government for almost everything. In sparsely populated areas, the converse is true, and people are, by necessity, more self-reliant.
Very Best Regards,
Tom Scott
Author ● Speaker ● World's Leading Expert on the Corrupt U.S. Legal System
_Our American Injustice System_
_Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor_
great insight you have thanks makes much sense cause I live in the country and like you said you are basically on your own.
It’s literally entirely this. And being surrounded by wealth, making you jealous and thinking that wealth should be taken for things. Was recently in San Francisco, and upon seeing all the homeless and such, one of the people I was with, who is a city person, said “it’s crazy that the city is so wealthy and there’s still homeless”. What I’d say is “it’s crazy how much tax revenue they bring in and there’s still homeless. Almost like paying taxes doesn’t automatically fix things…”
One more point. Ironically, despite having lots of neighbors in the city, nobody really knows their neighbors or has any reason to care about or rely on them. In the country where your nearest neighbor may be half a mile or more away, people tend to get to know each other on a more personal level and as such lend a helping hand to each other. Hence the city folk demand welfare programs because they don't have anyone who will help them out willingly on a personal level, people in the country don't need it because their families are tight-knit and they are close with their neighbors, and often the Church as well.
The true reason is the cities are filled with atomized people with no strong emotional connections with others, which make them very deconstructive against human relation.
How does this happen when cities to have more people closer together, and more systems dedicated to helping larger groups of people?
God's explanation seems most clarifying and authoritative. Mankind has a spoiled soul as their heritage goes back to a rebel against a loving Creator. That rebel was Adam.
But the Lord Jesus can cleanse, transform and renew a new collection of individuals ("Body of Christ", St. Paul) of whom He is the leader right into eternity.
If this is the case then why do they support welfare for others, Healthcare for others, welcome others to their communities, identity freedom for others, and are willing to tax part of their personal income to help others?
@@5353Jumper That seems like a very rose-tinted way of interpreting it. For one, the spiel's been 'tax the rich.' And yet its the middle-class that has been absolutely decimated in large cities like San Fransisco. You say they're willing to tax their personal income to help others? What personal income? The most vocal demographic in cities for social causes always seem to be college students, many of whom have nothing but debt on their shoulders. And of course you're going to protest for welfare and healthcare when you or your family is probably gonna rely on it. And on the other end of the spectrum, you have people that actually live in enough excess of wealth that they can shoulder or evade the cuts without any significant loss to quality of life. So they have all the incentive to virtue signal from their gated communities. And then you have the middle-class that just absolutely gets f**ked. Not to say that there aren't city folks that fall into neither categories and still support those causes, but there's also way more abdication and diffusion of personal responsibility in a large city, so I'd say its way easier to support a cause without actually paying a personal cost. It just becomes the government responsibility to figure it out, and you can just say you support a good cause without necessarily having to bear the burden yourself. City folks do parades and harass the police to support a cause, its not like they go out and fight wars for it. And there was also that point about how people seem way more isolated in big cities compared to rural areas. I guess people seem way more replaceable when the place is so densely populated, that there's less cost to being rude to a stranger or burning bridges - which is also probably why city folks, and college students especially, are more likely to rely on authority figures to mediate interpersonal conflict on their behalf, instead of mediating it themself.
@ReiyICN the city is also full of people who left the rural life. Those who did not feel supported in rural towns, so they left to find community in the city. The city is full of people who were shunned by their rural communities, so I would not go too far into bragging about how unified rural people are to helping each other.
In the city the volume and variety of people help "misfits" find their community.
And yes, also help people in bad luck moments of life find social services.
Healthcare is one social service EVERYONE uses at some point in their life. You never know when some bad luck will lead a person to need it. It is the most universally needed insurance and service system. It just makes sense to have it provided by society for everyone, not just those who can afford it.
Also note that it is those "terrible" urban lefties that are trying to get more doctors and medical care out into rural communities. It is the righty "conservatives" who get the rural vote who want medical care to be centralized in big city hospitals, forcing country folk to drive for hours to get emergency treatment.
The lefties care about improving prosperity and services for country folk too. But they never get credit for trying.
A wise man once told me " the further people are removed from agriculture the dumber they become".
WTF? I thought every one knew that chocolate milk comes from brown cows....
Great point, but let’s get more primal: the further people get from hunting and gathering the dumber they get. Ideally, people should be aware of and familiar with as many ways of sustenance as possible. For example, an Ancient Greek could easily take care of himself in the countryside while walking to a school in Athens, but many modern Greeks know nothing about that kind of life.
THIS is the only comment I agree with. Thank you, sir/mam!
@@chriskourliourod1651 I stand corrected. I agree with 2 comments here!
@@evermore4037only in the pre-internet era. Now you can be an engineer or scientist working on breakthroughs from your laptop in the middle of a desert
What is wild is the promises made ove and over again, never kept, and these people keep falling for it. It's like a long show of Lucy pulling the football from Charlie Brown. It's amazing they keep trusting.
That's why this dumbass country will never ever improve. Things will continue to get worse until everything just stops working. Don't worry, we're getting there where gas is $7 a gallon, inflation at 50%, $50,000 a year is the poverty income level and crime is so high that you can't buy a car without it being vandalized. Keep voting blue no matter who!!!
At least in America, it has nothing to do with trusting the Democrats. It's that the only alternative is the Republicans. Likewise, rural voters don't trust the Republicans, but the only alternative is Democrats. In a two-party system, voters don't necessarily like their own party - they fear the alternative.
As someone who lives in a Leftist sh*t hole ( Philadelphia ) that's been totally controlled by Democrats
since 1952, the answer as to why they keep getting re-elected is because YOU CAN"T FIX STUPID !
Thats why they have to brainwash our youth. Eventually the evidence of their failed policies speaks for itself and they need ideological naive voters.
But this time, surely they'll get to kick the ball.
They studied rats experiencing overpopulation, becoming gay, antinatalist, cannibalistic etc.
I was thinking the same thing, this was taught in psychology 101 class. Real life proves it to be true for humans as well.
Only a college student would think a mice and it’s psychology is the same as people. “Well we should accept it cuz mice do it.” Pure laziness with no critical thinking.
The idea that people who live in big cities are "more educated" or "more culturally diverse" is completely absurd and demonstrates that echo chambers have been around longer than social media.
First of all, big cities are packed full of the uneducated. For every well-educated business owner there are dozens if not hundreds of uneducated workers that work for him.
As for "more culturally diverse" it is wise to point out that this "diversity" comes in the form of small communities. Chinatown, Harlem, Little India, etc. People of different backgrounds group together and have very little interaction with others outside their group. Whereas in more rural areas, if someone of a different culture moves in, they actually tend to actually interact with their neighbors (because what other choice do they have?) Not to mention all the small towns that thrive on tourism and actually get to meet these people coming from different nations, cultures, and walks of life.
Anyone who actually cares to be educated or culturally diverse would be venturing beyond their city limits to see more of the world and see what people in these rural areas are actually like.
This is not necessarily true. I grew up in NYC (Queens), and while there are ethnic pockets, there were many mixed neighborhoods, and people of all backgrounds made friends with each other.
@@jenniferj5324 That's good to hear, and I'm glad to have examples of such integration.
But even so, I still hear about these single-race communities, and I have to compare that to the town I grew up in. It was suburban, but white people were a minority. We were filled with all kinds of races from Latino, Filipino, Black, East Asian, and everything in-between. But there was no real ability for a single racial community to congregate. My parents worked with a church group focused on Hmong people with first-generation families. That group was literally spread across two entire cities; no one lived right next door to another Hmong family because you can't just "happen" to find a house next door that goes for sale.
And it just drives me up the wall when I hear people talk about big cities known for famous single-race communities claim that they are somehow "more culturally diverse" than smaller towns like the one I grew up in. I'm glad to hear that they have eventually become more diverse and mixed, but it sure as hell doesn't put them above smaller cities.
Literally that is what I am saying. I went to high school in Brooklyn and there was so much diversity, but whites hang with whites, blacks hang with blacks, asians hang with asians. You get the point. Only when I went to Alabama for college was I able to see people of different races mixing. Minorites want to complain white people won't let them hang out or whatnot but they never actually try because they are scared to, so prefer to be with their own kind anyway. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that makes white people seen as racist
The irony is that in their attempt to prove diversity, they ended up only proving that people will self-segregate with their own people because of tribalism at its core.
Even if there are instances of diverse neighborhoods, the fact that these isolated, homogenous zones within a city supposedly "diverse" where everyone is just shitting rainbows and vomiting flowers on each other all day every day (when apparently that's the furthest from the truth considering youtube), more proves that the greater the diversity, the less likely you'll see actual diverse intermingling.
Because ethnic and religious groups are going to stick to their ethnic and religious peers. And the irony in that is because these Ethnic and Religious Groups don't agree with each other. Muslims don't get along with Jews. Indians don't get along with Pakis. The Ukrainians aren't going to get along with Russians. You're going to have most Asian nationalities staying away from the Japanese (because World War II and Japan does not acknowledge its own war crimes).
What I love, more importantly, is that the loudest voices of Diversity, are also the loudest voices for Democratic Socialism, and reference nations like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark as prime examples. Even though they had very little diversity (greater than 95% white, national population, pre-2013 US Gov fabricated Syrian Civil War), but each of those nations also rebuked people will like Bernie "Bread Lines are Amazing" Sanders because they stated they were Free Market Economies with sufficient work force and safety net programs that had excellent oversight rather than excessive bureaucracy. While it was higher taxes, they had a population willing to work and invest into it. The US doesn't have that kind of population... Because its "diverse".
If Diversity were such a strength, we wouldn't need to be reminded, over and over, and every election year, that it is a strength. It would be self-evident.
This is true for the suburbs as well. At my school. There are: indian groups, white groups, black groups, and then a few mixed ones. People dont like talking to others who arent the same@@marscaleb
Which is exactly why our states need an Electoral College system too. Counties would then have the ability to have representation not dominated by the big cities.
I've said this same thing for years!
There may be an answer why the FF's didn't replicate the EC at state level, though I haven't been able to find it. It's one of those things that has to be in place from the beginning, else it will never happen.
glad to see that idea being talked about by more people. I fully support that idea!
Counties are not miniature states!
@itsshrimpinabag9544 they should be. We have counties now with more population in them than all 13 original colonies combined.
One thing never pointed out is that the Big Cities are *very reliant* on the Countryside for food, machinery, and textiles. But the Countryside does not rely on Big Cities for anything. Not even trading or representation purposes.
To be fair, you are making money off the cities by selling your products there.
Indeed, and it wrecks our forests, streams and wildlife populations
It's the seaports. Always has been.
I agree and let me point out the cities haha a lot of younger people “finding themselves.” They have a lot of expression of youngster people just f***ing around which is fine on the surface….but it turns into policy and ideologies. “Just do whatever you want.” Where in the rural areas they have s**t to do. They don’t have time to entertain all these fringe, strange, alternative lifestyles. They value tradition and keeping it simple because they have a ranch to run and what have you.
Whom will you trade with without ports?
There are a few other factors at play. In a big city, you basically live within government, like a fish in an aquarium. You use the subway or bus system, obey traffic signals, attend events at public performing arts centers. In the country you don't have these things--even the fire department is volunteers--so the idea of living with less government isn't no scary. In cities, you can find a majority of people like you, while in the country you may be in the minority. Once surrounded by people who think like you, it's easy to think you are the center. Gay bars and whole neighborhoods for example. Lastly, guns. In the country a gun is used for hunting, protection, vermin control and sport; in the city it's most a tool for violence against other humans.
Very good point!
Living in a completely unnatural environment, essentially helpless and defenseless, jammed in with so many others, is it any wonder? I live in the country now after being a suburbanite my whole life. I couldn't be happier with that choice.
@@REL602 I would disagree with the natural environment. Today's cities are anything, but a natural environment for humans. While towns and cities in old ages had a purpose and maybe consisted of a couple of houses bunched together and encircled with a wall to protect from natural threats and human enemies, nowadays it's just a huge concrete desert. And it has been since the industrial revolution really.
There's reason people of the time compared cities with the demon/deity Moloch (or Molech), who grants power but at a great sacrifice. So the people at the time also felt that living there is not the right way to live. But humans being humans we can adapt and some did. Figuratively the analogy is true. You live in the loud, crowded city, because there's work and money to be made. And ironically the direct comparison with Moloch is also true, as the deity was known for child sacrifices, which holds up for urban areas, as people there have much less children.
You have never lived in the country have you?
GUNS are also used to keep government away
Thomas Jefferson recognized the urban problem over 200 years ago. It has been around since Roman times…
Yer a lazy thinker, Myron.
@@robforrester3727 Why? Because I read and understand history and and apply its lessons on the present and the future?
No. Because you do none of those things, and delude yourself (and only yourself) that you do.
@@myronlarimer1943
@@myronlarimer1943America wouldn’t be the country it is today without cities so that’s a silly argument.
@@oladeebiazazi4538you seem to not understand how language and arguments work man..
In cities, people are dependent on someone else for their necessities: food, water, power, shelter, healthcare, clothing, transportation, etc. In the city, one must work to make money to pay for their necessities. The people in cities depend on government to maintain the dependencies and willingly pay money for this “protection” as well as give up rights. People in cities are oblivious to the amount of control the government has because they’re so focused on their dependencies that can be shut off at any moment, immediately affecting the lives of millions. In rural areas, people are not dependent on others for their survival. In the country, we can grow/collect our own food, collect our own water, produce our own power, build our own shelters from what we find on the ground, make our own clothing, walk to ride an animal, etc. We can do all this without needing money or government assistance. The only government we may require is for the Sheriff to keep others from interfering with our Constitutional rights.
Except it is the big city Democrats who are working to protect your water, protect your land rights, protect the wildlands, raise your wages even though that local shop has less traffic, keep your air clean, buy your food production at a reasonable price for you to make more profit than the food distributors, to ensure you have doctors and first responders near your small population.
@@5353Jumperlmfao 😂your joking right ?
@wallywanker7435 no not joking. This is what most urban citizens and urban Democrats want and try for.
It is Urban Republicans who prevent all these things while doing absolutely nothing to help rural people. Big city, big corporate, big bank, big finance Republicans have a visceral hatred for any working citizen, urban or rural. At least some Democrats are trying to help even if they are ineffective at it.
Seriously, tell me how I am wrong?
And not in typical right wing rhetoric "the lefties are ruining the country" without actually saying how or why or what right wingers would do differently. Say exactly what Democrats do against rural America and what Republicans DO better?
@@5353Jumper I literally explained how rural Republicans and Conservatives don’t have the issues about which you’re complaining. Everything in a city comes from the ground in the country, including the materials used to make the currency you seem to never have enough. If urban Liberals weren’t demanding so much to keep them happy, there would be no need for the industry to build things or the distribution systems to get stuff form the country to a Liberal’s greedy, lazy hands. Liberals will blame everyone else for all they don’t have. Liberals will make every excuse to not come pick stuff off the ground they want or need. I’ll gladly take your money you worked so hard to get to pay me to do the work to pick up the materials to make items and deliver them to you.
I’m a conservative living in the middle of nowhere Louisiana who is paid a lot of money to travel to Los Angeles to provide the technology that allows you to have things delivered to your home at the push of a button. At my house, my food is literally outside my back door in the garden or in the forest, but I can still go to the supermarket or restaurant who get their food from farms near me. My water comes from a well outside, but I also have water company service that gets their water from the same aquifer as me. I have electricity service as well as solar and wind power. My wood for shelter comes from the same forest used to supply the local Lowe’s and Home Depot with lumber and plywood from the local saw mills and plywood factory. The cotton for my clothing came from a farm on the way to town.
Most of these materials I need I grow or collect myself. The extra materials I don’t need I’ll trade or sell. No I have no need to go work for someone else to earn currency first. While I’m waiting for my crops and trees to grow that I’ll harvest later, I go conduct my work in tech. The money from that tech work is how I save for my retirement which will be the day I can’t go get my own materials outside. At that point, I’ll turn over the trust of the estates to my kids or my niece who is in business. I used some of that money to build a solar and wind power system, build the solar powered well, and buy multiple 600-800 sq ft mobile buildings which I’m renting out as nice cabins with the local Indian casino because I’m in a sister tribe to them and they don’t have a hotel or any lodging. That keeps a few thousand coming in every month whether I’m working or not.
Do you need me to explain this further?
@davidscbirdsall do you really think everyone has the same skills, talents and capabilities? That every part of the nation has the same ability to make everything?
And you think that city people NEVER drive out to the country, or ever do any physical labor at all?
And let's point out, it is the LIBERAL LEFTY DEMOCRAT type of people that are reducing their consumption, reducing their lifestyles, not doing everything for the sake of $$$, willing to share with their community and nation.
I think you got your city slickers mixed up, cause your description sounds to me like all the urban Republic I know.
One point you failed to include is that cities tend to have a much larger percentage of their employment in government itself. That is the mindset of liberalism. Conservatives tend toward business related career choices. More government jobs = more liberal voters.
Not necessarily, Government Law Enforcement and the like is overwhelmingly conservative.
Public sector is only about 15% of the total workforce, so even if 100% of government jobs were in cities (they are not), and even if 100% of government employees were liberals (they most definitely are not), it still would not account for the difference in political leanings between urban and rural areas.
At a recent gun show, modern democrats were bluntly called communists, and that’s what they truly are. I still find it hard to believe that the likes of Cortez are actually elected; if they are, the voters are no more intelligent than worms.
In the animal kingdom, scavengers follow the producers for food. But they hate and fear these producers, even though they depend on them for food.
@@_DB.COOPER I would disagree that it is "overwhelmingly" conservative. Front line officers? Yeah, I'd accept that. Majority of support staff, nope.
I visited my friend who lives in the city (I live in the rural) and realized after walking around, how much you have to cooperate, depend on, and are bound to all the people around you. The population is just so dense. It can make sense to have a centralized, more authoritarian view of government (as a vehicle, not necessarily about the cargo). The density also puts so many different kinds of people on top of each other. And if we are all living together, we have to accept what they got going on and believe (the cargo).
Idk, I can't articulate it but the feeling was wildly different from what I am use to.
Most of the world has gone through a cultural identity crises after the french rev. There's no religion to tie everyone togther for cultural hegemony. It's the wild west of ideas out there.
It is better economically to live in a city, and we all cannot live in the country. We do need to learn to use the strengths of the cities and the rural areas in a cooperating fashion and not as a dividing one.
@@jameslinzmeier368 A wishful thought without a concise, hard, immediate solution is EMPTY.
I hope you are not in favor of a centralized, authoritarian government. China is collapsing because Xi decided to go back to the ideas of Mao who impoverished his people, decided who would live where, who could be what in a job and who would be allowed an education.
@@brianmclaughlin4419 "a concise, hard, immediate solution " WOW. I like the thought, but what you are asking is not a possibility. The situation es ever changing. and that is what makes it hard. Just like capitalism vrs socialism (example) Neither will work if implemented 100 percent. There is an economical NEED to have some socialism in a society, and economical greed in a capitalistic society. Neither is perfect. Even God screws this up in the Bible over and over. But yes, perhaps just a dream. A society that benefits TOGETHER always. And yes, I know it is impossible to always be "equal" or to ever be equal, but it is not to be equitable. This should be the goal of every society.
As a pole I confirm that. It's EXACTLY like that in Poland too! Left-Liberal cities vs. Right-Conservative rural areas
Cities consist of a majority of people that want things done for them, from social services, to unions to public transportation, therefore they want a bigger government with more control to provide for them.
Rural areas consist of a majority of people who want to do for themselves, therefore they want a smaller government that will leave them alone and stay out of their way.
I think rural areas want those things built because they’re already paying taxes on it. As a taxpayer, I demand either we get everything the government said we’d get or a fat refund on what I’ve paid them. As for subsidizing farms, maybe it’s because they are providing food for those that live in the cities? I guarantee anyone who owns a farm and only provides for themselves and their families are not asking for any kind of subsidy
I wonder who gets more welfare benefits (such as food stamps)rural or urban centers hmm
@@jakew1362 hey genius people in rural areas are paying taxes like everyone else, so why shouldn't they expect these same things?
@@jpete3027666how can they pay taxes if they’re so busy getting handouts
@@jpete3027666 79% of the GDP is created in blue states, and the vast majority of that is in blue cities. In california, we get 91 cents back for every dollar we pay to the feds. South carolina gets $16 back for every dollar is gives to the feds. The top takers are all red states. The vast majority of welfare goes to poor white rural Americans.
There's another factor in the case of Seoul that should've been mentioned. In South Korea, the conservative party is also seen as more pro-defense than the left-wing party. There is no place in South Korea which has more to loose than Seoul in a war with North Korea: half their long-range artillery is pointed right at it. In other words, Seoul might be "an exception which proves the rule".
Yeah. I was surprised to see him bring up South Korea as a case in point. Western media and politicians rarely talk about Korea, and it's just as well that they don't because the assumptions which underpin political analysis in the US are often inapplicable in the context of the Orient.
What confused me is how identity politics could get into the picture in South Korea---aren't they more or less one ethnicity?
@longWriter I have a guess as to what he might be talking about. My understanding is that Korea and Japan really don't like immigrants from each other. It would be weird if that was it though, since the new conservative gov't is trying to *improve* relations with Japan. They might see how Japanese people are treated in Korea as matter of a national security. (There might also be mutual migration with China). There might also be a bunch of "temporary" workers from the Philippines and Vietnam. Anyways, I don't actually know that much about this, so I'll need to look this up, myself.
@@longWriter Identity politics in South Korea is mainly feminazis against the Alt-Right, landowners vs. younger people, and general conservatives vs. liberals.
@@jeffbenton6183 Thanks for the reply.
It's funny you mention Japan: I've read that right-leaning nationalist groups in Japan are pretty gung-ho about the alliance between Japan, South Korea, and the USA.
Overall a decent summary but you missed a few points:
1. Cities have more renters than owners, therefore care less about building wealth and protecting private property
2. Because they are less interested in self-reliance and have basically given up on trying to build wealth and be self-sufficient, they tend to vote for more government programs and entitlements to sustain them through life
3. In more rural areas everything tends to be more privately owned (from your home to your car) and usage-based, while in the city everything tends to be more communal.
3. Rural areas are more tight-knit and have a stronger sense of community, and they rely on each other in difficult times. In the city nobody really has any connection with each other or cares about each other, so again goes back to always relying on the government.
That makes living in cities sound negative and rural living positive ("stronger sense of community" vs "relying on the government" etc). If that's the case, why are people increasingly deserting rural areas to move to cities all over the world?
@@Support-your-local-teamthey're not -- post-covid when many workers were given the choice to work remote and be untethered from their commutes most chose to move towards more suburban areas (maybe less so rural)
@@vdubz67 What you're describing is a small blip in an overall trend of city population growth. Over half of the planet now lives in cities and in 30 years it'll be more like three quarters. That shows that this comment section (majority pro-rural/anti-city) isn't reflective of the world in general.
@@Support-your-local-team Inside the USA that does not seem to be the case. Many people in California are retreating to Texas. But that does seem to be the trend in the third world.
@@RichardCranium. I thought that was mainly moving to cities in Texas though? I remember hearing during the last US election that Texas has become a swing state because the movement of people from places like California to major Texas cities has turned those cities into Democrat cities, while rural Texas remains majority Republican. I'm not American though so you probably know more about this than me.
Edit to add: Where I'm from (Scotland, so not the third world - yet) there's definitely more people moving from rural areas to cities than the other way round. This is the case in most of Europe.
Excellent commentary. I think there is another permutation on this issue: people in cities live on top of each other and have grown to believe less in individualism and see society more as communal. People in rural areas tend to be more self -sufficient and thus value individuality more.
Yet you get blue haired emo queer communists who demand special treatment because they’re unique.
Not necessarily though. People in rural areas and country small towns tend to know each another more, while many urban citizens don't even bother to get to know their neighbour in the apartment next door...
People in rural areas and small towns are even more communal and are actively involved in their communities.
Urbanites are atomised individuals. While there are more people in cities and they're more "connected" through technology, they're also more lonely and struggle to have human connection. They're also more self-absorbed in their personal lives. They have less community involvement (if any) and just want to watch Netflix, RUclips, or play games after coming home from work.
Very true. I used to think that this was some sort of contradiction but it really isn’t upon reflection. The key is recognizing that “communal” can indeed be a conservative value, especially when it is voluntary. In Communist societies it is forced. People can still choose to be hermits in rural areas.
By the same token, people who live largely individual lives in cities are not necessarily independent in reality. In fact, they depend on the rest of society for virtually everything, right down to not shopping for their own stuff; it is delivered to them by strangers. So in short, it is possible to appear independent but still left wing.
I think that the dichotomy between rural and urban society is getting worse due to the things you mentioned; Netflix and on-line socializing. I makes it possible for left-leaning city dwellers to see and socialize strictly with people that think like they do. Even online people will “block” others simply for voicing an opinion they don’t like.
No. People who live in cities are as interested in viewing themselves as individuals just as anyone else is. They just don't get a chance to make silly, childish choices based on parochialism and xenophobia as some asshole out in the sticks can
Cities are, and always have been, more corrupt and more people want to get in the game.
"Prove"
Ive always noticed this pattern. Big cities are always left-wing and multicultural while rural areas are always right-wing. When it comes to suburban towns some lean left and some right and some are around 50/50.
I think it stems from factory workers fighting for better laws and conditions not sure if I explained this well but cities contain many immigrants which want rights to favour them and many immigrants and migrants that made their way to the cities were poor but there was just more jobs there which is why they moved to the cities
Nothing to do with immigration, IMO @@zeged
It is the big divide that the uber wealthy exploit. If we both, rural and city folk, didn't listen to the propaganda, we would be far better off. Some things urban areas do better, some things country folks do better. But instead of cooperating we fight over the differences. Then we remain divided.
I've always thought it comes down to a mindset of personal responsibility. Truly rural people are conservative... about everything, because you have to take care of and appreciate things you have today, since it's a finite supply. Also when it comes to resources, they're quite literally all alone other than neighbors and small community around them.
On the other hand the city mindset where everything is plentiful and just around the corner from a 24/7 store, they are more wasteful and not caring (even with trash and recycle, though they think they're good at that), but mostly a city mindset is the opposite of personal responsibility, since the first reaction to everything is "call the authorities" whether it's police, animal services, phone service, trash pickup, even food delivery. All the things not readily available to rural dwellers.
Being "more educated" has been proven it doesn't mean you are smarter or know what's best. Only proves more that you're invested in the Matrix and have been told how smart you are by them.
Idk I think an engineer is gonna be able to design a rocket better than a farmer. You were good up until that last bit. That last bit was like shit on top a nice cheesecake lol
Expert: A person who knows more and more about less and less. ( Then they view the world through that small lens. That's why academia is great for teaching specifics, but shouldn't be allowed to drive the car ( politics).
that's where you need collaboration between multiple academics, and politicians need to be the ones able to unite those different sectors of academia in order to generate policy solutions, and the media must be able to portray the discoveries generated by academia in a way that is understandable to the general public.@@johnchandler1687
@@SnaxMang A farmer will make a better tractor though. There are multiple ways to gain knowledge and experience school is one of many ways.
@@MegaLokopo A farmer will use a tractor better and probably give good ideas for features to an engineer. But a farmer dedicated to farming is likely not building their own from scratch. They're getting it from a factory run by those with busines smarts selling machine made by those with mechanical smarts to be used by those with agricultural smarts. You need em all.
I reside in northern California at my 70 years of age. Last week, while at an appointment with my dermatologist, originally from Nigeria, she volunteered the opinion that perhaps Oakland and San Francisco need to fail in their totality. I agree with her.
This is exactly the analysis I've been talking about for years!!
Cities induce a "helplessness" or dependency simply due to the number of services that are provided. This attribute, has unfortunately spread to state and federal governments over the last century. This erodes the republican idea of the citizens overseeing the hired help government administrators and revives the servile ideology of the ancien regime with its submission to the "red hat" (king's officer).
"Obviously under such circumstances city government must become more or less of a a mystery to the great mass of citizens. They cannot watch its operations as the inhabitants of a small village can watch the proceedings of their township and county governments. Much work must go on which cannot even be intelligently criticized without such special knowledge as it would be idle to expect in the average voter, or perhaps in any voter. It becomes exceedingly difficult for the taxpayer to understand just what his money goes for, or how far the city expenses might reasonably be reduced ; and it becomes correspondingly easy for municipal corruption to start and acquire a considerable headway before it can be detected and in some rechecked. In some respects city government is harder to watch intelligently than the government of the state or of the nation. For these wider governments are to some extent limited to work of general supervision. As compared with the city, they are more concerned with the establishment and enforcement of certain general principles, and less with the administration of endlessly complicated details. I do not mean to be understood as saying that there is not plenty of intricate detail about state and national governments. I am only comparing one thing with another, and it seems to me that one chief difficulty with city government is the bewildering vastness and multifariousness of the details with which it is concerned. The modern city has come to be a huge corporation for carrying on a huge business with many branches, most of which call for special aptitude and training. "
--Civil Government in the United States (1902), John Fiske
Rural states receive billions in subsidies and far more welfare than cities.
What? Cities also produce markets so the rural folks will not live forever in poverty. You lost me on helpless and dependent. I am not sure you ever lived in a city.
@@jameslinzmeier368 Used to produce markets. But with modern communications and transport, aren't needed. They persist out of habit. Today, the most salient feature of cities is the large selection and convenience of potential sex partners. The "college experience" writ large.
@@jameslinzmeier368 This guy clearly has no idea how expensive farming is lmao
Most ranchers are millionaires buddy they aren't living in poverty
This was really interesting and better yet it was short and well explained. I liked how clear everything was and how this was such a short video despite that.
Growing up on a small country farm I never knew why my neighbors and friends made fun of "city folk". Then I met some. They were nice enough but they had no common sense. I wondered why and then I went to work for a fortune 500 company. When you live in the city and work for a boss you don't do much thinking, and certainly don't innovate. There is no need to. Everything is close,convenient, and comfortable. The combination of these three things kills individuality. Sure city folk get paid more, but thats not a blessing (proverbs 13:11 and 20:21). More money means you have disposable income. Disposable income incourages reckless spending and careless decisions. Long story short, wealthy city folk aren't familiar with the concept of facing consequences of bad behavior. After all if you can throw money at a problem until it goes away why try to learn from it and do better? In the country you have to be self sufficient, hard working, and frugal when it comes to finances. Cites aren't the problem. Those that run the cities often see their constituents as nothing more than cattle to be processed. They are the probelm. Kind of like a perverted form of farming. Ironic I know. Under such circumstances it isn't surprising that they expect people to live in cramped apartments. Kind of like cattle in a stall. Work in factories. Like chickens in a hen house. And vote for similar policies like dogs in a kennel all barking to the same tune. It's easy to get an echo chamber going. You just need one pooch to start baying and the rest will follow suit. Sort of like this stupid Stanley cup obsession. To wrap it up country life scratching a living from the dirt is hard. A hard life requires innovation and intelligence to make it easier. Notice I didn't say easy....just easier. An easy life is close, convenient, and comfortable. If abused this life can be dangerous and consequently destructive. Notice most all violent crimes occur in the big cities where people expect those in power to keep them safe. Out in the country on the other hand most folk are a crack shot and don't need those in power. They can take care of themselves and that independent, individualistic ideology is the basis on which this wonderful nation was founded. God bless the USA and may God bless you and yours.
I understand the hard work it takes to make it on a farm. But don't for a second think they people in cities don't work hard. There's physical labor and there's mental labor, and both can be equally draining and difficult. Working for yourself by running a farm is very different than navigating the complex corporate world and acquiring the education you need to even qualify for the jobs, especially in STEM. Rural communities are more independent because you can be more independent. Big cities are so expensive, that your on a constant hamster wheel to survive. The reason we are in this situation is because the rich have bought off the politicians, and rigged the system, so it doesn't matter who you vote for, they all work for the rich.
There are three types of people, those that make things happen and become successful, those that want to take from the first type, and those that haven't got a clue. Sadly most Government employees are in the last group
Very true!
The biggest problem with cities today is that they are seen more as “population centers” than as centers of culture and regional economic activity. If there were a real regional economy, producers from outside of cities would need to go to the city to sell their wares. Nowadays, everything is shipped far and wide, so there is no interplay between urban and rural life.
In cities, you can "progress" past "reality." In rural areas, distance, winter & storm power outages take you to "reality" every yr.
Like (I suspect) many of us, I'm old enough to remember that the Republicans used to be the "blue party" and the Dems were the "red party". Then one election night, probably 2002, I was watching the TV news anchors talking about the election results as they came in. I switched between TV networks to avoid commercial breaks as much as possible. On one network, there were two unmemorable male anchors bantering back and forth about the latest news, when one of them brightened up a bit and said to the other man, "hey, I just realized that the military uses blue for friendly forces, and red, of course, is the color of communism. Isn't that funny?" The other guy just silently and uncomfortably looked back at the first guy for a moment.
The VERY NEXT election night two years later, I spent the night the same way, and saw one of the TV anchors (NBC's David Gregory) announce to the audience that they've switched the colors to blue for Dems and red for the Republicans, "for no particular reason". Only after that did I see Dems calling themselves Blue Dog Democrats, using it as a brand marketing strategy. I also saw a RINO or two call himself a "red meat Republican". It's all a show.
I've heard that it was Tim Russert who first made the switch. May be, may not be. But the point, for youngsters, is that the Dems used to be red and the Repubs used to be blue and it was no accident that they were switched. Red is thought of as Communist ("Red China"). Is this why the colors were switched, in order to get rid of that association for the Dems?
That's a fact. All three networks colluded and switched the same night. Dirty weasels.
I’m glad you brought that up because I remember the colors being switched at some point.
@@practicaliching2311 well, as far as when the decision to make the switch was actually made, that decision probably happened shortly after the election night when the connection of red to Communism was remarked on, and the rest of the world didn't find out about it until the next election night. So the political bosses and their media allies could have made the decision months or a couple of years before anyone in the public knew about it.
Basically all food and water has to be imported into cities. Grocery stores have just 3 days worth of supplies on their shelves. In fact, every necessity of life has to be imported into cities. Ask any prepper and they'll agree that cities will be most quickly and most negatively affected if a 'first' world nation's electrical grid collapses.
What that translates to is a profound disconnection from reality. And from that disconnection... all else follows.
I would argue that most first world nations' power grids do just fine pretty much all the time, so the only 'profound disconnection from reality' is fretting about hypothetical doomsday scenarios.
Clearly you either missed the point or simply want to dismiss it without actually addressing it. It's not about the likelihood of the grid going down. The point is that people who live in cities are much more disconnected from reality than are rural dwellers. The potential for the grid going down and the increased vulnerability of cities is an indication of just how dependent city dwellers are and that necessarily results in a degree of disconnection from reality. Whereas in the country just driving by ranches and farms subconsciously brings home where our food comes from...You see a cow and whether you consciously think about it or not, you subconsciously recognize that it must be killed and butchered for you. Though human beings are omnivores, that emphasizes the predator aspect of our nature. Whereas in the city, food is neatly packaged. Meat could have been and someday probably will be grown in a vat. We already have "plant-based" 'meats' an oxymoron that only willful blindness can ignore. Plant-based 'meats' emphasize the herbivore aspect of our nature. Herbivores are the prey of carnivores and, down on a ranch, people get that on a gut level. So too do criminals grasp that 'plant eaters' make easier prey than do 'meat eaters'.
@@geoffreybritain8878 I did not miss your point, food comes from farms, I get that, and cities need electricity, also obvious. What I don't get is why you seem to think 'reality' is limited to your own particular experience of life. I imagine a single mom heading home to her apartment at midnight from her shift as a trauma nurse would be surprised to learn that what she experiences is not reality according to you, but rather "a profound disconnection from reality".
@@geoffreybritain8878you realize you're arguing with a city dweller and, most likely, a leftist troll.
Hi James, well that can always be the case. IMO it's important to at least initially be specific with the reasons why we hold the positions that we do. Trolls reveal themselves fairly quickly and once they do, I disengage.@@jamesross8410
I’ve long thought this difference has to do with the size of a person’s social network, and how interdependent it is. In the countryside, there are fewer people, and most of them know each other and rely on one another at the individual level. In contrast, cities hold hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. So, they can’t all know one another or even interact. Instead, they view others as members of abstract groups defined by socioeconomic status, race, religion, etc. And they rely on institutions to manage, control, and care for so many people. So, the countryside is conservative because the people hold one another personally responsible for their actions most of the time, while the city is progressive because the people there defer to institutions to get things done. No doubt there are other factors, like homogeneity (the countryside is more likely to be culturally uniform, while the city is more likely to be culturally diverse), but in my opinion, social network dynamics could be a major one.
My take is that the divide stems in large part from what it takes to live in high density with people you personally have no connection with vs what it takes to live spread out. In cities coordination with strangers and the ability to be free from someone hitting you with their bat as they swing it around becomes more important. In the country being able to be self sufficient and free to do what needs doing requires greater freedom to swing your bat around.
That's a really surreal take. I've lived in both, and I can tell you that the lack of oversight in rural communities makes you far more vulnerable to that asshole with a bat.
I’ve grew up on a farm and now live in a massive city. My thought is that neither is superior, both have hard workers and neither should try to enforce their rules on the other because their daily concerns are so different.
Way to be realistic!
I’ve explained this as to why we need the electoral college. It takes fewer people to equal one electoral vote in Wyoming than it does to equal one electoral vote in California. Why should it be that way? Because California has no business telling Wyoming what to do. Many policies that work in California don’t work in Wyoming and vice versa
How dare you not pick a side and try to show a better united country! Shame on you *Sarcasm*
No one in Rural America wants to change the rules in the cities. We don’t care how gun-free Chicago is, how many homeless people live in LA, or the quality of NYCs subway system. We just simply don’t want those policies that led to those things being enacted where we live. Leave us rural folks be. Quit forcing your big city ideas on us. Let us work the farms, pump out the oil, and keep you all fed and y’all’s cars fueled up, and in exchange, city folk leave us alone.
@@L0VTX_H8CA but you would be fine with red states telling cities what to do, okay got it
I think the people living in large cities tend to take their food, raw products, for granted. Thinking that it will always be there for them to exploit. This leaves them with a contempt for anything not city based. But as we are seeing with the protests worldwide over farming being destroyed. This is not sustainable nor wise. Trouble is, will we get smart fast enough to stave off a complete disaster in society? The utter insanity of it all. I know this as I grew up living in both worlds. And I thank God that I did.
So do u support the small towns or city
@@Steelers2 Country living is the life for me.
Unpopular opinion: rural populations seem to be defined by moral conservativism and muscular labor for livelihood. Whereas urban areas are more defined by self-centered indulgence and ephemeral work like finance and law. So in sum, good people tend to stay in the country and morally questionable people tend to flock to the cities.
*Note: I have been living in New York City for 18 years.
Considering I live in a place where I frequent both the city and country... I see signs threatening to kill folk over what they believe/were born as in the country, and people having a good time with their families in the city so.... no. You ain't even gotta live it to know that. It's a stereotype that certain people should not go into the country in some states for fear of their lives. So hell the fuck no. That's not where the moral boundary is drawn.
You live in NY. A city infamous for being worse than others, people wise. NY is fucked. Not cities in general lol
exactly, its a rat race in cities
True
I lived in a city for 17 years. Now I've been living on a farm the past 17 years.
The difference is the impact of responsibility. In the city, you are insulated from direct cause and effect. It's like watching your life on a big screen since you are a little cog in a big machine.
In the country, you are participating in life. Every thing you do has impact. Cause and effect is real and immediate. There's no confusion about correlation and causation? That's the difference between a liberal and conservative?
this is also slowly tied into socialism vs capitalism, etc etc. More about you getting what you put in and not being just a cog in the system getting by.
I think it has to do with being in nature. People who live in the countryside or work outdoors seam to keep their sanity. Living in a concrete jungle and working indoors makes you nuts. Humans weren't meant to live that way.
Once humans reach a certain population density herd mentality kicks in.
Once human reach below a certain population density lack of education kicks in. Making sentence is not reasoning.
When a person lives alone for too long, or around people who are exceedingly similar to themselves, the more insular, distrusting, and selfish they become.
@@skywalkersindar7463
City shut ins are not like rural people.
@@matthew8153 I agree that the lifestyles are very different. Neither is better or worse. They each have their downsides. You can argue a rural lifestyle connects you to the land, and a more realistic connection between the body and mind. Yet, cities are the only place to be on the cutting edge of human philosophical, cultural, and technological progress. They can argue rural life is stale and boring. The same families, the same people, the same activities, year after year. Some would call it traditional, with deep relationships. Others would say you're not evolving or exploring.
It's a matter of what you value, and the human species excels when both cooperate in some kind of balance.
@@skywalkersindar7463
Urban life has never lead to technological innovation. The internal combustion engine, telecommunications, electric generation, all of them were invented in Rural America.
As an American conservative I’ll make sure I’ll make sure I live in a more rural area.
Given the way society is headed I’d rather not be near that many people, less is more as they say
we won't miss you, enjoy your farm
@AncientRe You will lose in 2024, it's obvious you don't need to be smart to know this, Joe Biden is an awful president.
Trump will win again.
The socioeconomic structure of the united states won't change soon. Pronouns and whathaveyounot won't change that, liberal.
@@dawgcat3087midsize cities > major cities > rural
@@thefiendwallpapersapp6993do you mean suburbs?
Because farmers are (relatively) rich capitalists, who, even if they aren't making a profit still have somewhere to live, and can still feed themselves, probably well. They also have assets to sell in a pinch. From time immemorial ownership of land has been the embodiment of wealth. Farmers are generally INDEPENDENT. In cities most people are dependent: on landlords to keep a roof over their head, on employers to pay them enough to live on, and on the economy to make enough jobs for everyone. People in cities are mostly highly DEPENDENT and vulnerable to the actions of others. So of course city dwellers are interested in government policies which make their life a little more secure and are forced to rely on collective activity to survive. In advanced, developed nations people in cities greatly outnumber farmers, which inevitably shapes politics. There is another factor though in politics. This is the dichotomy between colonial societies/economies: USA/Canada/Australia etc., and the "Old World" - Europe/Asia/Africa. It is all about factor scarcity. In the "New World" there was in the past an excess of farm land, energy resources, minerals and other raw materials, but a shortage of labour. What this meant was that stuff was cheap - food, energy etc., but people were very well paid. It paid businesses to invest in capital intensive methods of production to reduce their labour costs, so there was a great incentive to develop new technologies, with big investment in R&D. In the "Old World" the situation was opposite. The only oversupply was people, people, people, just too many people. Everything else was scarce - food, housing, energy. Wages were low and prices of everything were high. The cost of living was high, and political instability was always close to the surface in economic downturns, Keeping the order of society meant making sure there were enough jobs, but this was rarely achieved. Investment in capital intensive production methods makes little sense to business when labour is cheap and capital scarce with high costs of energy and materials. It was also bad politics as it puts large numbers of people out of work leading to social problems and political unrest. Law and order can breakdown. Now the "New World" is steadily getting more like the "Old World" as populations rise. It is facing the same problems the "Old World" always suffered, and its politics are looking more similar.
You almost got it at the end. In prior decades the left was where actual liberals (people who believe in trying more ideas and restricting fewer of them) voted. But more recently the left has been becoming more authoritarian and less open to ideas than conservatives. The left now calls for more restrictions on speech than conservatives. The left now calls for more bans and boycotts than conservatives. The left now has longer lists of prohibited behaviors and opinions than conservatives. As a result actual liberals are starting to vote conservative instead of left and since actual liberals like being in cities where they can be exposed to all those ideas it is actual liberals who are pulling cities conservative. Hence why some call leftists regressive instead of progressive.
The left ARE against everything our Constitution stands for. They WANT a totalitarian Big Brother state and trust me, it's happening. But nobody wants to get off their asses and do something to stop it.
Essentially, you’re saying that common sense usually prevails, and that’s a good thing. “Flyover” people like myself laugh ourselves sick over usual urban stupidity, but we’re quick to congratulate good sense.
Any group that gains in power begins to show more corrupt, selfish, and irrational behavior. Power doesn't corrupt -- it merely allows the fundamental human spirit more license to do what it wants.
@@stevenscott2136 Right. I always say 'power doesn't corrupt, it reveals.' Or in less pithy words, it removes inhibitions by nullifying consequences.
But because of this, the Republican party is not very conservative anymore, since more moderates keep flocking to the right. I mean, take your voters where you can get them, but now a lot of Republican just sound like libertarians.
Ironically, it was in the almost entirely rural province of Saskatchewan where Canada’s socialized medicine first began under Premier Tommy Douglas.
Canadians are very thankful for the 'socialism' that provided us with nationalized healthcare and other supportive benefits
@@wyleecoyotee4252 Communists are very thankful for the equity communism provides.
The brown shirt persuasion was very thankful for the "Racial cleansing" Hitler provided.
The American Confederacy was very thankful for the "Economic stability" slavery provided.
I could go on, but let's be real, no one has ever convinced someone in a comment section. Ever.
The best we do is try our hardest to look like the lesser fool, in delusional hopes we might sway the undecided.
@Ranstone
You can call them whatever you like as your American citizens lose their homes and acquire massive debts in order to pay off their healthcare bills.
@@wyleecoyotee4252I'm from Saskatchewan, I'm not thankful nor proud of that fucking ruined 'utopia' of a healthcare system that tells our vets to kill themselves as treatment for PTSD. You're clearly not from my province. Sure, Trudeau ruined most of it now, but that healthcare is abysmal with the long waits and huge lines even for the ER.
@@Ranstone Don't listen to this goof, he's not even from my province. Most of us western Canadians are actually sick and tired of the way things are run in the country and want to separate across the Manitoba line.
A city has the best opportunity for government facilities.
Replace parents for the government then you have the children brainwashed as they see fit.
Thesis: Why are cities so left-wing?
Answer: We don't know, but some are becoming less so.
Amazing video. Truly.
Exactly. It was not really that informative.
Exactly a waste of time
He stated why....educated, young, and diverse. A melting pot of cultures that tend to be sympathetic to new ideas.
@@Diogenes-96 Yeah. He kind of wedged that in the last few seconds of the video. Then went back to talking about how some cities have voted conservative recently. Which seemed to be the point he wanted to make.
I think a better title would have been " Do cities always vote liberal?" Just as interesting as a title and closer to the point he actually made.
@@gemmeldrakes2758, i don't think he meant that the cities voted conservative merely that conservatives didn't get as trounced as before.
The main issue is that people in the city live apart from nature, which allows them to imagine utopias that people who live closer to nature know are impossible. In other words, people in the city live in a fantasy land. They don't produce anything tangible themselves, which allows their imaginations to run wild. The countryside, meanwhile, is where all the food is grown, all the water sourced, all the timber taken. The saying, "money does not grow on trees" has no meaning for city folk, as they live in a world devoid of trees. Rather, everything they need to survive seems to magically appear for them. This allows them to spin dreams of equality, when none exists in nature, dreams that everyone can just get along, even if the people involved come from every different cultures with very different values, dreams that they can do whatever they want whenever they want, that their individuality trumps everything else.
People in the country know different. Even if they do not farm for a living, their proximity to nature reminds them of reality, a reality where the lion does not wait for the antelope to die before it starts to eat, where you eat what you kill or grow, where you have to negotiate physical boundaries between real land with your neighbor, as there are no apartments, only houses. People in the country generally engage in more actual physical work, rather than sitting in front of a computer. They live is smaller communities where they know all their neighbors and so have to take into account other people's feelings and thoughts. They share common values that have been time proven to aid survival and harmony in the community because they have to. Those values stress community and hard work. The only victims are those caught in natural disasters; and the goal of the community is to help them rebuild as quickly as possible.
Although Nick points with some hope to Seoul, I consider it more the exception that proves the rule.
Yeah, so I just want to say, if you read all 85 Federalist Papers like I have…the framers were more in line with what conservative areas think. And they explain it quite eloquently.
I think it all boils down to “what if’ vs “what is”. City people live in an artificial environment, like ants in a kid’s ant colony. They’re taken care of. Country people are more realistic & self reliant, since they take care of themselves. Most city people can’t change a tire by themselves, but most great fiction authors live in or near cities.
Country people don't realize that the cooperation gives the wealth and security.
@@gengis737 All the goods for the cities are shipped in. It's not cooperation amongst people in the city that allows them to thrive, it's people on the outside shipping in vital resources. Since factories in the US have mostly shipped over seas, there is very little of substance created in any of it's cities.
@nathan And where exactly do the chips running your devices (including farm equipment) get made? Where are the power lines made? How does GPS work? Expound on the MRI machine being designed? Who do you think manufactures guns? Where do doctors study? Where are ports located and who works at those ports? Where does a new transmission come from?
You think you live in a rural reality of 1700’s America, you do not. Remind me where in America coffee beans are grown?
Cities in America could literally buy anything rural America makes… you can’t say the same, because you couldn’t ship it. You also couldn’t sell to anyone else, because you can’t ship it out. You have no means of shipping, you control nothing, and half your production is subsidized so badly that it makes the lottery look responsible.
@@nwj03aTwain produces over 60% of the world's microchips. Manufacturing mostly left the United States about 30 years ago. The cities in the US are mostly people providing services for billionaires and providing services for the people who provide services for billionaires.
And shipping? LOL! Do highways, railroads, waterways, etc not cross rural areas? Lots of things in the rural are subsidized for the benefit of cities. Those highways for example. The lakes that handle flood control so your city doesn't flood. All of the fuel that you use for transportation, electricity, and heating is gathered in rural areas.
@@nathannewman6555 77% of American GDP is made by services, 22% by industry (so no, not all was transferred to China), 1% by agriculture. You cannot restrict productivity to producing foods or goods. Providing education, designing new goods and new services, connecting people through finance, trading, logistic, all that make the nation wealthy. And that's urban activities, what cities are built for. Serving billionaires is an insignificant part of cities' activity. Countries with predominantly agricultural production don't make it, because they do not have the innovation capacity, the negotiation power, the technical infrastructure to escape cheap price.
This was REALLY well laid out. Thanks for your thoughts
Throughout the history cities always were centers of civilization and progress, so no wonder they are left wing/progressive. They always were, while countryside always were conservative yet embracing progress eventually after few generations. It's just how life works
This is why we have an electoral college voting system for president. We should have an electoral election at the state level as well
i see ads for mail-ins already ... CORRUPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...republicans are weak, disorganized and have no fight;;we seem to be doomed..just look at the results of the last 3+ yrs...
Worry about gerrymandering.
Exact reason why we need to get rid of the electoral college, less than 30% of GDP/Tax Revenue comes from the right.
Do you honestly think it's fair that one person's vote can be 8x more important than someone else's just based on where they live? Why do people who choose to live in rural areas get a bigger say? If people didn't like cities so much and thought the policies were awful, they wouldn't live there. So why then, just because YOU disagree, everyone else should be forced to do it your way? Are you smarter than everyone else? Are you the king?
@@darkwoodmovies
I’d say the purpose of such a system is to at least prevent something from passing, rather than getting something to pass.
Let me elaborate:
There are certain laws delegated to the municipal bodies and ones at a state level. Say the for Bill A, there is a 50.1 and 49.9 split on the votes necessary. By a pure democracy system, Bill A would pass. Now say that said state was the size of Texas, where 50.1% of the population lives in cities. Say that only the city voters voted in favor of Bill A, which may mandate a provision of some service throughout the state. In this scenario, absolutely nothing changes for the people in the cities. Merely, the people in cities are voting to dictate how everyone else in the state lives, and restrict how municipal funds are used from city to city.
The point of the long chain hypotheticals is prove this: a purely representative democratic system essentially tends to let a very certain demographic dictate how a state is run, without any regard for the people they do not even interact with. Remember, with an electoral system, the rural areas can’t even get a bill to pass, instead, they would only have a defensive power: to prevent an additional law from passing.
It’s called the tyranny of the majority. Urban and rural people are different demographics with different needs. Municipal governments affect people’s daily lives the most. If the will of one demographic affects the entire state, then essentially there is no “self governance”. The American electoral philosophy from the beginning has been vehemently against the tyranny of the majority.
When people live right on top of people, it makes sense to want more ordinances like speeding and noise violations. When your nearest neighbor is a quarter mile away, you probably won’t care as much.
But when you live in a crowded city and insist that people who live far away from you abide by your rules and values, even when you don’t interact with them in any way, now you’ve just become an @$$ hole.
Can you give an example of the sort of rules you think the city folk are insisting you abide by?
@@grantm6514
Gun control, healthcare, taxation, voting laws. The list is endless.
Thank you for describing the bible belt.
Democrats- The party of bad ideas
Republicans- The party of no ideas
there is a difference between encouraging new ideas from a broad variety of free people, Vs. a central diverse government that essentially "forces" its will (and poor ideas) upon a free people. it's like star wars? the rebellion had all the free people with different cultures (and species) that simply wanted to be left alone in their tiny colonies, but the centralized and powerful empire wanted to expand its power and force its will upon all the differing galaxies. "the more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers."
I feel like this leaves out the best part- the mudslinging part. Rural people are often just as educated, typically more honest, usually work harder, and are always more grounded in reality.
Show your work, goldy.
My friend, it takes 1 google search to see rural people aren't "just as educated", people in cities are way more likely to have some form of higher education (33% of urban people have bachelors or higher compared to 19% rural with a bachelors or higher)
everything you said is opinionated garbage
Looool no bro just no
IDK about honestly, maybe you're right since smaller communities are usually closer. But people go to cities for education, educated people tend to work in cities, and people working in cities typically have careers and hustle. Cities aren't for relaxing, they're for work hard play hard lifestyles.
And since city people are inherently exposed to a lot more diverse opinions and ideologies than anyone in a small town, I daresay that "grounded in reality" is a lot more subjective than that. What does that even mean?
This is absolutely wrong. Brazil doesn't have this division. On the contrary: big cities tends to vote more for right wing candidates, simply because they are more educated.
Progressive left leaning (socialist) ideas work wonders while other people’s money is plentiful to waste in them. Once that bounty is dry, common sense (conservative) ideas return. It’s a crazy, cyclic thing.
You really think the money appears from nowhere, and not form the hard work of urban people, bringing new ideas and improving science, culture, industry?
@@gengis737, it seems I was not clear enough as to make you understand the point. 😕
@@hrbeta I understand your point, but disagree. Cities start as trade point, by not that rich people. They extend because contrary to surrounding towns, they implement collective rules to accompany and strengthen the growth, the very condition for cities to exist: cleaning, law enforcement, contractual deals. The numbers by itself provide additional benefits: specialisation, exchange of ideas, education and training. All of this effort is what you call socialism.
This lead to increased wealth, concentrated on the leaders of the city or state.
So city do not live from the money of others, they shelter human activities and create wealth on a scale that no countryside will ever experiment (except some vineyards in France and oil fields in Texas).
@@gengis737, thanks for explaining your point of view. I had not grasped what you meant before. I see now why you’re wrong, IMO. You misunderstand the meaning of the word “socialism”. What you refer to is “socialization” or the effect of mixing socially with others (definition). And that is a fact in cities. Also, when I say “other’s people money”, I mean the money created by the people living in the city, being appropriated (taxed) and “invested” (wasted) in nonsensical initiatives. We both, intelligent individuals, must be clear by now about our statements. I’m not interested in ideological discussions via this media. I’m not interested in being “right” either. It’s been nice interacting with you. ✌🏻
Socialism: A political philosophy and movement encompassing a wide range of economic and social systems which are characterized by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
So you espouse that democrats (liberals) want the means of production to be publicly owned? Because that’s socialism.
I don’t think you understand the words you’re saying.
2:55 Exposure is a big one. Singapore has a policy to mix residents of different ethnicity into the same public housing, it builds trust among the citizens.
How well has that worked out? Are you from Singapore?
Rural people are self reliant and do not generally need or want government intervention.
We police and govern ourselves and as there is almost no police force we obey the laws that apply when required, speed limits and similar are very optional in south west England for example.
Additionally as we generally live in smaller communities you know most people in the area, and they know you or your family so you conform to the rules from an early age.
As there are fewer job options you get to be a lot more self reliant, have less or lower university graduates and people start work at lower ages, and in turn appreciate an honest days manual work, respect property and have good core values.
This is why we vote Conservative or 'right wing' because it is common sense.
We do not need or want handouts, we will sort it ourselves.
Maybe because the cities have the highest concentration of easily manipulated blacks and young people.
Before high school, I was ready to be a staunch liberal Democrat. But then, I discovered a bitter, critical theory that hated many of the things I love, Christianity and Europe for example, permeating in the DNC. So I began to reevaluate where I stand. Now I am a staunch conservative Republican.
I decided to a communist but I became a facist
This is uplifting; keep praying people!
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." - Thomas Jefferson
Yep, a guy who died in the early 1800s should be your leader in this viewpoint.
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe, and go to eating one another as they do there.” Jefferson reacted to the devastating yellow fever epidemic of 1793 in Philadelphia with what might seem to be a cold rationality." This is what happens when you eat too much tidepods, you cut a quote in half and take it out of context. You deserve everything bad that is happening the US right now and tenfold more.
Please explain how the two circumstances are different based on time. You can educate us. @@robforrester3727
@@pyotrbagration2438 doing gods work
Cities shouldn’t be telling nor passing laws that tell rural areas how to live
It's kind of why the much-lambasted Electoral College is so important - without it, the presidential election would basically be the NYC-Chicago-LA election cycle, and we know how that would turn out (probably why the Left is so hot on abolishing it). They complain that people in rural areas have a "disproportionate voice" over those in urban ones. But the rural parts of this country (especially the South) are crucial for farming, mining, logging, power generation, and even provide the bulk of troops. If they're expected to do all that but are under a de facto dictatorship where they get no voice, they really have no incentive to be part of this country. That's how you get a real secessionist movement going on.
But the electoral college does not encourage politicians to care about the rural states, just the swing states.
No sane democrat would spend half of campaign season in Vermont and no sane Republican would spend half of campaign season in Mississippi.
If you wanted a fairer election make an electoral college that considers everything - Troops provided, raw materials extracted, taxes paid, etc -, give it to the states and split it up proportionally.
@@akirak1871
People cannot live in cities. Look around, what do you see? Concrete, asphalt, glass, and steel. If you spent your day walking in a city, looking for food that did not come from a grocery store, you can find it .. but there is not enough of it to feed more than a few people. The stores themselves hold enough for three days without a resupply, and when a person attempts to flee these population centers during an impending disaster, the roads quickly clog, and no one can go *anywhere.* A city is a death trap, unless the residents can have their needs met .. and they can do nothing at all for themselves. A body needs money to live, everyone is hungry .. and some starve.
Contrast that with the country, and you will find fields, forests, lakes and streams, hills, deserts, mountains .. and ecosystems full of life, where a person can spend less than a day walking, and find enough to feed a few people. Stores are fewer, and farther between, but we don't mind: More people that live out here raise livestock, grow gardens, and do things for themselves just as naturally as breathing. Often, news of an impending disaster is an excitement .. a chance to take a break from daily work, and go watch whatever spectacular show that man or nature is putting on at the moment. What is an existential crisis for a city dweller is a moment's amusement for a country boy or girl. With the exception of paying off the tax collectors, a body does not actually require money to live out here, and if someone starves, it is likely their own fault.
The things that the city folk crave from their political masters is far different than what we in the country want. As a result, the City slickers vote for more control and what they think is a guarantee of bread, and the country votes for more liberty and independence. Frankly, most of us in the country do not want masters at all, and find the concept abhorrent.
Fascinating.
I somehow knew Korea would come up in this… been looking at the background of S Korea and it’s founding and history (especially after the Korean War) on and off (might move there someday).
I don't recommend it unless you're attractive, wealthy, or ethnically Korean. At most, spend a year or two teaching English and then go back to your home country.
Cities are full of Karens who need authority to solve their problems. There is always someone to call ("The Manager") or blame (Anybody but themselves)when things go sideways.
I lived in cities for years, then moved to the country, people in cities are all specialists, everybody does one thing really well, people in cities for the most part don’t have a lot of room or garage you live in apartment buildings, people in the country are not specialists they do everything, your neighbor might be digging his own well, fixing his own car, re-roofing as own house, etc.. So this theme carried over everything, people in the city think they need a specialist to fix their city they think I can’t do it we need somebody who knows what to do, people in the country think give me a crack at it I’ll do it, people in the city want somebody else to fix all the problems
Wow that was easy, loaded with government workers, and blacks need I say more?
I see it differently. I see cities with a high density of people who do not own land or homes So they have less invested in the area around them
I've wondered how hard would be to be a Democrat politician campaigning in a rural area...
POLITICIAN: "Vote for me and I'll give you social programs to provide you with housing, food, and clothing should you fall on hard times."
CITIZENS: "We're farmers and lumberjacks. We've been been building own houses, growing our food, and making our own clothes ever since our ancestors came to this country. So we're not sure why we'd ever need what you're selling, Mr. Politician."
I want to leave the USA but I still want to keep my guns.
Unfortunately almost impossible.
Sorry can't do that, stick around it is going to get very interesting here in this once great country of our. You will be very surprise on who ends up on top.
Other countries don't want armed citizens. They prefer a more peaceful society.
Can't keep your guns but either Poland, Switzerland, or Czech Republic are your best bets for gun ownership outside of the US otherwise Goodluck
Being confined with tons of others in a constantly rushed environment leads to group-think and hasty short-sighted decisions based on "feels correct". Like fast food and junk food.
Having enough space for individuals and a more natural pace leads to time to think for yourself and plan more long-term and well-reasoned decisions based on "actually correct" even if they don't feel great right now. Like diet and exercise.
Agree with this.
A bit confusing sometimes for a Swede.
We have the complete opposite way: the right is voted on from the big cities since those are filled with capitalist and want more prosperity. And the rural areas vote for socialism since they want to share the wealth and create better infrastructure and services outside the cities.
The colors are also reversed. A red rose (Swedish parties use flowers) has always been the icon for the Social Democrats. Therefore the whole country is red except a couple of blue capitalist spots.
In India it's quite opposite. Here urban voters tend to vote for BJP(right wing) and rural voters vote for Congress or other regional parties(left wing).
However after 2014, BJP managed to make inroads in rural India as well.
But perhaps the terms in India are switched? One side is more collectivist and authoritarian. The other side is more independent minded and freedom loving. Which is which in India?
Because they need Govt FREEBIES!!!!
odd you say that when red states are poorer
Great format!
I've found that those who are actually oblivious to their country's issues vote Democrat, while those who are seeing trends that violate their quality of life vote Republican.
What I want to see is what about right wing leading cities and their policies? I know there have to some out there. I know Jacksonville, FL and Ft Worth, TX are Republican ran, maybe Phoenix, AZ at times. I want to see how conservatives do running cities and if their local policies actually allow their citizens to do better! Nick you failed to mention the cities that have completely rotted away from left wing rule for so long, thinking of Baltimore, MD and Detroit, MI. Thanks
You have a ready-made example at hand: New York City. Look at how New York was run under various different parties and how the city fared in those situations.
Would anyone in their right mind think that New York before or after Juliani was/is a better place?
Isnt jacksonville now left since they elected a dem governor?
Socialism isn’t unity, not equality. It’s equity.
It’s to make sure people stay divided without ambition and inspiration.
Thats.. what i am here for
In a city I could meet 100 people a day and be exposed to 100 points of views and new ideas. In rural setting I could meet only 10 people a day and most of them are the same people I met yesterday with the exact views on life and politics
If you only get 100 points of view from 100 people, those are very dumb people.
I've seen many discussions and analytical items on this topic. But one thing also keeps emerging (and it also leads to why liberals are so afraid of work from home). There is a stronger sense of independence, or I can support myself, between rural and urban dwellers. People who live and work in the urban environments will often be partaking of all those urban services (mass transit and such), or living in shared environments (apartment complexes, condo complexes, and the like), an environment where someone in some way is providing services of some time. IE they share transportation, they share buildings, they share the roads and all the traffic and lines .. by it's very nature the urban environment requires people to be less independent and more sharing. Hence they are open to those ideas and open to ideas like shared vehicles for driving, or fees on items, as they all see a value that could impact them in some way due to the sharing they do. But people in the rural areas or suburbs become DIY's and independent. They drive here and there for everything, they fix little items in their home rather and an expensive service call, they mow their grass, on and on the list goes. This sense of independence, I can do things for myself, make it far more difficult to see the value in any items that does not directly benefit them.
And hence you see the problem with work from home. The more people working remote and not immersed in that sharing nature of cities (a need of the density), the more their independence grows and the more likely (no guarantee of course) of a more conservative vote. And you get a sense of that in the current polls. Outside of hot topic items of note (which I will not touch) which can polarize entire groups no matter their location .. Polls have been in lock step with remote work from home in recent years where as that number increased, the number identifying as socially conservative increased (to 38% vs 29% saying liberal a major swing). They also see themselves more fiscally conservative, and, these changes have been seen in the group of Americans calling themselves moderates (the swing vote in elections). And this is what is scaring the Democrats as people who are more independent minded tend to reject their platform more. Again a generalization and it does not always apply but it is a pattern that often holds (outside hot topics). Which is why so many democratic mayors have been begging companies to force workers to come back into the cities. They see their votes drying up and are worried.
Very well said and thought out. I have thought about this topic of rural vs urban for awhile now and haven't come up with much but I like the ideas you've given. I think it's a pretty complex issue but I especially like the work from home aspect. I hadn't thought about that much more recent development and it's political implications.
Interesting, makes sense to me, I'll also add , that I believe, it's probably true that Democrats can't really think for themselves, in the context you just described, I'm not trying to offend, it's just a fact, sometimes we all need to look at the bigger picture and ask ourselves dies this make sense and will it effect others in a positive way, and not just my own selfishness way of thinking
The is the first thing I have seen on this.
Which people are overall much happier, much more calm, collected, rational thinkers and with a true sense of inner peace within their hearts?
Liberals or Conservatives?
I would much rather live in a society where people rely on and take responsibility for themselves! Where claiming victim or virtue gets you nowhere and where common sense is applauded. Where kids are being tought to give respect in order to earn respect, and schools/media/entertainment is free from left/right leaning politics! Oh, and where humor has no bounds!
K for prez, ya’ll!!!! 😂❤
I'm not going to argue with you, but just consider that terms like "common sense" which you assume are obvious and absolute are actually very contested. Terms like "give respect" seem noble and black-and-white, but they're not. While you may find it disrespectful when someone walks by you and doesn't say hello, someone from a city might find it disrespectful when a small-towner plants themselves in the middle of the sidewalk and doesn't know WTF to go and wastes everyone else's time. If those situations were reversed, nobody would bat an eye.
I'm just over this assumption that liberals are inherently wrong. We just see a different side of the same coin. It's time we acknowledge that two opposing opinions can be correct under different contexts.
Unfortunately, we also tend to disagree on some core foundational morals, which I think is the bigger problem.
@@darkwoodmovies very well put ☺️
I agree! Maybe I am just getting older and more nostalgic 😝
I live in a non-dense Suburban area in Australia so I'd say it's about 50/50 for Liberal (Centre-Right) and Labor (Centre-Labor) while Rural areas are more Liberal and Conservative. The City area in my town is probably more Labor, Greens.
Rural is more connected due to the local Pubs being smaller so people's opinions are better discussed and formed over beer and chips. City areas are more heads down, no chit chat thus their Politics are more swayed by the Internet. Neither are bad, it's up to the person to be a Critical Thinker.
Anyway I hope yall are doing great as we're nearing the end of the year (Geez it goes so fast). Be kind to one another and God Bless you all ♥️
I had a colleague say we should sieze the means of production. I was like bro your mom is a director in this company chill out.
Some people want to come in and burn everything down despite their loved ones. I'd almost agree if someone was getting screwed for decades but when you are pampered your entire life and get a job thanks to mommy it's really challenging to be taken seriously.
The left are very dangerous. "Seizing the means of production" means breaking your nations back. Don't they remember Stalin and Mao? If the left take over all of America and then go as far as attacking capitalism (which could happen in another 30 years) it will completely ruin America. If they are not stopped dark days are ahead.
In my opinion…. It’s comes down to GOD thing. People who live in large cities only see and live in what man has created. Dependent on government, systems and people to survive and thrive. Even though their need for GOD is the same they don’t see or recognize it as easily.
In rural areas, people see the beauty and grandeur of creation, and more dependent on GOD and less dependent on governments.
depending on god wont do anything same way depending on a speck of dust wont do anything
Thank you for reminding me to pray to Vishnu
People in rural areas receives billions of farming subsidies and billions more in welfare. Yet try to claim independence.
So correct. Just watch the urban centers of San Francisco & Portland swing right after years of horrible social and economic effects far left policies. As long as those urban area, stay left of centre everything is typically fine. However, when they swing so far left as is evident in these two cities, the pendulum has to swing the other way it’s just a matter of time.
In rural areas there is less security but also less need to adapt to individual differences. This is the land where ideals reign strong. This leads to more conservative thinking. In cities you get to live side by side with people of different genders, races, religions an orientations so it is natural that you become more open minded to thrive and be happy. Cities simply can't afford the luxury of prejudicial thinking the way isolated outlaying areas can. I also think that some of the socio religious perspectives that come from rural America also have a survival element. It is hard to be isolated and these more conservative beliefs foster a sense of community when there is none.
Did you really just say that, city folk are smart and country folk dumb? Is that the best you can do?
@@andrewbartczak5941 I would never do that. Country folk have their super powers as well. Their sense of faith is often deeper.
@@andrewbartczak5941Clearly you haven’t seen this comment section, most people are saying the same thing but vice versa.