Do you think the US urban/rural political divide a result of migration?

[llamaorama]

Not about cities, per se, but geography...

On SSP we've discussed how maybe people in the country are more conservative because they are either more independent, or less exposed to people different from themselves. Conversely, the narrative is that people in cities are liberal and tolerant because they feel like they are part of a bigger society because they are physically close to one another.

What if it is actually because the type of people who tend to remain in rural areas that are loosing population also tend to be the kind of people who are more likely to conservative? Basically, people with stable jobs, family roots, and combine that with a closed social network. Or higher paid professionals like a mining engineer whose occupation put them in odd places. Probably going to be Republican because they have "theirs" and don't care about strangers. Notice how the Great Plains are the most conservative part of the US, and also has had the greatest amount of population loss for the last 70 years. Compare that to the deep south, or Appalachia, or the Rio Grande Valley. There you will find more poor people who feel trapped. Those regions have more of a mixture of red and blue votes during elections.

Cities on the other hand tend to attract people from all walks of life. The more of a big frothing whirlwind of people and their complex lives a city is, the more liberal it will be. A city that becomes gentrified or stiff will stop being as liberal. Newer suburbs will be conservative because they are mostly homeowners with a set life plan, and older ones will change. The fastest growing cities in the country right now might be largely in red states but are themselves blue islands.

[mhays]

A lot of people 's political beliefs are tied to keeping their industries going. Someone in oil for example probably won't be for environmental protections that might crimp their industry. This includes some conscious choice to act in self-interest even if it doesn't match their opinions, but can also influence their opinions.

Your other points seem valid. It seems like a given that conservative personality types might stick closer to home, and try to avoid new and scary things.

[eschaton]

I think the urban/rural divide in U.S. politics is very much overblown. There are pretty progressive rural areas in New England, the Upper Midwest, and the West Coast. And even a lot of "conservative" rural areas (such as say rural Michigan) tend to vote more like 55% Republican, while rural areas in say the North Texas panhandle can vote 90%+ Republican. Then there's of course confounding issues of race (rural Black, Latino, and Native American areas are not politically conservative) and age (rural areas with declining populations are disproportionately old, which will make them, all other things considered, lean to the right).

I guess what I'm saying is if you discount the effect of a disproportionate number of nonwhite minorities being in urban areas, along with age factors for cities versus rural areas, I'm not sure if the difference is all its cracked up to be. I'd bet it's still there yes, but even then compounding factors which also associate with political identification in the contemporary era (cities attracting those with higher levels of education, for example, or more LGBT people) could explain much of the difference.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

.
Cities on the other hand tend to attract people from all walks of life. The more of a big frothing whirlwind of people and their complex lives a city is, the more liberal it will be. A city that becomes gentrified or stiff will stop being as liberal. Newer suburbs will be conservative because they are mostly homeowners with a set life plan, and older ones will change. The fastest growing cities in the country right now might be largely in red states but are themselves blue islands.

I don't think gentrification has the effect you imagine. All gentrifed cities are very liberal. Portland, for example, is a deep blue city that voted 80% for Obama in 2012. When it was still a blue-collar city in 1960, it voted narrowly for Richard Nixon. I think this points out, as much as anything, the difference between urban values of tolerance and cosmopolitanism and exurban values of conformity and authoritarianism.

Sunbelt cities are, as you remark, blue islands in red states. Perhaps someday they'll counterbalance the conservatism of their own suburbs but it's going to be tough. Cities really need to be urban to have a politically galvanizing effect on its inhabitants. Phoenix and Houston, for example, are more liberal than their suburbs but not decisively. The urban form will actually tell you how liberal a place is. Higher density leads to greater liberalism. The most densely populated sections of Phoenix and Houston are liberal. The least dense, conservative.

[nei]

Originally Posted by soleri

I don't think gentrification has the effect you imagine. All gentrifed cities are very liberal. Portland, for example, is a deep blue city that voted 80% for Obama in 2012. When it was still a blue-collar city in 1960, it voted narrowly for Richard Nixon. I think this points out, as much as anything, the difference between urban values of tolerance and cosmopolitanism and exurban values of conformity and authoritarianism.

The ideological gap between JFK and Nixon wasn't that big for today's standards, and voting Democratic or Republican reflecting regional and ethnic patterns as much as ideology.

Romney's margin in rural and small town areas west of the Cascades wasn't that big, east of the Cascades it was huge.