What Explains The Partisan Divide Between
Urban And Non-Urban Areas
by Mark Hendrickson - November 15th, 2012 - Forbes
One obvious explanation for the overwhelming Democratic majorities in big cities is the Curley effect with the corresponding concentration of Democratic constituencies like welfare recipients and unions, but there is more to it than that. The Curley effect has turned once-vibrant cities into economic basket cases, but what, then, can explain the perennial dominance of Democrats in such thriving, prosperous cities as Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco? Why do affluent, white-collar, highly educated citizens in these cities tend to be liberal and vote Democratic?
Sociologists could have a field day with this question, but the explanation could be something as simple as the fact that people who live in cities are relatively insulated from how difficult and challenging it can be to produce the food, energy, equipment, devices, etc., that comprise the affluence that urbanites enjoy. In their urban cocoons, city-dwellers take for granted the abundance and availability of the economic goods that they consume. For instance, many well-to-do, educated urbanites see no downside to supporting stricter regulations and higher taxes on energy producers, because to them, energy is something that is always there at the flip of a switch (except during the occasional hurricane, as some New Yorkers recently discovered). Life in the city for affluent Americans creates the illusion that all they have to do is demand something and—presto! — it will be there when they want it.
Men have long been divided into those that take, those that exist and those that produce. America was a unique nation that for the first time, restricted the takers and glorified the producers. It ignored the existers because when we first started this nation, existers had little option. Life was so tough not many of them survived. However for the producers to be on top has rarely been the state of mankind. Today, we are returning to the natural order of mankind. Slavery. And as has long been the cause of that problem, the takers will be on top and the producers will be the slaves. Unfortunately, that means the producers will have little incentive to produce, and the poverty will be rampant as a result. Nothing new there.