Big Cities & Leftism: Why is it a given?


PDA






Bunkster
September 30, 2003, 07:40 AM
It is a given that the larger a city is, the more leftist it will be.

Do big cities attract leftists?
or
Does one become a leftist when they move to a big city?

The question is never "if" a big city is leftist. They are, plain and simple. The only question is, are they incubators for leftism, or are they magnets for leftism?

Or, is it a case that when you throw an extremely large group of people together within a small area, the only way they can live together is have everything dictated to them by a governing body?

Regards

If you enjoyed reading about "Big Cities & Leftism: Why is it a given?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tamara
September 30, 2003, 07:49 AM
Large concentrations of Dolists, academics, college students, and mediacrats. All of which are noted bastions of collectivist thinking.

A city doesn't have to be large to be liberal; many smaller college towns have a very pronounced list to port, since the school and its faculty so thoroughly dominate the local political landscape.

KMKeller
September 30, 2003, 07:51 AM
A city doesn't have to be large to be liberal; many smaller college towns have a very pronounced list to port, since the school and its faculty so thoroughly dominate the local political landscape.
Take Chapel Hill, NC for example... PLEASE!

greyhound
September 30, 2003, 07:58 AM
Short version in my opinion:

In general leftists like the hustle and bustle of the city, having lots of people around, and lots of things to do close at hand.

Conservatives/Libertarians tend more to be loners who want some land and to be left alone.

Gross generalization, of course, and there are lots that buck the trend.

Bunkster
September 30, 2003, 08:02 AM
Tamara, excellent point!

However, with large cities, it is automatic. Is it simply that humans must be dictated to when placed in large groups? Would the non-leftist become a leftist if they existed within a large body of people?

Regards

ps In no way am I attempting to excuse the horrid, pathetic, destructive existence of the leftist. I'm just trying to figure things out.

Tamara
September 30, 2003, 08:38 AM
Would the non-leftist become a leftist if they existed within a large body of people?

Prob'ly not. I lived in the Virginia Highlands neighborhood of Atlanta for many years, and really loved being able to walk to bagel shops, pubs, gourmet grocers, used bookstores, and art galleries. It kinda sucked having to drive 30 minutes to get to an indoor range, but there ya go.

I always said that I wanted to live someplace on a lake, where I could shoot in the back yard, yet still had high-speed 'net access and was within a ten minute drive of good pubs, bookstores, and a mall. Now I do. :D

2dogs
September 30, 2003, 08:38 AM
In general leftists like the hustle and bustle of the city, having lots of people around, and lots of things to do close at hand.

Conservatives/Libertarians tend more to be loners who want some land and to be left alone.

And each environment seems to lend itself to the types who inhabit it.

The higher the concentration of people in an area (attracted by the hustle and bustle and easy access to many types of "entertainment"), the more they require public services (traffic control, waste diposal, water treatment, sewers, fire, police etc). The more they require services, the more power over their lives they will (and want to) turn over to goverment.

The people attracted to the urban environment tend then to be for the most part liberal, bloodsucking leeches (present company excepted ;) ).

For myself- hey, I work here. And I like the anonymity of urban life (as opposed to suburban) and at this point in my life doubt I could adapt to Tamara's mountain top.:)

Art Eatman
September 30, 2003, 09:13 AM
Lemme add to 2dogs' "The higher the concentration of people in an area (attracted by the hustle and bustle and easy access to many types of "entertainment"), the more they require public services (traffic control, waste diposal, water treatment, sewers, fire, police etc). The more they require services, the more power over their lives they will (and want to) turn over to goverment."

Worldwide, people are attracted to the jobs more prevalent in cities. Many lack the job skills to get a high enough wage to be independent. This creates many problems, including that of publicly-paid support--which leads to voting for more support. (Which brings up deTocqueville's 1853 comment about voting oneself funds from the public coffers.)

The atmosphere of academe is emotionally comfortable for those of socialistic bent. Couple this with the normal idealism of the young and ignorant, and you have the liberal atmosphere of a small college town. Me, I suggest changing the voting laws to require two years of gainful employment before eligibility to vote--with "gainful employment" including house spouses. :D

Art

Marko Kloos
September 30, 2003, 09:31 AM
The Roman Republic had a representative system called the Assembly, where each of the social classes had a certain number of seats. The Patricians ("old money" nobles) had 80 seats, the Plebeians (merchants and "new money") had 90, the Equestrians (military elite) had 18, the Artisans had 2, and the Proletarians (landless lower class) had 1 seat.

This system, while generally recognized as one of the first all-inclusive assemblies, is regarded today as "unfair", because of the obvious vote advantage of the upper classes. The Romans argued that this system was inherently fair, since the classes who had the most stake in the system (the aristocrats and merchants) also had the most voice in where the Republic as a whole was going.

The current system is good, because it affords equal representation, equal access, and equal protection before the law. It is bad, because it allows the politicians to use the tax pot to bribe votes from the population. As a result, the Dolists have a representation in Congress that is out of proportion to their actual contributions to society, solely because they are present in ever-growing numbers...and the vote of a Dolist is worth as much as the vote of a business owner. The Dolist will always vote for the person who promises the most benefits. So will the productive business owner or worker, but the difference is that Dolists sap the paychecks of their fellow citizens, whereas the business guy and the worker mostly just want to be benefited by left alone and *not* have their paychecks sapped. One of these groups makes the economy run; the other just saps productivity from others. Since one of these groups gets subsidized out of the other's pocket, the balance in sheer numbers will sooner or later tip in favor of the Dolists, and that's when social unrest is inevitable.

BigG
September 30, 2003, 10:05 AM
Political exploitation of the *cough* poor - those who receive largesse paid for by John Q Public - ensure that leftist politicians will stay in power in the urban areas where the voting bloc is largely concentrated.

Short of nuking the cesspools of discontent... ?

TallPine
September 30, 2003, 10:20 AM
People who have a need to exercise power and control over others, need lots of other people around to exercise power and control over ---> the city.

Kind of hard to excercise much power and control over antelope and jackrabbits ... ;)

Tamara
September 30, 2003, 10:26 AM
...at least without a good .243, it is. :D

greyhound
September 30, 2003, 12:12 PM
Here in Baltimore we just had the Democratic primary for Mayor. No one even pretends that the regular election means anything. The place is so leftist that the Democratic primary IS the real election.

To my knowledge no Republican is even running for Mayor. Why waste your money?

Bill Hook
September 30, 2003, 12:15 PM
Conservatives/Libertarians tend more to be loners who want some land and to be left alone.

That would be me. I'd like to be within an hour's drive of a city, but not live there. Too bad most jobs are in urban areas.

C.R.Sam
September 30, 2003, 12:36 PM
Domestic Beehive
Ant colony
Rabitt warren
City
....Commonality ?

Me, I suggest changing the voting laws to require two years of gainful employment before eligibility to vote--with "gainful employment" including house spouses. ...Art Works for me.

Sam

foghornl
September 30, 2003, 12:48 PM
Kind of hard to excercise much power and control over antelope and jackrabbits ... Spot on, TallPine.

Don't remember the exact line, but it was along the line of "...If you think you are really somebody, try ordering around someone else's dog..."

About the question of "Are big cities magnets or incubators of leftism?", the answer is "Yes, to both parts".

Ian Sean
September 30, 2003, 01:41 PM
Dolists? Thats a new one on me but I like it. I have to get out more.

From what I gather Republican Sam Katz is giving the Democratic Mayor of Philadelphia John Street a real run. He almost beat him the last time. Not to sure of just how conservative Katz is though. I heard a few of his speeches way back and he sounded OK.

BamBam
September 30, 2003, 02:45 PM
At least here (Memphis, TN) the left is thriving because of it's high percentage of blacks (and recently Hispanics). They VOTE! They VOTE for the same candidate. They VOTE every election (sometimes twice and even after they die).

Also, with the help of the leftist media, fingers are constantly being pointed at conservatives. We conservatives, it seems, just refuse to pull the wagon hard enough.

Skunkabilly
September 30, 2003, 03:14 PM
What about the suburbs? Seems like lots of people are 'conservative', but an Arnold Schwarzenegger type of 'conservative'...I'll drop my pants but let me keep my wallet :banghead:

Big_R
September 30, 2003, 03:30 PM
I don't think we can group all large cities together. For example, in the Twin Cities area of MN, you have liberal concentrations, Minneapolis, Egan, etc., but you also have conservative concentrations, Maple Grove, Plymouth. It is very evident at least here that inner city (the hood) is liberal and the outer suburbs (high dollar) are conservative. From this, it would appear that people with money (that they earned themselves) tend to be conservative. People who inherited or were given money tend to be liberal.

The one thing I've found fairly consistent in inner city thinking (I work with a lot of people from the hood) is they all have tunnel vision. Their only thoughts are about themselves and today. Not one I talk to cares about anything political except welfare and subsidies. More than a bunch are upset about the welfare reform limits, hence the reason they are working. There are no thoughts about long term planning, only living for today, thinking about their own little world, etc. And, no these are not all minorities.

At least that's what I see.

Ryan

DigitalWarrior
September 30, 2003, 03:30 PM
Voting change.
Anyone who works directly for the government (politicians, social workers, military) or takes the majority (51%) of their income from the public coffers (Welfare, Unemployment, Social Security) should not be permitted to vote.

I think it would create a self-correcting amount of bureaucracy. If the public dole becomes too high for the producers (the only one allowed to vote) to bear, then the producers will vote to reduce government dole.

Morgan
September 30, 2003, 04:57 PM
Two words: Welfare Class.

Greg L
September 30, 2003, 05:02 PM
Me, I suggest changing the voting laws to require two years of gainful employment before eligibility to vote--with "gainful employment" including house spouses.

But not including anyone who is working for/receiving a government check (perhaps exclusions for military). The "gainful employment" has to be out in the private sector (for at least the two years) preferably dealing with sorting through the paperwork that needs to be sent to the govt to continue to receive their blessing to stay in business.

Greg

ACP230
September 30, 2003, 06:24 PM
My theory is that the Leftist/Demo control of most cities is the beginning symptom of a behavioral sink.

tcdrennen
September 30, 2003, 06:48 PM
Tamara -
Large concentrations of Dolists
Another Honor Harrington fan! :D

Was it Mark Twain or H.L. Mencken who said, "Democracy works fine until the electorate realizes it can vote itself largesse from the public purse."

Which was one of the reasons the Founders were more afraid of Democracy than of Monarchy! The Federal system AND the States' original Representative Republics were INTENDED to dilute the mob sentiments of pure democracy by using democratic methods to elect BUT severely restrict the powers of those elected. And even the franchise was restricted in various ways, some proper at first (property ownership, income levels, length of residence, literacy) and some evil (race, gender, religion, and later the racist application of property, literacy, income, etc.

We can blame the Progressives of the 19th and early 20th century for much of the gutting of those limitations on Pure Democracy - and our modern Statists (liberal OR 'conservative') for the rest.

But we've ALL acquiesced in it. :uhoh: :scrutiny: :banghead:

Art Eatman
September 30, 2003, 06:54 PM
tcdrennen, Twain and Mencken came along after deTocqueville. :)

I'm rusty about the title of his 1853-ish book, "Democracy in America", but that's close, I think...

Art

Gordon Fink
September 30, 2003, 07:27 PM
Another Honor Harrington fan!

Well, David Weber didn’t invent the welfare state. ;) Read Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress to see the Dole taken to its frightening yet logical conclusion.

However, Honor Harrington is next up on the semi-subversive reading list I’ve been feeding my self-described “bleeding-heart liberal” father.

~G. Fink

tcdrennen
September 30, 2003, 07:56 PM
tcdrennen, Twain and Mencken came along after deTocqueville.

I'm rusty about the title of his 1853-ish book, "Democracy in America", but that's close, I think...

Art

That's it! Haven't read that one in a while, 'bout time to dig it out.

Sigh. So many books, so little time... :D

greyhound
September 30, 2003, 08:10 PM
There are no thoughts about long term planning, only living for today, thinking about their own little world, etc. And, no these are not all minorities.

I hear a LOT of of interesting conversations on the subway every day, and I can back this up 100%. I think probably 75% of the stuff I hear is how me/my son/my daughter can get X out of the system. Either that or complaints about how hard it is to get X out of the system. And like Big-R, these are NOT all minorities I hear it from...

We have a "gun culture". Well, there's also a "gettin' over" culture out there.

Standing Wolf
September 30, 2003, 11:48 PM
Looters tend to gravitate toward cities, where there are more opportunities to get away with stealing more wealth and harming more people.

Dan from MI
October 1, 2003, 12:50 AM
I'm fairly certain that the most democrat large city in America is Detroit Michigan. 96% went to Gore.

That says something about democrats right there!!!!!!

GinSlinger
October 2, 2003, 12:26 PM
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:

From Bondage to Spiritual Faith
From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage
From Courage to Liberty
From Liberty to Abundance
From Abundance to Selfishness
From Selfishness to Complacency
From Complacency to Apathy
From Apathy to Dependency
From Dependency back into Bondage"


Alexander Tytler Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic 1776

Scottish jurist and historian, he was widely known in his time and was professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University in the late 18th century.


GinSlinger

CaesarI
October 3, 2003, 05:19 AM
Recently I was sent a copy of that quote with which I was familiar, however... it didn't quite jive with my own copy of the quote, which I've had saved in my text file for some years now. This caused me to seriously question the validity of the quote.

Yours is the first I've seen suggesting it came from the book "Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic" however I can find no solid proof that this book ever existed (let alone that Tytler wrote it, and in 1776)

The 1989 edition of "Respectfully Quote" lists the quote here:
http://www.bartleby.com/73/424.html
and lists it as unverified. I have a later edition of this book... however the book has, characteristically, gone missing.

in some versions "vote themselves money" is "vote themselves largesse"

My text file lists the source of the quote as being from an 1801 collection of his lectures. This seems to be a more probable date than 1776 if one reads a biography of him: http://www.electricscotland.com/history/men/tytler_alexander.htm

He seemed to be rather busy in 1776 however, peruse paragraphs 5 and 6, and I believe the 1801 date may be more plausible. The biography (which is rather a good one) never mentions the book and so I doubt very much that it does exist.

The title of the book seems to be a variation of Gibbon's "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire"

The part of the quote that bothers me is as follows:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

How many "democracies" had existed by 1776, or even 1801?

I am now rather motivated to find the source of this quote, and so will likely find it in due time. At which point I will report back to ya'll.

-Morgan

Mike Irwin
October 3, 2003, 11:50 AM
My take on it would be that like pigeons and rats, liberals tend to flock together.

Vermin tend to live in colonies, why should liberals be any different...

longeyes
October 3, 2003, 12:00 PM
Same reason Christianity took off in the cities.

Paganus = rural.

Go figure.

CaesarI
October 3, 2003, 11:31 PM
OK...
So I hit up my 1993 edition of Respectfully quoted, and it remains unverified. So the folks that work for the Congress professionally at verifying things couldn't verify the source of the quote, but it *has* been attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler (as previously noted).

So I hit up the school Library, and found nothin' Hit up the Library of Congress, and found quite a few things. My quote file identifies the source as an 1801 collection of his lectures. This fits in with his multi-edition book:
"Elements of general history, ancient and modern." which was mentioned in his Bio, in the link previously given.

IF the quote was from Tytler, it would be in this book. The search string that yielded the most results:
Woodhouselee, Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord, 1747-1813

Woodhouselee was his family title.

If anyone can find a copy of this book, it would be worth doing a search for the quote.

While I am not done with my search for his quote... the information at hand strongly indicates the quote is in fact apocryphal.

-Morgan

If you enjoyed reading about "Big Cities & Leftism: Why is it a given?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!