Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 9, 2024 19:39:43 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 16:28:03 GMT
linkI ran ran across this article "6 Big Differences that turn City Dwellers into Liberals." After each reason it shows the difference between city and rural areas. A lot has been made that us liberals in places like where I live don't understand what the folks in the heartland face. After seeing these 6 reasons below it can also be said those in the heartland are not understanding why liberals vote the way they do. After spending my adult life working in San Francisco but living in a predominantly agricultural area the following 6 reasons are, I think, spot on. 6. Traffic is a nightmare. I live 45 miles north from SF. I commuted taking a bus. By the time I retired it would take my commute was90 minutes each way on a good day and 2 hours each way on a bad day. One of the reasons I retired when I did was because there were more bad days then good days. And my commute wasn't even the worst in this area. 5. Sick Desperate People ask for your help Everyday. In my county while I knew there were homeless folks I never saw them. But everyday I was in SF I saw them. There was the guy with the tennis shoes standing in the same spot every morning. The woman on Market Street who had a dog named Jazz. I spent many hours on my bus rides home trying come up with a plan to help these folks. But like so many in government have found it's just not that easy. 4. Around a Quarter of your Neighbors, Co-Workers, and Friends are Probably Immigrants. Boy that's true. In the article under this reason it talks about how the folks in the country resent how their tax dollars are paying for "freebies" for these folks. The irony here is that I read an article about how CA pays way more in Federal tax dollars then make their way back to the state. Tax dollars that end up benefiting those in the rural areas outside CA, in other words those complaining about their tax dollars paying for "freebies" for immigrants. I'll have to see if I can find that article again. 3. Minimum wage is a Ticket to Homelessness. Especially in the SF Bay Area. 2. Impact of Good Government is Easier to See.
1. People get shot - Like a lot. That's true. The take away to me is those in the heartland want a better life for themselves. Just like those in the city want a better life for themselves as well as others around them. So my question is ,I guess ,is how do we bridge this gap?
|
|
|
Post by Zee on Feb 22, 2017 18:05:26 GMT
Being a liberal from "the heartland", I can't really say that this resonates with me. Why would bad traffic make you liberal? Why would less traffic make you conservative? I have issues with the rest of it too, but that one in particular had me scratching my head.
It's annoying to those of us in the middle of the country that we're dismissed by those on both coasts as being ignorant hicks. I live in the Philly area now and can't tell you how many people say to me "I didn't know people actually live in Iowa". Durr.
Also gotta say...the racism I see from both black and white is a lot more pronounced in urban areas like Philly and Chicago than it is where I lived in Iowa.
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Feb 22, 2017 18:11:04 GMT
I am not sure it is as simple as "people in cities get these issues." I grew up in what was a more "heartland-y" place, as I have posted -- central valley of CA in an agricultural area -- and I got out of there as soon as I turned 18 because I wanted city life and the various cultural things it had to offer. Unemployment in my area was double-digit when I was growing up. Surely for many people, moving to places where jobs were developing would have been preferable. But one of the things I think is that it isn't just that we have different perspectives based on where we live/were raised, but that we *choose where we live now* based in part on our perspectives. People move to SF for weather and natural beauty and jobs, eg, but also because if you are LGBTQ+, liberal, enjoy museums and fancy coffee, etc., it's a place that suits your cultural and personal values.
TL;DR: think what happens when some of your rural friends visit the big bad city. I said, "wooooo! If I get good grades in HS I can go to university somewhere like this," my mom said, "traffic, homeless people, expensive, who would live here on purpose?"
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Feb 22, 2017 18:15:45 GMT
bad traffic makes you more "liberal"..ie wanting to tax and spend more government money on transportation issues. here in SF, we tax ourselves and others..like tourists to expand our public transit system.. to add buses and shuttles and extra carpool lanes on highways, expanding parking lots and housing around transit hubs.. etc.
we have a commuter train from silicon valley to SF.. tons of commuters take this train every day. they have been trying to electrify the line.. lessen pollution, bring it into the heart of the downtown..and not 20 minutes walk from other major transit hubs.. and the republicans won't help pay for it because it has somewhat to do with the high speed train system being built. electrifying the line would increase business, lessen the traffic along the line and increase overall economic activity.
us liberals wish for the improvement.. the republicans seem stuck in cars.
the homeless on the streets of sf.. are a visible sign of the lack of overall support for low income housing and universal healthcare.. that can help with mental health issues.
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Feb 22, 2017 18:23:09 GMT
That's a hard article for me to really comment on because I don't live in a city. I have never lived in a city. And yet I am liberal. So while I know there are large percentages of liberals in cities, I never thought about the city being the reason that some people became liberal. It's interesting. TFS.
|
|
|
Post by lisacharlotte on Feb 22, 2017 18:36:57 GMT
I'm the opposite. I'm the product of a progressive southern California childhood education. I lived in a very poor city (Hawaiian Gardens) and we had a lot of services growing up. However, i am a conservative as an adult. I'm socially liberal, but my personal experience is that bureaucracy breeds a lack of services. Greed and kickbacks end up eating any monies designated to the needy while the administrators line their pockets and search for ways to secure their positions. The fed needs to worry about protecting the US. The states need to deal with their populations individually. I currently live in the middle of the country in a medium sized city. We have homeless begging at every intersection. We have a large immigrant population as well as refugees from war torn countries. Our commutes are getting longer. However, it is a blue city surrounded by a red state.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 22, 2017 18:51:02 GMT
It's one of those bizarre articles that's written by someone who doesn't understand that we have local, state and a federal government. The notion that conservatives don't appreciate - or better yet understand water and trash services is just ridiculous. I grew up in a a major metropolitan area in California. I've lived in cities on both coasts and the closest I've come to "country" living is Boulder, Colorado. I used public transportation for 15 years - almost a decade of which I never owned a car. By the author's criteria, I must be a liberal - I'm not, and it's not because I don't realize people get shot - hell I know people who've been shot, and unfortunately people who've shot other people. FYI a lot of people who aren't liberals know immigrants - hell a lot of IMMIGRANTS aren't liberal. This is basically a caricature of who liberals and conservatives are with very little deep thinking.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,752
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Feb 22, 2017 19:19:08 GMT
Not a city dweller at all (nobody around me for 1/2 mile or more in any direction) but I'd agree with #4 the most. Neighbors in more populated areas are more likely to be from all walks of life and as you experience life along side them, they become more "just people like me", I would imagine.
|
|
mimima
Drama Llama
Stay Gold, Ponyboy
Posts: 5,026
Jun 25, 2014 19:25:50 GMT
|
Post by mimima on Feb 22, 2017 19:35:03 GMT
I am not sure it is as simple as "people in cities get these issues." I grew up in what was a more "heartland-y" place, as I have posted -- central valley of CA in an agricultural area -- and I got out of there as soon as I turned 18 because I wanted city life and the various cultural things it had to offer. Unemployment in my area was double-digit when I was growing up. Surely for many people, moving to places where jobs were developing would have been preferable. But one of the things I think is that it isn't just that we have different perspectives based on where we live/were raised, but that we *choose where we live now* based in part on our perspectives. People move to SF for weather and natural beauty and jobs, eg, but also because if you are LGBTQ+, liberal, enjoy museums and fancy coffee, etc., it's a place that suits your cultural and personal values. TL;DR: think what happens when some of your rural friends visit the big bad city. I said, "wooooo! If I get good grades in HS I can go to university somewhere like this," my mom said, "traffic, homeless people, expensive, who would live here on purpose?" I grew up by you (based on what you say) and agree. We also moved our liberal selves out of the area ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Feb 22, 2017 20:19:08 GMT
I think there are definitely different needs/priorities depending on where you live. However, I think there is some discrepancy between what people think the Republican Party stands for and what they actually support now. I don't know if the party has changed and the voters just haven't recognized it or what. With what they are doing now, it doesn't seem that they are for anyone but big business. And definitely not the values that they used to claim to have. I think it used to be the perception that they helped farmers. But I think the idea of the "good old boys club" still stands as well.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Feb 22, 2017 20:54:19 GMT
There are many reasons why city-dwellers are more likely to be liberals. I don't know that I agree with the 6 the author listed, though.
My main reasons would be that:
1. City-dwellers are more likely to have exposure to 'others' - and maybe even an appreciation of them. If you live in a city with a mixture of people, you are going to be exposed to different people and cultures more than you would in a small town. You may not necessarily like the other cultures, but you won't be afraid of them because they will be familiar. But in many cases, you may well find that you really like other types of food, music, etc. If your only experience with Muslims is seeing them beheading people on tv, or your only experience with Mexicans is hearing that one of them committed a crime, you will be scared. But if you are surrounded by other groups, you will absolutely see those incidents and being perpetrated by individuals, not the group as a whole. We are used to being around white people in the US - when there is a school shooting, it's usually a white guy. Yet that doesn't make us all suspicious of all white guys because we know that's ridiculous - we can name 100 white guys who aren't interested or involved in shooting up schools, so it doesn't occur to us that it's a 'white guy' thing.
2. Educated people/professionals are more likely to live in the city. There aren't a ton of jobs in rural areas for people with advanced degrees. Not all educated people are liberal, but it does skew that direction.
3. City dwellers do see the result of government programs more readily. this was mentioned above - if I live in a city and the roads don't get repaved, if the homeless problem gets bigger due to cutbacks in funding for programs, if the library hours are cut - I'm going to notice. More people = more programs. It's easy for a city dweller to see the difference a program makes when the results are right on their doorstep. Change the regulations on gasoline, the smog is going to get better or worse in the cities first. It's just a matter of scale. If you're used to seeing results from government spending, you're more likely to feel that government spending can solve problems.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 22, 2017 23:23:51 GMT
hoto off facebook, quote credit to Mark Twain, but yeah! And how exactly does that quote fit into this discussion about liberals? If you're not liberal you're prejudiced, bigoted and narrow-minded? If you travel you must be liberal?
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 22, 2017 23:36:58 GMT
hoto off facebook, quote credit to Mark Twain, but yeah! And how exactly does that quote fit into this discussion about liberals? If you're not liberal you're prejudiced, bigoted and narrow-minded? If you travel you must be liberal? Do you consider yourself prejudiced, bigoted, or narrow-minded? No? Then why is this throwaway post getting you so worked up? (It IS possible to be non-prejudiced, non-bigoted, and non-narrow minded, and still be a conservative. They are really not mutually exclusive. Except maybe in Trumpworld.)
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 22, 2017 23:53:48 GMT
And how exactly does that quote fit into this discussion about liberals? If you're not liberal you're prejudiced, bigoted and narrow-minded? If you travel you must be liberal? Do you consider yourself prejudiced, bigoted, or narrow-minded? No? Then why is this throwaway post getting you so worked up? (It IS possible to be non-prejudiced, non-bigoted, and non-narrow minded, and still be a conservative. They are really not mutually exclusive. Except maybe in Trumpworld.) I'm not worked up. I don't fit neatly into any little box - which makes it easy to ignore the insults thrown at either side. The post truly seemed random, which is why I asked for clarification. I actually like the quote - another favorite is: "The world is a book and those that travel only read one page." Maybe it's because there's actually a very strong negative correlation in MY world with travel and one's left leaning tendencies. Many of my most ardent liberal friends and family don't have a passport.
|
|
|
Post by compwalla on Feb 23, 2017 0:00:32 GMT
If your only experience with Muslims is seeing them beheading people on tv, or your only experience with Mexicans is hearing that one of them committed a crime, you will be scared. But if you are surrounded by other groups, you will absolutely see those incidents and being perpetrated by individuals, not the group as a whole. When I was five we moved from the US to Germany and lived off base with no American neighbors, only Germans. And their only exposure to US culture and our way of life was what they saw on TV. It was hilarious how far from reality their impressions were. When we told them some of our family lived in Texas, they no-shit thought that people in Texas all wore cowboy hats and owned horses. The Oma downstairs asked us if we ever had to be afraid of Indians. I know it sounds completely ridiculous but they really thought that outside big cities like NY and Chicago, it was exactly like an episode of Bonanza. And this is how far from reality it is to be scared of immigrants or Muslims or any other group. If all you ever see on television and in the news is the worst of any group, it's very easy to slide into fear. And what you see on TV *is* the worst. You don't see the commitment to community service that is simply part and parcel of the Muslim community, never met any of the vast numbers of cultural Muslims who attend mosque but eat egg mcmuffins like they're going out of style, never interacted with Pakistani immigrants who live on pennies so they can send all their money home to their families. I don't know how to make this better. I just know it's a problem and I wish it were easier to shake the culture of fear. It's simply unfounded and is harmful to us as individuals and to the nation as a whole.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Feb 23, 2017 0:01:28 GMT
I think that article has its flaws, but I'm reminded of the Trump supporter from West Texas who left the black waitress a $450 tip when he was in DC for the inauguration. He was reportedly charmed by her and her service and and fascinated by the restaurant/gallery which featured art and literature by people of color. He had wandered in and felt very out of place at first and then really enjoyed it.
Makes me think about how much "place" affects our experiences and then possibly shapes our attitudes.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,752
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Feb 23, 2017 0:21:25 GMT
hoto off facebook, quote credit to Mark Twain, but yeah! And how exactly does that quote fit into this discussion about liberals? If you're not liberal you're prejudiced, bigoted and narrow-minded? If you travel you must be liberal? No, not at. Never said that. Just saw this photo and found it relevant to my previous comment of getting to know your neighbors, near or far, once you get to know them it may help in removing the fear, thus the prejudices. The comment was not taking a dig at anyone- the "travelers" can be anyone. As in above mentioned "city dwellers" experiencing life with all types of folks, so do travelers.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 9, 2024 19:39:43 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 0:30:19 GMT
I have to disagree with some of these points.
I used to work in St. Louis and while the traffic there is not as bad as some cities, never, ever did I imagine myself killing every member of the stick figure family of the van ahead of me! What a bizarre thing to say.
I grew up in central Illinois in a small town of 5,000. We had the only stoplight in the entire county, yet we still managed to have trash service, sewer, water (the only I knew who had a well were people who lived waaay out in the country, and most of them didn’t drink it), police department, fire department (most were volunteers), snow plows and road construction crews. And hey, if the well does break down, there are people to call who can fix it.
Rural communities also have dr’s offices and hospitals with real MD’s and nurses with medical degrees! How about that, educated people out in the country! The nearest hospital from my hometown was about 15 miles away, about a 20 minute drive, not so different than being in the city. There are also schools, universities, law offices, professional services, etc. in rural areas.
The cops would probably show up faster in a small town than the city. Less traffic! Not only did we have a city police department, there was also the sheriff’s department which patrolled the whole county.
Why is it that city dwellers seem to think that country dwellers never travel and that there are no educated people who live there? People who live in rural areas also go on vacation and travel, just like people who live in a big city. I think this author is a little out of touch.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Feb 23, 2017 0:41:37 GMT
It is entirely possible that I am finding offense where there is none, but I read the article and thought that part of the problem lies in the assumptions that one makes of the others. The tone of the article feels...slightly patronizing to me.
|
|