[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by MsMe

Here is some dirt on our MP's so goes to show you what we have running for us.

I'm almost certain this is a hoax. I've received several versions of it in my inbox over the past few years, and it has been attributed equally to the Canadian Parliament and the American Congress.

Originally Posted by flar

I am reminded of an old concept from 1950s sociology: Cosmopolitan vs. Local

The same general dichotomy turns up in different sociopolitical dimensions: urban vs. suburban/exurban/rural; liberal/progressive vs. conservative; etc. The editors of Seattle weekly The Stranger wrote a manifesto after the 2004 US federal election which they called Urban Archipelago in which they argued from a county-by-county electoral vote map that the Democratic Party is the party of urban America:

Liberals, progressives, and Democrats do not live in a country that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Canada to Mexico. We live on a chain of islands. We are citizens of the Urban Archipelago, the United Cities of America.

The essay is surprisingly meanspirited and condescending, and I think it's wrongheaded in wanting to cultivate yet more "identity politics", but it does make some very strong points about the core urban values of density, diversity, creativity, innovation, and tolerance.

[T]he New York skyline is a stirring image of American prosperity and achievement. It symbolizes the motivation and spirit of the American people, the wealth of our nation, the thrum of diverse cultures, and inexhaustible cultural creativity. Cities inspire us; they speak to our hopes and our passions. Small towns diminish us; they speak of lost history and downscaled dreams.

[...]

Cities' freedom to go their own way extends, of course, beyond mere infrastructure. Urban dwellers are cultural libertarians--we don't just tolerate a diversity of lifestyles and attitudes, we embrace it.

[...]

Look around you, urbanite, at the multiplicity of cultures, ethnicities, and tribes that are smashed together in every urban center (yes, even Seattle): We're for that. We're for pluralism of thought, race, and identity. We're for a freedom of religion that includes the freedom from religion--not as some crazy aberration, but as an equally valid approach to life. We are for the right to choose one's own sexual and recreational behavior, to control one's own body and what one puts inside it. We are for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people who just elected George W. Bush to a second term are frankly against every single idea outlined above.

Unlike the people who flee from cities in search of a life free from disagreement and dark skin, we are for contentiousness, discourse, and the heightened understanding of life that grows from having to accommodate opposing viewpoints.

It also makes the obvious point that cities suffer when they're governed by people with exurban/rural values, as is the the case with the over-representation of rural areas on Hamilton's City Council. Each urban councillor represents more than twice as many constituents as each rural councillor, and since councillors generally vote for their own parochial ward interests, that means a small exurban/rural population can effectively overthrow the will of the urban majority. That's a big part of the problem right there.