Future Influence: Rural vrs Urban America. Who Wins?

Ryan5 · Apr 26, 2015

As a political junkie this is the only real issue that actually matters as I see it. The emotion-inducing topic of Rural vrs Urban influence in America and who will essentially "win" in the future. I think it's the one issue that all others derive their inherent problems from subtly so.

Future Influence: Rural vrs Urban America. Who Wins?

For the first time in history, more people worldwide live in cities than outside them. Across the globe, urban areas add more than 60 million new residents every year. In the United States, of course, the rural-to-urban tipping point happened generations ago. Today, nearly 80 percent of Americans live in metropolitan areas). But it’s a demographic shift that’s ongoing.
It’s the age of urban ascendance. But it’s also an age of urban/rural discord. In an ever-flatter world, big cities often identify more with urban counterparts halfway across the globe than they do with rural leaders just down the road. Chicago woos jobs from Shanghai, but may not coordinate with small towns in downstate Illinois. Boston aligns itself more with Berlin and Beijing than with the Berkshires.There’s always been a gulf between rural and urban America. But that rift is widening -- in politics, in funding, in economic mobility, on social issues. How government leaders respond to that rift can either help bridge the gap between cities and rural areas, or drive the country down an even more divergent and potentially debilitating path.
America's Rural/Urban Divide: A Special Series

There really are two Americas. An urban one and a rural one. - The Washington Post
Red State, Blue City: How the Urban-Rural Divide Is Splitting America - The Atlantic
[url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/rural-decline-congress/1827407/
[/URL]

Paschendale · Apr 26, 2015

We've been fighting the urban vs rural battle since the beginning of this country. It's Hamilton vs Jefferson. Urban has been pretty steadily winning the entire time. That's why we have all these nice things.

Ryan5 · Apr 26, 2015

Paschendale said:
We've been fighting the urban vs rural battle since the beginning of this country. It's Hamilton vs Jefferson. Urban has been pretty steadily winning the entire time. That's why we have all these nice things.

While Urban is definitely winning heavily in its strongholds (East Coast cities, West Coast cities+++, the actual regrettable truth is that most of the overall US local government is still run in huge majorities by rural GOP politicians who siphon money away from government. I don't think this phenomena will last into the future but I can tell you that in the vast majority of states, even in extremely blue metro states, as many of the articles point out, rural GOP factions unite to "Swamp Out" their states powerful urban centers even though 80% of Americans are in those centers. That's the dismal truth.

Why Do Cash-Strapped Governments Have Rich Citizens?
Boom times in oil and agriculture have brought new wealth to people in many rural counties. But the money in bank accounts is not translating into more money for government.

http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-rural-urban-special-series.html

OrphanSlug · Apr 26, 2015

To be honest in the context of the OP article, this is not a new subject. There are so many regards to the growing divide between urban and rural environments. Education, wealth divide, percentages at income quintiles, age demographics, how business invests, how public services are handled, etc.

All of that is bound to have dramatic influence on political leans.

Take for example, education. We have known for years now that the higher the education level the higher the probability of liberal lean. We have also known for years now that people in urban environments tend to be higher educated. Something like 30% in urban to 20% rural have a college education, "urban suburbs" are even higher by percentage educated and is higher than 35% (stats very slightly on this based on source, but they are close enough.) It makes sense for urban populations to have more liberal leans with rural settings more conservative leans (odds are social conservative first.)

As another example, take public vs. private investment. Rural public sector government spending cuts hurt worse than urban environments and odds are in times of State and Federal spending it ends up being rural that is cut first. Even thought the public sectors has a mandate to fund rural and urban spending needs, private investment has no real mandate for that. If the business model fits that is one thing, but usually it is the rural areas looked at with lower education and less population density. That speaks directly to corporate investment, granted tax incentives can skew this from time to time. This is exacerbated by rural communities dependent upon few to one manufacturing or production organizations. They walk for whatever reason and it is painfully difficult for a rural community to economically rebound. Cities like Detroit and Philadelphia also qualify when dependent upon singular areas of business, but outside of those examples a urban community can economically shift in ways that rural communities cannot.

Because of our movement over the past 100 or so years to dense urban environments of some kind, we know that is likely to continue. Industrial revolution, manufacturing around WW1 and WW2, the economic model of the 50s and 60s, of course the business models of the 80s, technology and "dot.com" and internationalization of labor of the 90s, and finance that lead up to the crash just a few years ago all point to one key association. The economic movements in urban populations over rural populations, how those models effected a nation where as over 100 years ago rural organization (rural business, local trade, farming, etc.) ran the nation. Now, not so much.

There is really little reason to assume with the aging population in rural communities to expect some sort of rebound near enough to eclipse what happens in this nation's urban and "urban suburbs" populations. Urban clearly wins, in a way they already have a long enough economic and political foundation to ensure that is the case going forward.

Paschendale · Apr 26, 2015

Ryan5 said:
While Urban is definitely winning heavily in its strongholds (East Coast cities, West Coast cities+++, the actual regrettable truth is that most of the overall US local government is still run in huge majorities by rural GOP politicians who siphon money away from government. I don't think this phenomena will last into the future but I can tell you that in the vast majority of states, even in extremely blue metro states, as many of the articles point out, rural GOP factions unite to "Swamp Out" their states powerful urban centers even though 80% of Americans are in those centers. That's the dismal truth.

Why Do Cash-Strapped Governments Have Rich Citizens?
Boom times in oil and agriculture have brought new wealth to people in many rural counties. But the money in bank accounts is not translating into more money for government.

America's Rural/Urban Divide: A Special Series

Urban ideas determine most of our national culture and policy. They are simply better, more powerful, and more effective ideas. Even when rural conservatives band together to oppose their urban neighbors, it doesn't make a difference. Urban ways still dominate. We're the affluent ones. We're the cultural creators. We're the ones driving innovation, industry, technology, and basically everything else that makes our nation powerful. Rural culture gave us... country music? All the prosperous capitalists who made fortunes in rural areas were urban people with urban ideas. Good ol' boy and Texas rancher W Bush is from New Haven, Connecticut and went to Yale and Harvard. That basically sums up the urban/rural dynamic. Even in rural areas, the successful ideas and culture are the urban ones. Nobody goes to see movies made for rural audiences. They go to see urban Hollywood blockbusters, even cynical patriotic pandering ones like American Sniper (Chris Kyle himself was from metropolitan parts of Texas and Bradley Cooper is from Philadelphia). Even the high rollers in the Republican Party like the Koch Brothers are urban men with urban ideas. They're from Wichita, and David lives in Manhattan. Sheldon Adelson is from Boston and lives in Las Vegas.

Even rural conservatives are marching to the beat of urban people and their urban ideas. Rural ideas simply have no power.

Ryan5 · Apr 26, 2015

OrphanSlug said:
To be honest in the context of the OP article, this is not a new subject. There are so many regards to the growing divide between urban and rural environments. Education, wealth divide, percentages at income quintiles, age demographics, how business invests, how public services are handled, etc.

All of that is bound to have dramatic influence on political leans.

Take for example, education. We have known for years now that the higher the education level the higher the probability of liberal lean. We have also known for years now that people in urban environments tend to be higher educated. Something like 30% in urban to 20% rural have a college education, "urban suburbs" are even higher by percentage educated and is higher than 35% (stats very slightly on this based on source, but they are close enough.) It makes sense for urban populations to have more liberal leans with rural settings more conservative leans (odds are social conservative first.)

As another example, take public vs. private investment. Rural public sector government spending cuts hurt worse than urban environments and odds are in times of State and Federal spending it ends up being rural that is cut first. Even thought the public sectors has a mandate to fund rural and urban spending needs, private investment has no real mandate for that. If the business model fits that is one thing, but usually it is the rural areas looked at with lower education and less population density. That speaks directly to corporate investment, granted tax incentives can skew this from time to time. This is exacerbated by rural communities dependent upon few to one manufacturing or production organizations. They walk for whatever reason and it is painfully difficult for a rural community to economically rebound. Cities like Detroit and Philadelphia also qualify when dependent upon singular areas of business, but outside of those examples a urban community can economically shift in ways that rural communities cannot.

Because of our movement over the past 100 or so years to dense urban environments of some kind, we know that is likely to continue. Industrial revolution, manufacturing around WW1 and WW2, the economic model of the 50s and 60s, of course the business models of the 80s, technology and "dot.com" and internationalization of labor of the 90s, and finance that lead up to the crash just a few years ago all point to one key association. The economic movements in urban populations over rural populations, how those models effected a nation where as over 100 years ago rural organization (rural business, local trade, farming, etc.) ran the nation. Now, not so much.

There is really little reason to assume with the aging population in rural communities to expect some sort of rebound near enough to eclipse what happens in this nation's urban and "urban suburbs" populations. Urban clearly wins, in a way they already have a long enough economic and political foundation to ensure that is the case going forward.

Yes but nobody (so far) is denying most of what you said statistically. The dilemma is more structurally subtle yet at the same time extremely pronounced when looking at a map of political influence. GOP runs this country on a local level for the vast majority of Americans (even in states with Goliath Blue Urban hubs). America's Rural/Urban Divide: A Special Series

Rural GOP politicians "Suppress" 80% of Americans culturally and in the end economically" because their influence is radically out of proportion to their populations. They shift power to rural "Blue Dog" Democrats and Urban GOP anomalies who then "Sell Out" their Urban Blue political and economic hubs to Urban Red GOP political local interests. That's the problem for the modern Democratic party. They're winning the long war but losing practically every battle.

Rural Areas Lose People But Not Power

DarkWizard12 · Apr 26, 2015

Paschendale said:
Urban ideas determine most of our national culture and policy. They are simply better, more powerful, and more effective ideas. Even when rural conservatives band together to oppose their urban neighbors, it doesn't make a difference. Urban ways still dominate. We're the affluent ones. We're the cultural creators. We're the ones driving innovation, industry, technology, and basically everything else that makes our nation powerful. Rural culture gave us... country music? All the prosperous capitalists who made fortunes in rural areas were urban people with urban ideas. Good ol' boy and Texas rancher W Bush is from New Haven, Connecticut and went to Yale and Harvard. That basically sums up the urban/rural dynamic. Even in rural areas, the successful ideas and culture are the urban ones. Nobody goes to see movies made for rural audiences. They go to see urban Hollywood blockbusters, even cynical patriotic pandering ones like American Sniper (Chris Kyle himself was from metropolitan parts of Texas and Bradley Cooper is from Philadelphia). Even the high rollers in the Republican Party like the Koch Brothers are urban men with urban ideas. They're from Wichita, and David lives in Manhattan. Sheldon Adelson is from Boston and lives in Las Vegas.

Even rural conservatives are marching to the beat of urban people and their urban ideas. Rural ideas simply have no power.

That's interesting you say that, you have some pride in your cities don't you? It's quite short sighted.

AmericanSpartan · Apr 26, 2015

Ryan5 said:
As a political junkie this is the only real issue that actually matters as I see it. The emotion-inducing topic of Rural vrs Urban influence in America and who will essentially "win" in the future. I think it's the one issue that all others derive their inherent problems from subtly so.

Future Influence: Rural vrs Urban America. Who Wins?

For the first time in history, more people worldwide live in cities than outside them. Across the globe, urban areas add more than 60 million new residents every year. In the United States, of course, the rural-to-urban tipping point happened generations ago. Today, nearly 80 percent of Americans live in metropolitan areas). But it’s a demographic shift that’s ongoing.
It’s the age of urban ascendance. But it’s also an age of urban/rural discord. In an ever-flatter world, big cities often identify more with urban counterparts halfway across the globe than they do with rural leaders just down the road. Chicago woos jobs from Shanghai, but may not coordinate with small towns in downstate Illinois. Boston aligns itself more with Berlin and Beijing than with the Berkshires.There’s always been a gulf between rural and urban America. But that rift is widening -- in politics, in funding, in economic mobility, on social issues. How government leaders respond to that rift can either help bridge the gap between cities and rural areas, or drive the country down an even more divergent and potentially debilitating path.
America's Rural/Urban Divide: A Special Series

There really are two Americas. An urban one and a rural one. - The Washington Post
Red State, Blue City: How the Urban-Rural Divide Is Splitting America - The Atlantic
[url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/rural-decline-congress/1827407/
[/URL]

Who produces food again?

Wiggen · Apr 26, 2015

AmericanSpartan said:
Who produces food again?

Giant corporate entities, the CEO's of which live in cities.

DarkWizard12 · Apr 26, 2015

Paschendale said:
Urban ideas determine most of our national culture and policy. They are simply better, more powerful, and more effective ideas. Even when rural conservatives band together to oppose their urban neighbors, it doesn't make a difference. Urban ways still dominate. We're the affluent ones. We're the cultural creators. We're the ones driving innovation, industry, technology, and basically everything else that makes our nation powerful. Rural culture gave us... country music? All the prosperous capitalists who made fortunes in rural areas were urban people with urban ideas. Good ol' boy and Texas rancher W Bush is from New Haven, Connecticut and went to Yale and Harvard. That basically sums up the urban/rural dynamic. Even in rural areas, the successful ideas and culture are the urban ones. Nobody goes to see movies made for rural audiences. They go to see urban Hollywood blockbusters, even cynical patriotic pandering ones like American Sniper (Chris Kyle himself was from metropolitan parts of Texas and Bradley Cooper is from Philadelphia). Even the high rollers in the Republican Party like the Koch Brothers are urban men with urban ideas. They're from Wichita, and David lives in Manhattan. Sheldon Adelson is from Boston and lives in Las Vegas.

Even rural conservatives are marching to the beat of urban people and their urban ideas. Rural ideas simply have no power.

That's interesting you say that, you have some pride in your cities don't you? It's quite short sighted. Have you never thought that maybe you're part of the problem?

Goshin · Apr 26, 2015

The contempt expressed in this thread for rural folks is quite disturbing.

AmericanSpartan · Apr 26, 2015

Wiggen said:
Giant corporate entities, the CEO's of which live in cities.

Rural..

Henrin · Apr 26, 2015

Paschendale said:
We've been fighting the urban vs rural battle since the beginning of this country. It's Hamilton vs Jefferson. Urban has been pretty steadily winning the entire time. That's why we have all these nice things.

Yes, even Jefferson helped you out when he was president. It is kind of sad that you find pleasure in this all, but I suppose it can't be helped. Afterall, socialists have a tendency to take pride in things they didn't do themselves.

Paschendale · Apr 26, 2015

Henrin said:
Yes, even Jefferson helped you out when he was president.

Yes, even Jefferson realized that his vision of a nation of farmers was stupid.

It is kind of sad that you find pleasure in this all, but I suppose it can't be helped.

You don't find pleasure in prosperity, innovation, and culture?

Afterall, socialists have a tendency to take pride in things they didn't do themselves.

Maybe one day I'll get through day on this site without some ignorant baffoon rattling off some version of "dur, socialists r eeeebil". I realize that word scares you and that I scare you, but the difference between us is really not our leans. It's that I actually know things, and you demonstrate every day that you are grossly ignorant of everything that we debate about here. I don't honestly know what your point in this post is other than to be upset with me for having things to say and calling myself a socialist at the same time.

DarkWizard12 said:
That's interesting you say that, you have some pride in your cities don't you? It's quite short sighted. Have you never thought that maybe you're part of the problem?

And which problem would that be? That we are a prosperous, innovative, and cultured people? Does that really bother you? You can shut off your internet, your TV, and not read any books newer than 1400 if you don't want our terrible urban influence ruining things for you.

Goshin said:
The contempt expressed in this thread for rural folks is quite disturbing.

I suppose you read contempt from my posts, didn't you? You're a smart guy, but you have a hell of a victim complex. It's not contempt, it's just reality. Some ideas move mountains, some don't. Rural lifestyles and the ideas that come with it are in the latter category.

Henrin · Apr 26, 2015

Paschendale said:
Yes, even Jefferson realized that his vision of a nation of farmers was stupid.

No, not really. He just had some very hard decisions to make and implemented solutions he later came to regret.

You don't find pleasure in prosperity, innovation, and culture?

Oh indeed, and that is why I'm a capitalist and not a socialist.

Maybe one day I'll get through day on this site without some ignorant baffoon rattling off some version of "dur, socialists r eeeebil". I realize that word scares you and that I scare you, but the difference between us is really not our leans. It's that I actually know things, and you demonstrate every day that you are grossly ignorant of everything that we debate about here. I don't honestly know what your point in this post is other than to be upset with me for having things to say and calling myself a socialist at the same time.

I think what I enjoy the most about socialists is how they run around thinking everyone is ignorant of their ideology and what they support. Tell me, why is it that socialists like to claim they support empowering the people when in practice all they support is empowering the state and punishing those that oppose them? How is it even possible that collectivist goals can in fact empower the individual? Hmm?

Neomalthusian · Apr 26, 2015

"Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country." - William Jennings Bryan

Ryan5 · Apr 26, 2015

AmericanSpartan said:
Who produces food again?

Why Do Cash-Strapped Governments Have Rich Citizens?

Generational Upper class farmers who live in multi-million dollar mansions who delegate the actual Farm work to illegal aliens who don't speak English. 7/10 these large farms are run by corporations and the "Farmer" only is a farmer on paper. He simply gets a check mailed to his mansion every pay season from said corporation which actually runs the farm at bare-minimum cost no surprise. That's who produces food. Your "Rural Farm Hero" owns at minimum three multi-million dollar homes and likely steps foot on his/her corporate-run farm once or twice a year if that (likely much less).

I know because my artist grandmother in Houston was an Illinois Corn Farmer. The only thing is she "Farmed Corn in Illinois" from Houston. The corporation runs the farm.

My grandmother wasn't actually rich but her farm increased in value and eventually her family delegated its running to a corporation. It's the logical conclusion. The point I'm making is there doesn't exist an "American Farming class" anymore. It's all been made efficient modernly so and done via illegal aliens and via high finance in league with corporate America (all very logical tbh). There are no "Rural Farming Heroes" statistically as you claim.

AmericanSpartan · Apr 26, 2015

Ryan5 said:
Why Do Cash-Strapped Governments Have Rich Citizens?

Generational Upper class farmers who live in multi-million dollar mansions who delegate the actual Farm work to illegal aliens who don't speak English. 7/10 these large farms are owned by corporations and the "Farmer" only is a farmer on paper. He simply gets a check mailed to his mansion every pay season from said corporation which actually runs the farm at bare-minimum cost no surprise. That's who produces food. Your "Rural Farm Hero" owns at minimum three multi-million dollar homes and likely steps foot on his/her corporate-run farm once or twice a year if that (likely much less).

I know because my artist grandmother in Houston was an Illinois Corn Farmer. The only thing is she "Farmed Corn in Illinois" from Houston. The corporation runs the farm.

Dont like it? Change the laws..

Ryan5 · Apr 26, 2015

Goshin said:
The contempt expressed in this thread for rural folks is quite disturbing.

I don't have any contempt for Rural Americans or rural people in the slightest. They're good people. I come from them so I know they're good people. Nor do I agree with the posts outright attacking Rural Americans or rural people in general. Those posts are wrong. Rural America has its own culture that was once dominant and I respect it a great deal.

That said you and other posters take unnecessary offense at the basic issue of equal representation in government. 80%+ of America is urban or suburban. Rural America has massive undue influence in our society. Many suburban Americans or even some urban Americans like to think of themselves as "Urban Cowboys in Lexus Sedans". That's simply not true. They aren't rural just because they like going to the rodeo once a year. That doesn't make you rural. Simply because someone likes rural America doesn't mean they're rural. All I'm saying is Rural America has undue influence thanks to Americans having an obsessive "Rural Nostalgia" Complex.

You aren't "Rural" because you drive a union built, US Federal Govt. Bailed-out GMC or Ford truck..

Get real people. You aren't "Country".

AliHajiSheik · Apr 27, 2015

Clearly the bulk of people actually live in the suburbs. People who over the years who have fled the cities and those areas have slowly encroached on the more rural areas. Most people like living near bigger cities but only until recently, young people didn't want to actually live there after they left school. I think young people have begun to flock to cities because small areas have tried to become more like the suburbs.

In my own area of Philadelphia, first the people and the companies were in the cities. Then the people started moving to the suburbs so traffic to jobs was mostly toward the cities. Then the companies moved in droves to the suburbs to escape the higher taxes of the city. Then people started working in the suburbs so now traffic to jobs is mostly towards the suburbs. Now the city is enticing companies with tax abatements for companies to move back and there are small areas of the city that are becoming acceptable to surburbanites and the new graduates, but the process is much slower.

My conclusion is that the suburban areas are much more influential than both. Politically, the Philadelphia suburbs are much more influential on the politics of the state and the country than the huge cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, yet the more rural areas between the larger cities still retain influence.

countryboy · Apr 27, 2015

Goshin said:
The contempt expressed in this thread for rural folks is quite disturbing.

It's nothing new, the left has long loathed rural folks. They do everything they can to try and force us into their urban blight. If they had their way, rural life would be outlawed. Good luck.

cpwill · Apr 27, 2015

The era of the dominance of cities, I think, is perhaps plateauing, if not waning. As technology makes it possible to enjoy the benefits of urban life away from the problems of urban life, cities lose much of their appeal relative to suburbs or even rural living.

Goshin · Apr 27, 2015

Ryan5 said:
I don't have any contempt for Rural Americans or rural people in the slightest. They're good people. I come from them so I know they're good people. Nor do I agree with the posts outright attacking Rural Americans or rural people in general. Those posts are wrong. Rural America has its own culture that was once dominant and I respect it a great deal.

That said you and other posters take unnecessary offense at the basic issue of equal representation in government. 80%+ of America is urban or suburban. Rural America has massive undue influence in our society. Many suburban Americans or even some urban Americans like to think of themselves as "Urban Cowboys in Lexus Sedans". That's simply not true. They aren't rural just because they like going to the rodeo once a year. That doesn't make you rural. Simply because someone likes rural America doesn't mean they're rural. All I'm saying is Rural America has undue influence thanks to Americans having an obsessive "Rural Nostalgia" Complex.

You aren't "Rural" because you drive a union built, US Federal Govt. Bailed-out GMC or Ford truck..

Get real people. You aren't "Country".

If suburbanites want to identify more with rural that's their decision.

Suits me. I personally am not a suburbanite. I do not live in subdivision; I live on what's left of the family farm. My nearest neighbors are not visible from my front door. Where I am, there is no public transportation, no sidewalk, no streetlights, no strip malls or shopping centers. The closest thing to a neighborhood restaurant is a truck stop half a mile down the road. If you want anything much you have to go three miles to the nearest small town; there's not much there either besides a Dollar General, a Hardees and a CVS.

The real point is none of us, urban or suburban or rural, would CARE nearly as much who ran the government IF the government had not grown so unreasonably powerful and intrusive and manipulative as regards to the average citizen's personal life. The Founders originally envisioned a system where ordinary citizens would barely CARE who ran the Fedgov, because it would be so limited in its effects on domestic issue, and more concerned with who ran their own State and local governments.

Why would a rural person want to pay into a tax bin that would pay for city public transportation, when he personally isn't going to benefit from it? For instance...

Why try to make everyone be/live the same?

Personally, I've rarely asked for much from the government other than the basics, and to otherwise be left alone as much as possible.

Ryan5 · Apr 27, 2015

AliHajiSheik said:
Clearly the bulk of people actually live in the suburbs. People who over the years who have fled the cities and those areas have slowly encroached on the more rural areas. Most people like living near bigger cities but only until recently, young people didn't want to actually live there after they left school. I think young people have begun to flock to cities because small areas have tried to become more like the suburbs.

In my own area of Philadelphia, first the people and the companies were in the cities. Then the people started moving to the suburbs so traffic to jobs was mostly toward the cities. Then the companies moved in droves to the suburbs to escape the higher taxes of the city. Then people started working in the suburbs so now traffic to jobs is mostly towards the suburbs. Now the city is enticing companies with tax abatements for companies to move back and there are small areas of the city that are becoming acceptable to surburbanites and the new graduates, but the process is much slower.

My conclusion is that the suburban areas are much more influential than both. Politically, the Philadelphia suburbs are much more influential on the politics of the state and the country than the huge cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, yet the more rural areas between the larger cities still retain influence.

Yes I know this is all true as I think most do save for fringe leftist radicals.

That said you highlight the issue yourself of suburban (key word sub-URBAN) Americans refusing to accept that they are in fact urban people ultimately. Mass Suburbia is more city than it is country. It has Starbucks. It has more foreign luxury sedans than trucks. It isn't by any measure rural. Not in culture. Not in economics. Not in who resides there. Not in location either. Most Suburban areas are closer to a city than a rural area. Yet listening to many suburban Americans talk about politics you'd think they were a stones throw away from actual rural America. They aren't. These people are wearing $75 Polo button down shirts, slacks, dress shoes yet still somehow manage to "Take Offense" at issues that economically and socially haven't related to them in generations.

AliHajiSheik · Apr 27, 2015

Ryan5 said:
Yes I know this is all true as I think most do save for fringe leftist radicals.

That said you highlight the issue yourself of suburban (key word sub-URBAN) Americans refusing to accept that they are in fact urban people ultimately. Mass Suburbia is more city than it is country. It has Starbucks. It has more foreign luxury sedans than trucks. It isn't by any measure rural. Not in culture. Not in economics. Not in who resides there. Not in location either. Most Suburban areas are closer to a city than a rural area. Yet listening to many suburban Americans talk about politics you'd think they were a stones throw away from actual rural America. They aren't. These people are wearing $75 Polo button down shirts, slacks, dress shoes yet still somehow manage to "Take Offense" at issues that economically and socially haven't related to them in generations.

My point is that suburban is neither Urban nor Rural. They have escaped the true Urban because the city became less and less of what they wanted from the city.

Future Influence: Rural vrs Urban America. Who Wins?