Liberal governments overtake conservative governments, so that wouldn't work. They'd never let us be. They won't even let African or Middle Eastern countries be... they impose themselves on everyone possible.
That calls for pragmatism from both sides i dont think we will see in this current setting. Also only to a point human rights, civil rights, and personal rights can not be an option in either governance.
I've traveled and worked across the country, globe. But I actually live in rural area for 40+ years. Very often, when "city" people move to the country, they start doing things they shouldn't be doing.
The farmers are the first 🏙️ builders 😂…that’s the Irony…every city 🏙️ in history starts as some sort of farm 😂😂…there are still hunter gatherers all over planet getting encroached on by farmers who are being encroached on by ranches that are being turned into towns that become city’s…..it’s the literal story of human civilization itself as he said….
This explains why I think the initial colonizing population on Mars will be conservative. Martians will, at least initially, live in a VERY hostile natural environment where even the most "middle of nowhere" wilderness on Earth will seem luxurious because even in the middle of the Sahara you can still breathe without a pressure suit. One simple mistake will be a quick death on Mars, and thus Martian colonists are likely to be very strict. Due to the fact goofballs that act out of line might be prone to doing dumb things as well as having to justify oxygen and food usage, those who either cannot pull their weight or act in ways dangerous to others might very quickly find themselves thrown out the airlock! Expect the population to be very high in trait conscientiousness and only enough trait openness to allow them to solve problems in a quick manner.
Kinda like the situation in 'The Expanse' , where the older generations of Martians are stil trying to terraform Mars and make the atmosphere breathable, while the younger generation has grown up with that situation and do not see a similar strong need to terraform the planet.
@@MTTT1234 Honestly, I'd say screw terraforming! Let the harsh environment be a check/balance against the "liberalization" that occurs on Earth. Specifically it will be a check in a way that might favor center-right (rather than any extreme) as extreme beliefs would be dangerous either way.
Agree with your comment totally (not sold on the 'screw terraforming' darwinism yet tho). Also, I find it funny and apt you called the anti-social and criminal goofballs. Lmao. Imagine a situation: "We do a little trolling" *opens airlock* *kills thousands*
I mean they definitely have venomous snakes just off the top of my head common European viper (a type of adder), and boars drop more people than alligators.
I will say that while this is true for the most part, in our current political climate in the Western world, "Neo-liberalism" or the "liberals" of today are not liberal at all, but dressed up authoritarians interested in pushing conformity, which is nearly the opposite in may ways. This leaves actual liberals of today in a weird spot, where some can be found in "conservative" parties, and some elsewhere.
@@ethanwilliams1880 You are 100% right. Liberals now are not liberal. They want a authoritarian control. Maybe even a monarchy. This is why the cancel culture is so ingrained in liberals now. It reminds me of the babyboomers that were very left liberal thinking in the 70's but now most babyboomers are conservative. They really created the world we live in now. Most of them don't go as far left as liberals now and they even started feminism lol. Now I bet they regret it if they even understand what the world they made is. "Free love" Though right? lol
Historically, cultures become quite decadent before they fall. Some of Our big city folk are so detached from reality that they will blame some guy who farms his own food for climate change while ubering a plastic wrapped bagle from across town for their lunch. You really cant reconcile people with such different existences, especially considering the side with the power needs the labor of the side that makes the food. In the future this relationship is going to look more like slavery. Not because the average city folk, but because the boujie people with the loudest voices resent the filthy plebs who are blocking their utopia.
I always find it ridiculous when anyone who uses a provate jet lectures about climate change. In reality it is suburbia that drives the vast majority of automobile emissions. People will drive giant pickups that never haul anything that you couldn't with a modern sedan. The root of these issue is modern addiction to consumption.
@vaderbuckeye36 actually most emissions and road damage come from heavy tractor trailers and their wide spread usage. The truth of the matter it doesn't really matter of u drive or not it doesn't really reduce your carbon foot print all that much. The criminal neglect and stupid regulations on rail roads and, housing development, car manufacturing is what's causing what ur really talking about not consumerism. Quite honestly new "work" trucks like pick ups suck. Everyone who I know who has a business that requires a truck run old ass trucks and look to buy old trucks because they are easier to work on and they can actually haul stuff because the cab doesn't take up half the bed. Also car manufacturers push those trucks your talking about on idiot liberals voters because they make the most money off them because of stupid regulations those idiots voted for that in reality don't do shit help the environment and ruin our economy. Like Obama made our current car market with cash for clunkers and the pushing car manufacturers to stop making parts to fix shit or make stupid expensive so their "high emissions" cars are off the road when in reality some of those cars were actually better on emissions then the peice of shit cars we drive today that barely anyone can fix.
@@AmericanScout-USA Fair enough. Still, I would prefer to live on a well planned, well managed medium city than a backwater town or a big city. They tend to have most of good thing of big cities minus the problems that scalate exponentially after a certain size.
"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. We do need cities to continue our technological and economic growth, but farms and ranches are necessary to keep civilization going at all. These days, we see urbanites calling farms "unnecessary" or "environmentally damaging" because they can't fathom that their food doesn't come from a grocery store. What the people of the cities need is a reality check.
I would argue we don't need cities for technological and economic growth. not anymore, we have seena decentralisation of these factors as communication and transportation technology improve. industry is better dispersed in towns in terms of money and supply, they were only in cities due to the need for face-to-face buisness, but since telephones they have been dispercing increasingly and this has been accelerated by screens. similarly, places of thought and learning are decentralizing.
French farmers came up with a term for this: "Bobos". Short for bourgeois bohemians. It's become more popular and used elsewhere since. A few years back it came up in a disagreement in France where urbanites were arguing to protect wolf populations while farmers would shoot them to protect their sheep and other animals that provided their income.
I love that you covered Singapore! I lived there for work, and your points are all spot on. A popular T-shirt was "Singapore is a fine city" with images of some of the ways to incur fines (there are many). Singapore is the most successful in modern times of the older city-state model, and incredibly successfull: as an exercise, one might overlay a map of SG over Houston which is shocking to see for Americans
I know dozens of people who moved there from Malaysia (almost all ethnically Chinese) and they tell me the same. In the long-run, I think an added layer of proactive government policy on top of their beautifully crafted economic policies is essential to curbing the excesses of high civilization and high culture. Unfortunately for Singapore, I think this would require a government that is explicitly and unabashedly Christian, which is the polar opposite of the multi-religious mosaic they are trying to gold together.
@@user98344 Because it is difficult to maintain social conservatism outside of a religious framework. In a materialistic worldview, it is difficult to justify bans on homosexuality. There used to be such a ban in Singapore for many years, but it was repealed because it was impossible to strongly justify it under a secular ethos. Christianity is a particularly good religion for society in terms of maintaining traditional morality. It also happens to be one of the more popular religions in Singapore, making it an even more ideal choice. But most importantly, Christianity is true and realist societies should publicly embrace truth on principle. Singapore is rightly praised for being an orderly society, but justice is a prerequisite for lasting order and truth is a prerequisite for justice.
@@williamcrawford7621 First of all, because you believe something is true doesn't mean is true for everyone. Secondly, Singapore isn't so successful because of the values it has but because of its economic policy and most importantly its geography. Belarus is also an authoritarian country with traditional values (Christian ones) but is far from prosperous.
@@user98344 Why do you think Singapore has had such a successful economic policy? It is ideally located, yes, but it also made many good economic decisions on the basis of its communitarian ethos. Singapore explicitly rejects both liberalism and communism. They reject communism because it crushes the entrepreneurial spirit of ownership, but they also reject individualistic liberalism because it places private interest ahead of the public interest. That is not a mere economic policy; it is a value system. And it is misleading to describe Belarus as Christian. It was part of the Soviet Union for decades. Consequently, it was an officially atheistic state for most of the last century and its economic policy has hardly changed since then. While much of the population of Belarus is Christian, the country is a dictatorship that doesn't exactly express the will of the Christian majority.
Except in Brazil, here the cities mostly ( especially the capitals )are conservative and the countryside( the poorer ones in the northeastern region as the ones in the south are usually conservative too ) is leftist, except for São Paulo Belo Horizonte, Rio de Janeiro, Curitiba, Goiânia and even Brasília itself are some examples
I am sure this is only valid for northeastern brazil,southeastern brazil is more like the rest of the world,and minas only is diferent because northern minas is northeastern geographicaly and culturaly
Are the rural people actually more socially liberal or are they just voting left wing because they’re poorer areas and want city wealth redistributed to their local region instead? I doubt if you asked rural and urban people the same questions about social issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, divorce, immigration etc. That you’d get more ‘progressive’ opinions from the country folk. People vote left wing because they want other rich peoples money for themselves and has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal socially.
I don't know if that is even relevant since the elites in those cities tend to be just as liberal and push for the same things as the elites in the US.
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 What the guy said there is only half true. There's more of a divide between the northern and southern halves of Brazil than a urban/rural divide; for example in São Paulo the countryside voted way more for Bolsonaro than the capital, while the opposite happened in Amazonas. However, the left is strong in northeastern Brazil majorly due to their economic policies of a (kinda weak) welfare state and wealth redistribution; some could argue that the northeast is more socially conservative than the southeast, since it is the most catholic region in Brazil.
Ive lived in Rochester NY, Miami FL, spent time in LA CA, SF CA, Vegas but the majority of my life has been spent in smaller towns and countryside. Just from my own perspective, both political view make sense based on the day to day of the people and their communities.
@@sebastianorozco1114there's always someone like you in these videos, da hell did trans people do to you? mfers think they're doing god's work by being a douche to someone
Cities mean relying on people to the point of not knowing their names Small towns know the cashier/linesman/construction worker and they bring each other deserts occasionally Rural people are the new barbarians/uncivilized. City people think of themselves as Roman
@@YAH2121 Do you know how the CRIME RATE IS CALCULATED? It's the number of crimes divided by the number of residents. Red States have a higher crime rate than Blue States, even the big cities of Blue States. For years, HAZARD, KY has the highest murder rate in the U.S. I already know that you never passed a course in statistics, and chances are good that you didn't earn a bachelor's degree. I also already know your political opinions. INCEL much?
It’s true cities will slowly but surely impress their values on the rest of us, but it’s not inherently liberal. Just the will of the corporate interests that insist on open trade, open borders, and stripping the consumer of creed or color.
Nice to see someone else understands. If you are a leftist, it's likely you are unwittingly doing the bidding of megacorps, and you need to realize this and stop it to become a true leftist.
@@michaelsurratt1864 More like democrats. It's not that there are many real differences anymore. It's more like a Uni-party, with slightly different factions.
@@johnperic6860 it’s not necessarily these powers themselves who reside in the cities, but their foot soldiers. The thought leaders. Media, marketing, entertainment, and education. Geographically, it makes sense that the city dwellers they live among would be the first to fall under their influence.
A couple of thoughts: I am 62 years old. I was born in a relatively large city and have lived in that city all my life. I am a social conservative. You stated that 18% of Americans live in rural areas but about half of Americans vote socially conservative. Perhaps the difference is that conservatives understand the ideals, methods, and structures that afforded us the ability to build such great metropolises and they want to conserve those so that the human condition can continue to thrive.
But conservatives are the very ones holding back progression. Just because things worked(for those with a fairer skin) doesn’t mean that was or is the best way. I’d bet you growing had some progressive ideas that are now mainstream but was suppressed by conservatives of those days.
@@skoolboi9901 True Conservatism would have saved the planet. If it weren't for "Progressives," people would all be living like the Amish right now. Instead, "Progressives" kept pushing for the world to be easier to live in. It's all of the modern decadence that has caused the untenable amounts of pollution. "Progress" is what led to ships crossing oceans, which led to more wars, more colonizing and the intercontinental slave trade. Conservatives of each generation largely want to be left alone, to work, raise a family, and mind their own business. Then the Progressives come around and stir things up. Whenever that happens, they throw the baby out with the bath water and make something unforeseen (by them) way worse, while trying to make something else better. You're guilty of this, yourself. You talk about trying to do things the "best way." The _best_ way was for people to live in small groups, minding their own business, living whatever life they could make for themselves. "Progress" has been the opposite of that, throughout history. Arrogant morons who think they know better than the next guy how that guy should live. It's asinine.
Only about half of the country actually votes (if you look at the number of voters from the last two presidential elections), making conservatives make up about 20-25% of the country's population, much closer to the 18% of Americans who live in rural areas. (This also means the roughly 20-25% of Americans vote liberal as well, while a significant portion either abstain from voting or are children too young to vote).
@@skoolboi9901 What progression, exactly, are Conservatives holding back? The progression to let women get the shit beat out of them by playing football with me? The progression to chop the dick off a 9 year old boy who knows he's a woman because lunatic mommy said so when the boy can't even decide what he wants to eat for dinner? Or maybe electrical vehicles, which are sourced by slavery and still backed by fossil fuels? Maybe you mean renewable energy which is a blatant lie on it's effectiveness and lack of carbon footprint, when the factual science shows the exact opposite - As if renewables could fuel the lifestyle Americans are accustomed to in any way (they can't). So tell us exactly what factual progression that would truly benefit this country are you referring to?
Politics are secular religion. People always wanting to subjugate one another to conform to their beliefs of what the world should be. Rather than cooperation, we have conflict. It's all about ego (I am better than they are) rather than genuinely wanting to make society a better place.
This 3:39 depends on "what part" of "what Urban city" we are talking about here. Not all parts of Chicago, Philadelphia or St. Louis would meet the standards of "not harsh, cruel or hazardous" or meet the standards of being "orderly and comfortable" trust me. For example take a ride down Kensington Ave in Philly and will see the exact opposite of what you just described. You won't have to look very far to find your entertaining content. Content creators on youtube make videos of it and get monetized for it, that is how bad that area is.
Singapore goes too far for my liking. All media is owned by the government, citizens don't have the right to obtain government records, the government and corporations intermingle way too much, and the government has the right to censor or remove anything they deem to be "misinformation", or "defamation", including on the Internet.
The disconnect comes from a few things, of which you alluded to. The big government/small government argument can be looked at this way: people in the bigger cities are inherently dependent of government services: sanitation, water, sewer, etc. Without the bureaucracy that comes with urbanization, life in those urban centers would be unlivable. This is also reflected on tax revenues and spending. Particularly with the de-industrialization of large swaths of rural areas, where one or two companies were the life blood of these communities, money from taxes and fees is generally invested more in urban centers. I live in Pennsylvania, and this is shown by the differences between, say, Philadelphia and somewhere in NEPA or central PA. Years ago, the Commonwealth invested $250 million in a convention center complex in Philly. Our "upstate" tax dollars went towards this, and it can be argued that we'd see neither a direct, nor indirect, benefit (see also the arguments for and against trickle down economics). Roads/bridges as well; vehicle registration fees, and, in particular, liquid fuels taxes, fund these projects. We inherently bear more of a burden with these LFT by virtue of where we live. Overall, the feeling is that, although we are all citizens of the Commonwealth, us in the non-urbanized areas (The T, or Pennsyltucky as it is sometimes called) are left behind in favor of the more populated areas. There's a resentment there. Unfortunately, neither side can appreciate the others views, simply because neither side lives as the other does. And, it has defined cultures. High speed rail connecting to NYC? Probably a good thing. But at what cost would the growth come with?
Ideally a rail system would benefit the rural areas it travels through, allowing for greater movement and commute opportunities for those living in such areas, as well as greater investment in those areas from businesses hoping to partake in the economic activity a railroad would bring. Railroads are how we settled the west, and I believe greater investments in passenger rail will provide a lot more economic benefit than normal highways do.
The cost of NOT being left behind in a World where the Rest of the planet will Not pump its breaks on advancing technology as rapidly as possible just to make some people in the woods feel better about themselves…weather the woods are in China or the US…AI could care less about the woods or the city’s🤣..all are just units of IMPUT..production…consumption..
I lived in central pa and northern pa for five years, I really feel ya. The government didn’t really invested in rural areas, some towns I went to only have basic fire and end services. Many people contracted with private companies to plow the snow in the winter instead of city offering plowing. There is a senses of self- reliance in the area. However, these people are basically paying same amount of taxes as city folks. They got charged on grocery shopping, gas refill, income taxes and so on. But the benefit they got from paying these taxes are much less than city folks. It always makes me wonder why I am paying so much money while I ain’t get less from it
@@darksmith7318 Not the same amount, taxes are definitely higher in the city. And in the urban areas, you're paying significantly higher taxes for maybe a quarter-acre of roadfront and water pipes and whatnot. Whereas in the country, taxes are lower but there are several miles of road and water pipes and whatnot because the population is so spread out. So where does the money to support that come from? From the cities. Paying higher taxes and getting less for it, because they have to subsidize the rural areas. The rural areas are getting much more from it than urban areas. Yes, there are less services in rural areas, because there's so much less tax revenue, and there's only so much supplemental revenue that the cities can send to spread around and give to the rural people. Because it's so much more spread out, and so much more expensive to support.
The farmers are the first 🏙️ builders 😂…that’s the Irony…every city 🏙️ in history starts as some sort of farm 😂😂…there are still hunter gatherers all over planet getting encroached on by farmers who are being encroached on by ranches that are being turned into towns that become city’s…..it’s the literal story of human civilization itself as you said….
In developed countries, it’s true that cities are usually more politically liberal than the surrounding countryside, however, this pattern doesn’t necessarily hold up in the developing world. In fact, it’s often the inverse. In the last Brazilian election, for instance, Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch conservative, carried both Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, while his opponent won big in many relatively rural states like Bahia. In the last Peruvian election, the conservative Fujimori won handily in the coastal capital of Lima, but lost by wide margins to her left-wing opponent in the country’s interior. And across the world in India, the conservative nationalist Bharatiya Janata party won easily in major cities like Delhi and Mumbai, while also carrying much of the countryside, except for areas with a history of ethnic and religious separatism. The Urban-Rural political divide as a Liberal-Conservative divide is a developed world phenomenon, and more than anything else, a Western phenomenon, as even in Japan and South Korea etc, conservative parties have no trouble doing well in cities.
In the developing world, it's more about wealth and socialism vs capitalism and poorer rural areas more socialist and wealthier urban areas more capitalist whilst socially conservative believes are found across political spectrum, while in developed world, more social issues with the progressive cities vs traditionalist countryside. Also perhaps ethnic breakdown too, eg developing countries, ethnic minorities, and in India, religious minorities, which tend to vote more left wing, tend to live in the countryside(eg Brazil and Peru, cities disporpotionally white while countryside disporpotionally indigenous or African). In western countries they tend to live in major cities, while countryside has homogenous population of majority ethnic group
The experience of living in a big city is above-all and exercise in pluralism. We encounter all kinds of people, food, languages, etc. that is why big cities are generative centers for new ideas. If you are related to 10% of the folks in your town, it is harder to find folks of a like mind, unless you are a vanilla person. Walz is right about the MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS principle when it comes to your right to privacy, sexuality, religious beliefs, philosophy. But if what you do actually impacts someone's quality of life, you will be asked to cease and desist. In the Minneapolis/St.Paul metro, half the population came here from somewhere else. So, if you didn't go to college here and have few or no relatives in town, it is somewhat harder to meet new people than in the BIG metro areas. In even smaller cities with big universities or military bases, there is enough churn of population that there will be many who want to meet you, perhaps share in a project.
Simple. Cities are completely controlled by the state and sometimes that does make things convenient, especially for those who can't help themselves. The further out, the less the government has to offer, the less the government is even involved. Liberalism is the worship of the state.
You bring up some good points. I think another factor, which you didn't address, is that the survival needs of living surrounded by so many people is very different from the survival needs of living in even a fully-tamed, but empty, "wilderness" park. Living in a crowded place may mitigate many of the "natural" risks, but also introduces new ones. Let's take guns as a prime example. Living out where the nearest neighbor is a good fraction of a mile away, or more, you do not need to seriously worry about getting hit by a stray shot, from a poorly considered discharge. In a city environment, however, where the only thing separating you from your neighbor might be two sheets of half-inch drywall and a little paint, the chance of your neighbor accidentally shooting you, in your own home, from their own home, entirely by accident, is very real. I can understand why someone in a city might be afraid of guns, but I'd sooner every city be forced to obey the 2nd amendment, than every rural area that exists in the shadow of those cities, every state that has more city dwellers than rural dwellers, the nation as a whole, lose access to private ownership and use of guns. If it's one OR the other, If one of us is going to be forced to bend to the will of the other, it's not going to be me or mine any longer. 89 years of encroaching gun control is too long, and too much, already. Let's look at another. Casual friendliness. I could be wrong on this, but it is my impression that city dwellers tend to be, ruder, than their country-living brethren. In a city, you're likely to see hundreds of strangers just on your way to work. Dozens to hundreds of strangers at work. Hundreds of strangers on your way home from work. And dozens to hundreds of strangers whenever you go out to play. In the country, depending on where you are and what you do, you might see fewer than a hundred people all day, and you'll likely know most of them, by name and by habits. And none of them are angling to mug you as soon as you drop your guard. Edit. A word.
I've had similar thoughts. That the needs of living in close quarters with others are different than the needs of living more spread out. In a crowded environment being able to live together with people you don't know requires more rules that limit freedoms, such as noise ordinances or leaf burning. Being free to swing your arms around as you wish runs a much greater chance of smashing into someone else's nose. There's also a concentration of resources, so its much more efficient to pool together to share plumbing rather than a well and septic tank. As well as closer resources of police and fire. In a rural environment there is a greater need to be more self sufficient. You can't always rely on quick access to fire or police, or even quality handyman help. Rules and regulations that professionals can meet get in the way if you need to patch your roof yourself. You need to be more personally responsible and thus need greater freedom to swing your arms freely. Regarding casual friendliness. I live in a midwest city but have lots of family who live in more rural areas. When I go visit, people driving, walking, boating by more often than not give a wave, something that doesn't happen much in the city. However, in my case my rural family are more reticent to talk to or strike up a conversation with a stranger (Not just some rando, I mean someone you have reason to talk to).
On your point about friendliness you are correct. People in small comunities are closer and at some level or another connected in their relations. There is a need for cooperation in those comunities if any thing needs to be done. However that closer connection comes with a lot of negatives. Gossip and peer pressure is really opressing, everyone knows each other and their families for generations. I was born in a small town, but in the same week moved to a larger industrial town where i was raised. It is impossible for me to understand my relatives that stayed their whole lives there and they to understand me. The cultural divide is on the level of being from a different country.
Well...as far as city dwellers bring rude....well remember that cities are more civilized. "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E Howard
I will say, that country people are definitely friendlier, but only to people who look and behave like the people around them. They tend to be wary and closed-off from someone who is very obviously a stranger. There are more obvious manifestations of this, like someone of a different ethnicity, someone who dresses very differently than expected, someone who has outward expressions of being a different faith, like a hijab in a rural town in the US, or a cross necklace in a rural town in Quatar. But there are also more subtle manifestations of this, like how they might start to gossip about and undermine a person who seems like them on the outside, but expresses ideas and beliefs that don’t conform with those of the overall community. I’ve noticed people from rural areas have a tendency to drop their friendliness when their homogenous culture is disturbed by a perceived outsider.
Sorry, but you don't need an assault weapon with a hundred round magazine to protect yourself if you live in a rural area. When the 2nd Amendment was created, they had no idea of the destructive capacity that modern weapons would be capable of. There was also no standing army and they wanted to be able to call upon citizen-soldiers at short notice, if we were invaded, which we were, during the War of 1812. That's why the first part of the amendment states "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", you know the part that the NRA always like to leave out. is written the way it is. We have a militia. No, not the Proud Boys, etc, but the national guard. And the Amendment, throughout the centuries, has been ruled as being regulated, until the NRA became the representative of the gun lobby, rather than its members. I'm not saying that nobody should be able to own guns, but we don't need those weapons of war in our society, urban or rural. Most of Europe has strict gun laws and their democracies have been rated as freer than ours and their gun related deaths are a small fraction of ours. Switzerland e.g. is a gun loving country, but they regulate where they can be used and the people are fine with that. As for people being more rude in cities, that depends on where you live. I've lived in NYC, LA, DC and South Florida (urban areas) and didn't find people in LA, or DC to be rude. I've often found people in rural areas to be more standoffish, because they view you as an outsider and therefore suspicious. I've found that New Yorkers, on the other hand, will go out of their way to help people who are from out of town. Go figure.
In my opinion, this kinda boils down to government. People who like or feel they need the government tend to be more liberal, while people who want to be left alone to tend to their own area tend to be conservative. This is why cities are liberal, because cities are largely deprived of privacy or personal ownership while most city dwellers don't know their neighbors or feel as though they can't depend on their neighbors living in their apartment block especially if they move around a lot. Meanwhile rural dwellers tend to own their own homes and are locked into that location so they kinda have to know their neighbors because the populations tend to be lower and you're seeing the same people all the time. This means they're a much higher chance that those people will come to depend on each other and have a greater sense of community and are less likely to be dependent on the government. Not that one is better than the other, but the problems start to show when the city dwellers start to impose their view on the rural people. Rarely do you see conservative people moving into cities and trying to change everything to fit their world view, but you certainly see liberal people moving away from their cities to someplace less expensive and voting for the same policies that caused them to leave the place they fled from.
@OptinihilistI'm not saying there aren't elements of conservatism that don't endorse a form of collectivism, but there is a difference between community and communism. In a community the relationships and exchange of goods tends to be voluntary, while in communism it's compulsory. There's a difference between a farmer choosing to share their produce with the community and the government saying you MUST do it or else. Not to mention that city dwellers tend to develop this sense of "the government has resources and therefore **should** provide me with those resources" while doing as little as possible to provide for themselves. And again, that's not to say every liberal/city person is like that, but it's a lot of them. That sense of entitlement that bleeds over into their entire world view. I don't consider myself to be conservative but I would much rather be around conservatives at this point that people with that entitled communistic mentality.
@@chrisbeer5685 Well I can't speak for conservatives, but those are moral issues. Speaking for myself I think all drugs should be legal and regulated, as long as we never have universal healthcare because I don't want to pay for drug addict treatment. If I become a drug addict I don't expect others to pay for my treatment. I don't like abortion but I believe in personal freedom so if a woman wants to killer her unborn baby go ahead, kill as many as you want, just so long as we call it unborn baby killing and not abortion. I'm not religious so I don't care. As for trans, if adults 18 and up want to transition that's personal freedom, but they gotta be 18 before they start any hormone replacement or surgery. Under 18 is legally a child and children are stupid and change their minds too much to commit to permanently altering their body (I include circumcision in this except for religious exemption). But personal freedom does not demand people address you by your identity if they don't want to, that's **their** personal freedom.
@@chrisbeer5685okay, I think we're mostly on the same page here, but like I said I'm not a conservative so I'd assume a conservative person who's deeply religious would have more of an issue with the abortions and the trans stuff, but for me it boils down to: don't physically hurt other people, don't abuse children, and don't cost me money. As long as you are 18+ and exercising your personal freedom and it's not conflicting with anyone elses I really don't care what people do. Also by that same token, I also don't like the Jehovah's Witness approach of people knocking on my door trying to convert me to their religion while praying on my politeness in not slamming the door in their face and telling them to f-off. I think that's kinda how conservatives feel about teachers talking to their kids about sex stuff. I don't have kids but if I found out my kid's teacher was talking about sex stuff and telling my kid not to tell me about it and keeping secrets from me I'd assume something nefarious is going on, especially given most US kids can't read or spell or do math. I'd feel the same way if the teachers were talking to my kids about Scientology and trying to educate them about Xenu.
As a Pole, I will add that the political division in my country is not only the division into large cities and the countryside. Of course, large cities are generally liberal, but the same largely applies to the areas in the west and north that were incorporated into Poland after WWII, the Germans living there were expelled and Poles were resettled there from the areas that the USSR took from us. In my opinion, views on politics and culture are more determined by the degree of settlement continuity. People who have lived in a place for many generations and create communities with strong bonds are definitely more conservative than those who are new to a place. In the west and north of today's Poland, most of the population was immigrant, there were no strong social bonds, so they are not very socially conservative. This division can be seen even in cities. Large cities in Poland are, as I mentioned, usually more liberal than conservative, but in the old eastern cities, such as Lublin, Radom or Rzeszów, which survived the war without major losses, the advantage of liberals over conservatives is less visible than in those whose inhabitants were mostly murdered or were expelled during the war, as in Warsaw, Gdańsk or Wrocław, and were settled from the beginning by mostly new population.
That makes sense. Everyone is in the same "village." Which makes cooperation and human bonds easier. Liberal ideas are kind of an attempt to make a new community from scratch.
@@eksbocks9438 There is also less pressure on the members of the new community to adhere to conservative social norms, because everyone is a stranger to each other and feels insecure in the new place.
one of the big differences in mindset is who fixes a problem. in a rural area if you see a problem you are the only one to fix it. in a city it's always someone else. not only that, if you try to fix a problem in the city yourself most of the time you will be punished and your efforts destroyed or wasted.
The reasoning might be as simple as cities attracting more people in poverty without the land or means to sustain themselves. Relative poverty and people in cities getting bitter that they can never afford a nice house may also be a catalyst for cities getting more left leaning post 2008 as well.
The other problem is an over-concentration of people who want to "save every wounded animal in the forest" no matter how dangerous that 'animal' might be to society as a whole. Many also think that every problem can be solved by government, which is not always the case. Mind you, I look around my city (Toronto) and grouse how it seems like many young liberals have never taken an Economics class in their life, the way they go on about things.
The biggest factor is that the majority of the population in a city is lower class and the majority of immigrants live in cities, so the xenophobic and blindly nationalistic ideology of conservatives and the economic policies that favor only the rich and refuse to spend in public services that benefit everyone just won’t sell there
@@thiccchungo1041If it’s the conservatives whose policies favors only the rich, then why are corporations and most billionaires supporting and funding left-leaning policies?
@@Rand0mPeon Factually false. Both the left and the right are about equally funded in America, you're a two party state after all. Not to mention that your left is considered pretty right in any other context, you don't have a left. Just extreme right and right.
@@Rand0mPeonthey support AN aspect of social liberalism because that gives the appearance of being progressive more than economically left-wing. If it means protecting the system then they’d rather have a include a few, female, POC’s, and LGBTQ people in it than let it get torn down completely. That’s not to say I have a problem with representation but it’s clear they don’t mind doing that if it means the structure can remain unchanged.
It might just be that people are sorting themselves in to urban and rural areas based on their personalities. Collectivists want to join a big collective. They like population density. Individualists want to work on their own. They don't like to be in crowds.
This makes sense and also explains why youths and academics are typically more liberal: kids usually experience less harshness than adults and may not know how the world works, and academics have tenure and ivory towers that likewise insulate from reality.
and this explains why liberalism has flourished relatively recently: "knowing how the world works" is much less of an advantage when the world is constantly changing. Conservatives at various points of time have tried to preserve how their society functions against various revolutions (information, industrial, republican, and agricultural), but it is only a matter of time.
In it a way it's rebellion to the falsehoods of a conservative upbringing. It's not that learn something or don't have the experience. Do you think most red state rural America knows how to get along with folks that don't think like they do in a big city? I've become much more liberal as I get older because I see the hatred of living a conservative lie.
When it comes to the united states, it’s not like the conservatives aren’t out of touch. In fact, in the united states, conservatives are far, far more out of touch. A lot of them want to vote for a actual felon, many are horrifically racist, and some advocate for literally executing trans people. It’s not hard to see why young people drift left when the right is becoming fascist.
I think it’s just that people with liberal views like urban environments more and tend to move there to a degree greater than conservatives, there’s evidence of this from a study conducted in Switzerland, and other studies that show how people’s political views don’t change when they move between urban and rural areas
@@johnperic6860 There isn't? What about how various formerly republican U.S. states have become contested or even thoroughly democrat due to in-migration, Colorado comes to mind because the changes in voting cannot be solely attributed to hispanic growth, or how Texas and North Carolina are becoming more liberal mainly due to migration. Those are examples of how political change is not people changing their minds, but rather new people moving in, usually to the major cities. People with more conservative views are likely more content with their environment regardless of where it is, whereas liberals will actively seek out urban areas and so tend to dominate them while leaving the rural areas to the unmoving conservatives. Most people don' t drastically change their political views, and so the idea that cities cause people to be liberal is odd, whereas it makes more sense that liberals are attracted disproportionately to cities
@@darthguilder1923 Example, in the US, except northern New England, states with large percentage born locally tend to be conservative whilst state with low percentage born locally tend to be liberal
@@darthguilder1923 The irony is that the people moving to Colorado, NC, Georgia (Atlanta) and Texas (and even New Hampshire) are largely those from places like California and New York. So liberals leaving the most liberal places to go somewhere comparably conservative. Seems like idealism in the voting booth vs pragmatism in the day to day. Your point about conservatives being more content could also explain why one could argue formerly reliable liberal places are becoming more contested as well - like in the industrial midwest - as their liberal population has more moving away to the same places you mention while the conservatives are more likely to stay behind.
@@dalegleneagles5072 Those transplanted Californians don't KNOW that they ruined California. So it never occurs to them that they will ruin Colorado. They believe in their ideology, so it must be something else that caused the problems.
I think that what many people forget is that the entire reason we succeeded as a species is because we worked together to reach common goals that helped one another and created these safer communities/environments. We need to set up a happy medium where we support people so that they can feel able to reach out and contribute towards a greater society while not enabling those of us who aren't as altruistic and would just mooch off of everyone else. From what I have seen, people who feel hard core strong in one direction or another are heavily influenced by local tradition, culture, and parental influence.
2:00 I dont think the conservatives live in fear because they are well trained and prepared to take on what is dangerous in the world. Like you said, they know the world is not a safe place, but training and preparing to survive in this world is not because of fear, its because of reality.
i am well trained because i know how bad the world can go. i prepare because i know danger. on some level this is true, fear motivates me.....but that's not a bad thing
Lol yeah apparently liberals dont fear the world. Apparently there are no liberals living outside of the city. The video was completely ridiculous. I can't believe people get paid to make this type of stuff😂
The assertion that conservatism is caused by fear is idiotic in the extreme. Conservatism is about self-reliance, peace in one's community, and keeping big government out of one's business. It has nothing to do with fear at all. Reducing crime isn't driven by fear. It's driven by not wanting crime in your community. The rest of the assertions about Conservatism are not even worth addressing. The thought that anyone in America is not near to stores with products on the shelves is stupid. Unless you live in a remote part of Alaska or in a wilderness area, you can probably get to a store. Most people in America are no more than an hour away from any store they need. That isn't an absolute, but most conservatives don't live in shacks in the woods. As for the assertion that Republicans want immigration, that is stupid and a complete fallacy. Democrats want votes and give free everything to migrants to get those votes. Before anyone says something stupid like "immigrants can't vote," just stop. In areas that don't require ID to vote, they vote. How else does anyone explain the 2020 statistics in Los Angeles County, where 130% of legally eligible voters voted. Not 130% of registered voters, 130% of eligible voters, post election stats, so nope, people who moved into the area were counted as eligible if they met California's extremely lax requirements for voting. Liberals are people removed from reality who can't think critically or logically. Releasing violent criminals from jail the same day they shot someone is what causes gun crime, not law-abiding citizens owning guns. It's not rocket science. No consequences for bad behavior result in more bad behavior. Pie in the sky assertions that if you're nice to the criminal who is raping you, everything will be just fine is stupid in the extreme. Anyway, stay in your big cities and deal with the consequences of your voting. Don't come to my neighborhood and bring your bad policies with you. I don't need the government to provide me anything, I don't want more crime, and I don't need homeless junkies sh*tting on my property or in the streets. Have a wonderful day.
Classical liberalism (Reaganesque version of late 17th C. Enlightenment) seemed sustainable. Coastal urban dwellers who interact with foreigners found it commercially beneficial, and rural types who dislike government intervention found it patriotically wholesome. Today the '80 Reagan-Bush ticket ("Let's Make America Great Again") wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
wait i'm confused we already had MAGA what are you talking about "it wouldn't stand a snowballs' chance in Hell" Where were you in 2014-2021 during the Trump Era?
I don't recall the '80 Rep campaign slogan as "LMAGA." No they wouldn't stand a snowballs chance and rightly so, the red team's heroes did more to destroy the working class than Clinton and the Shrub's were ever able to do. In 2023 there is no middle class, you're either rich or poor, living in Mexico or living in Mexico North.
@@fduranthesee The borrowed slogan was the only similarity between those Republicans and MAGA. To me, Magas, Freedom Caucus, etc. are Republican In Name Only. The RNC has booked the second candidate debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, and Trump is whining about the venue. He will not be welcomed there by Reagan fans.
in 1980 boomers were like 30 years old and had just lived through the stagnant 70s with a recession and gas shortage. They were longing for the America they grew up in, in the 50s and early 60s. So the "make America great again" slogan really worked. It helped that Reagan was about their parents age, seemingly welcoming them home and promising to take care of them.
But there is such a thing as “progressing” too far. Surely you don’t just go along with everything people are trying to normalize these days, many of those things are immoral, like say abortion, sex-changes for kids, pedophilia or beastiality. You have to strike a balance between optimism and realism, because the tail-end of progressivism always ends up accepting morally bankrupt practices into society as a way of promoting “inclusion”.
This happens to a lot of people due to a lot of things that kind of work in the background. Often as younger people you want to help everyone and for there to be world peace etc but then as you get older you realize how hard that is and kind of give up, instead you only need to focus on yourself . So in a way for many there’s an extreme loss of empathy that happens over time. At takes a lot of seriousness, grit and determination to continue a lifelong fight against the machines Let’s think about the “hippies” of the 70s. Turns out none of them were serious about their causes! Instead they were just being kinda flashy and selfish with their lives. They were born from a generation that had given their all (albeit in an incredibly racist time) and had been proud to fight in ww2. So fast forward to the 60s and 70s and you have a a lot of privileged people just not wanting to go to war, instead they preach free love and equality. But then after NOT DYING in Vietnam nor suffering massive ptsd from the horrors of war, these hippies eventually got jobs and took advantage of their Status and privileges in society and then folded into the same machine they were fighting against. Kinda how today a lot of white punks “go conservative” but they were always conservative, they just needed to use their middle class white economic privilege (ability to live at home, good schools in the suburbs etc) to realize, that hey this system i was fighting against isnt exploiting me! Welp, better go be part of the problem and make money! So yeah, it’s easy to lose sight of bigger goals like for workers rights, the end of racism and whatnot simply because as you become more comfortable, you don’t really need to think of us vs them, instead now it’s YOU vs them and you take more self interested views. Whats hard is to be comfortable and question the society around you and the forces that have brought you those comforts. Marx and Engles kind of “made up” communism from a rather comfortable position in society, which was probably not the easiest thing to do, especially as Engles would’ve had a much bigger pill to swallow being a more successful capitalist.
Growing up outside of Chicago, a few things became apparent quickly. That no matter how grandiose and elegant things within the city are, the further from the nucleus you get, the fragility of civilization becomes clearer. The question then begs, is the outer edge of urban blight caused by the recession of modernity and prosperity, or the encroachment of nature and scarcity. Keep going however, and you run into the suburbs, in which the same process continues. Cities at their core, serve as a testament to mankind's innovation and ignorance, its desire for beauty and brutality, the balance between order and chaos. It all may ultimately boil down to whether or not conservatives see any benefit to reestablishing a presence in urban domains, or remain content to stand guard within the vast rural swaths of America.
Recession at the urban fringe is the product of a realignment of investments, both public and private. The best example of this is White Flight throughout the middle 20th century. Investments made in transit infrastructure (trains and trollies) became redirected, through local, state, and federal channels, into highway construction. Areas that lost access to transit due to line closures became economically depressed, while private investment went to new suburban housing development within greenfield. Those older "streetcar suburbs" would lose their tax base as their more affluent (white) residents redirected their investments into cheaper suburban housing backed by low interest, government-insured mortgages. The older brick buildings would rot, drop in value, get replaced by parking lots, and soon enough you end up with places like Houston or St Louis, with desiccated urban interiors. This dynamic still perpetuates today, but in reverse. As previously depressed, inner-urban neighborhoods become gentrified thanks to investments in street-scaping, new transit, bicycle facilities, denser zoning ordinances, etc, affluent residents are again redirecting their investments into buying townhouses or apartments, which leads to depression in suburban fringes where new investments are no longer being made in highway construction or new subdivisions. It's a vicious cycle, and frankly and it has little to do with culture or the urban/rural divide, but more to do with simply finding the cheapest, most comfortable place to live within your means.
It's safer out, in the rural areas. Cities are - more and more - starting to show their tendency towards destruction and violence. The balance is becoming less so. Moving towards that is a fool's errand.
@@TheCharleseyeViolent crime in cities is down massively from its peak in the 80s, statistically, they’re safer than ever. If you’re referring to more recent-ish protests, then that will likely never stop, as people protest where people are, and where the government pays attention, which trends towards cities Edit: You don’t have to like cities or want to live in one, this was in response to your claim that cities are showing more violent tendencies.
@@dane1317 Meanwhile, stores in Chicago, Seattle, SF, etc. are all fleeing those cities due to criminality. Crime in NYC dropped during the mayorship of the conservative Giuliani. It is rising since then. Major crimes is up 22% last year, for example. It is a fact that cities tend towards greater violence and crime. Noting occasional dips in violent crimes in this or that city does not disprove the general trend.
The civilized city folk laugh at the uneducated barbarians in the country side, but when the sophisticated city folk are in trouble it's up to the barbarians from the country side to defend the country. At least that's what I learned from history.
"Kill or be killed" is an essential element of American conservatism. I was surprised the author did not incorporate the classic definition of conservative, i.e., resistance to change(whether political, economic, or social) in his argument. While "fear of the other" is a strand common to current American model of conservatism, this is an outgrowth of America's history of race-based slavery and racism.
Especially in the South. A lot of stubborn people, and a history of Plantation Society. Basically, all the smart people went to the city. Because that's where the jobs are. So, now you're left with the people who are not as real-world oriented. Their philosophy of wanting to fight someone is more based on Tribal Egoism. Which is usually a given, when you have a lot of ignorant people in one place. They complain a lot about how bad urban neighborhoods are. But they're not immune from crime or antisocial behavior either.
Sounds like the solution is it’s come time for nature to be integrated into the cities in a major way to balance the ideology with reality. Or said another way so creativity can shake hands with common sense
@jangofett6950 This has nothing to do with my comfort. This is about reality. Facts don't care about your feelings. Back in viking Scandinavia it was common sense to believe that the earth was flat.
@@-gemberkoekje-5547 I wouldn’t disagree with you but perhaps only in perspective. Common sense as defined usually has to do with every day matters. Like any good joke there is always a kernel of truth, same with common sense as both are typically based off of pattern recognition. The better you are at pattern recognition you begin to perceive archetypes in the world that are timeless. I find timeless archetypes as common sense. They are things that have persisted throughout history in some form because it’s reality and truth and you can hide the truth in a culture but only for a time because you can’t hide the truth forever. Like a light in darkness people with seek out that light once again in good time. Even if for just pure curiosity of what is there. Some good examples are humans needing religion, have human agency, biological differences, and humans as social creatures. As to the details of these can bog down at times and science can shed light on some details but as to whether these statements are wrong would only be based off someone’s emotions intervening because of ideology or pain or most likely mixture of the two.
While I happen to think that adding some nature back into the cities would be a good thing for other reasons, it wouldn't solve this problem (if you consider ongoing liberalization a problem), because the core element that causes this change isn't just the presence of nature, it is the presence of natural danger. It is the fear of danger that causes the rural conservative to resist changing what worked for his forefathers, and it is the lack of any external danger (except that created by his urban-dwelling fellows) that causes the urban liberal to strive towards his utopia (after all, if the only danger comes from the actions of other men, men are fundamentally flexible; surely with the right persuasions and educations, incentives and safeguards, these harmful actions can be eliminated, right?). Unless you can give the urbanites the same fear of drought or wildfire, or of being isolated by snowfall or flooding, or dying of accidental injury before you can get to help that rural folk experience (or, alternately, until you can free rural folk from those fears to the same degree as urbanites), you will always have a strong divide in viewpoint between urban and rural people.
The problem as I see it is not that there are differences but that people on both sides of the divide want to force their ways onto everyone. A truly just and equal society would let people live the way they want - urban idealists, rural survivalists, and off-the-grid anti-industrialists alike. There's plenty of room to allow everyone to do their own thing without causing a collapse. I've long said that the line between good and evil is not how extreme your beliefs are but what you're prepared to do to the people who don't share them. And as a semi-rural idealistic conservative, I keep advocating for others to adopt that attitude without trying to pass legislation that would force them to do so.
@@ericb4127 Then we gotta change how we vote and stop electing the corrupt and power-hungry. People who aren't like that don't want to be in our business in the first place.
In my experience it’s usually urbanites forcing their ways on rural folk. Either via government control by having more representation or by moving to said rural areas and essentially colonize it to be more like the urban hole they just escaped from. It doesn’t really work the other way around because there’s less rural folk to change the political demographics of cities.
I would argue that rural areas, at least collectively, are actually more "multicultural" than urban ones, because sooner or later a computerized city will descend into mediocrity and bourgeois blandness. Rural areas are where it's the easiest to preserve folk customs that represent ethnic traditions.
It's funny how Star Trek: The Next Generation covered this in the 80's when the 'galaxy' had to deal with the Ferengi race whom was 'given' technology instead of creating it naturally and being approached like everyone else. Now the space faring races had to deal with a 'less advanced' race using all the same toys with no historical guidance or precedent. Yes it makes for good TV, but not good reality.
Because conservatism is fear - fear of others, fear of change, fear of threats, etc. And while there are a lot of things to fear in cities, such as crime, cities also offer opportunities that directly oppose fear. Better education, more diversity, better economic stability. Better education naturally decreases fear through a better understanding of the world around you, and understanding makes everything less frightening. More diversity allows for more empathy, and better understanding of people who are different from you. The more you get to know the people around you, the more you see them AS people, rather than threats/different/degenerate. And economic instability is the gateway those in power use to generate fear of everything. So the more economic stability, the more liberal.
Agree with this 100% Having lived in both rural (farm in Michigan) and urban (Silicon Valley California) I think this is true. On my mom's farms, she has a well for water which we paid for to get drilled, and a septic system which we paid for to get buried. The heating is a propane tank that gets filled twice a year and it is big enough to last the entire winter. The only things provided by the government are a paved road (and even in the area many have only dirt roads) and electricity. Even with the electricity if you need it further back on your property YOU need to pay for the cost of poles, so even that isn't provided for. With regards to law enforcement, there are very few crimes here and my mom doesn't bother to lock the door to her house sometime. But we also have friendly neighbors with guns who look out for each other and if anyone were to try to hurt here, they would think twice about shooting a criminal dead. If all the cities disappeared I don't think they would notice. On the other hand, in the city I've met people who I don't think could even cook their own food, forget about growing it. But listening to them talk they are full of opinions about how the world "should" work.
City folk have opinions about how the world "should" work from their perspective and experience. You have a different perspective and experience. So you think differently. The fact is we are all like the blind men in the elephant and 5 blind men allegory. We think we know what we are dealing with when we can only ever know it from our perspective. The problem occurs when we don't respect another person's perspective -- liberal or conservative. We end up screaming at each other instead of listening to each other. We try to force our opinions down other people's throat and tell them how to live.
@@grepora I'm living near San Francisco right now where they are giving drug addicts needles and foil to make their drug addiction deeper. And a DA that doesn't prosecute criminals and crime is through the roof here. I was in a Home Depot the week before a shoplifter killed an employee there and the DA only wants 6 years for this person. I'm generally an open-minded person but I've lost respect for the people that run the cities.
@@elvangulley3210 You need to take BART to the Civic Center station and walk down Market St. It is a drug users' sh*tshow right now. Before I stopped going to downtown SF because I was tired of stepping in human poop, I could count 50 (as in FIVE-ZERO) drug users on my half-mile walk to work. And walking up the stairs would be someone smoking fentanyl right on the stairs. I'd step over people passed out. I've been working in SF since 2002 and stopped just last year it has gone downhill very fast. Sorry, but you are full of it or have visited SF recently if you think something else is worse.
A more conservative survival mindset. I dont think that is what is developing on the south side of Chicago. They may act conservative when it comes to survival, but want incredibly liberal policies that jave zero basis in reality. 11:04
What’s funny is that on the south side they hate gays and liberal talking points, but then vote in the most liberal and left wing people. The real ones causing the most damage though in Chicago politics isn’t the south siders or the working class people/immigrants. It’s the rich liberal people in the north side/suburbs that don’t live in reality. They control all the institutions and then when the working class/immigrants put their kids through the schooling system the rich people control, they become indoctrinated into liberal hive think. That’s why you have all these Hispanic kids that come from conservative households become extreme liberal activists.
I would also argue that because in cities most people are strangers to each other there’s less pressure to conform. If you’re a person with beliefs that criticize the society’s traditions or a foreigner/ethnic minority with no personal attachment to them, there’s more room for you there than in small towns.
@@jasonsands5881 Aw, were the people in small towns mean to you? Cities are causing societal collapse and global climate change that could bring about an extinction-level event. But gosh...at least they're not mean to you there (except for all the people who are, of course).
@@TheCharleseye I mean that small towns are very conformist. Everyone is all up in everyone’s business. The people there aren’t as good and pure as they claim to be. I couldn’t wait to get out. And, are cities really causing the downfall of civilization?
@Monsieur_Z, this is a much better video than Whatifalthis when he makes similar videos. Thank you for this. You are obviously conservative, but you don't just say "woke bad" and say things that sound educated and philiosophical. This video isn't heavily biased or insulting to people you disagree with AND I largely agree with it. Obviously not everyone in cities or the countryside falls in these stereotypes, but it is largely true and you did a good job talking about it. 👍 thumbs up from a liberal
Whatifalthis views on political and social outcomes are more realistic. Whatif accurately points out that if a developed country continues fulfilling leftist policies, the country will experience degradation. Monsieur seems to believe the opposite: The nation will prosper even if it adopts the woke counter-culture and absorbs millions of undesirable immigrants from underdeveloped countries.
Wouldn't say Whatifalthist is only "woke bad" since he does tend to have logical justifications for that opinion. The dude is just on the younger side and has issues with reading his scripts. Send him to a public speaking coach and your criticisms might just fade.
@@The1TrueEcho Hard disagree. Mr. Z sounds like someone who has actually spoken to a leftist and is approaching the convo in good faith. Whatifalthist comes off as someone who is starting from a place of vitriol towards the left and has a whole wall of article clippings behind him connected by red lines of string in order to craft some absolutely batshit conspiratorial narrative explaining why people hold views he disagrees with.
The problem isn't the inevitable "liberalization" of cities. The problem is the amount of political power cities have. In election systems based solely or mostly on population, it is the heavily urbanized areas that basically control national policy, and that is what really causes the national divide. It would almost be better in a representative republic for cities above a certain size to be given independent city-state status where they can enjoy the economic ties and the national defense like US territories do, but without the ability to vote in state and federal elections in exchange for no income tax by state or federal governments. The cities can then determine their own policies without effecting everyone else and if they are disastrous (which they often are), the rest of a nation are insulated from much of the repercussions.
@@chrisbeer5685 Because it's the equivalent of the entirety of Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba the Northwest Territorys Yukon Alaska Washington State Idaho Montana being out voted by some Mega city with a bigger population
Trees need wind to grow strong and tall. Without it, their roots grow a mile wide, but an inch deep, and when the winds of adversity final do blow, and they will, they will fall. Likewise, the modern urbanite, raised in a city they played no role in building, has no clue what it takes to build and maintain civilization, and will fall for any harebrained scheme to protect them from the adversities of life. It should be noted however that any population shielded from the adversities life by government aid will miss those vital lessons. The only solution is ensure that every generation be personally engaged in the building of something new. It's the winds of the frontier that maintains a strong civilization.
Or, you know, that these new generations that weren't involved with the building of the current social structures can more easily see and call out the flaws since they have no investment in seeing their creation continue to stand.
@Kyle_116 Critics outnumber creators. It is easy to tear down but difficult to build. The best a critic could do is identify a legitimate problem. Then what? A people raised in an artificial environment which has not lasted very long seek to fill their lives with meaning. They hear about heroes of the past who stood up against injustice and changed society. Wouldn't one also want to be a hero someone in a future history class can read about? It is all too tempting to exaggerate the danger and cost of a given problem (which is likely far less of a scourge on the human condition than past injustices) in order to make one seem all the more heroic. There are cures worse than the diseases they attempt to treat. Is the benefit worth the cost? Idealism has been and always can be dangerous. The dysfunction in this so-called zenith of human achievement bears this out. This quote from C.S. Lewis speaks to these times: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
I'm going to hazard a guess and say "Indoctrination induced Insanity." EDIT: Huh, this is a really nuanced video. You state that Conservatives generally do have a problem with the Liberalness of the cities, but what you have left out here is the fact that with said liberalization comes cultural and moral decay, which inevitably leads to a time of collapse. We're well educated and have a lot of common sense, so so many of us see that all of this Wokeness, degeneracy, and evil (yes, what these people are becoming is genuinely *evil,* what pedophile isn't?) can only lead us to ruin.
An exclusively city-dwelling person isn't more removed from reality necessarily, but their everyday reality is more of a special case than that of someone living more rurally. Good thoughts overall though.
Oddly enough I have seen people in the cities more racist and wary of other people because they have had to deal with it in the past were I have seen friends with a rual Christian upbringing believe in the goodness of everybody. Could just be my lived experience but the city people I speek to are ready to get jumped at any second, understand what ethnicity they are and what it is perceived by other groups but rual people seem to just think everyone is going to be your friend no matter what. Friends in Brooklyn New York vs rural Nebraska in this case. I'm not sure if this is a edge case or the norm.
@@johncunningham8213 true but within a city's population that is 5% - 10% at most the vast majority is either working class, lower management or the working poor. Now these demographics are not necessarily right wing but they do know they are one or two paychecks away from living on the streets so they would want to have some type of safety-net. Your typical construction worker or Subway train engineer is not really going out there all lgbtq+ and stuff but they would like some union benefits to provide education and food for their families. They vote blue out of necessity not over social issues and many of them don't have time to go to church do to working 60 hours a week.
Rural people have the opportunity to see each other as individuals. Urban people have SO MANY people around them that this becomes impossible. Racism and similar attitudes thrive when you can't connect as individuals.
@dilorenzo2797 That is very true because do to the more local religious upbringing they will assume people are just going to to the right thing. Also chances are almost everybody knows each other so if someone misbehaves it's the talk of the town compared to most major cities if someone shoplifted or robbed that would just be a normal Tuesday. Unfortunately in the current socioeconomic climate a lot of people fleeing cities are taking advantage of kind hearted rural communities by doing things such as saying they can't afford things when they totally can, shoplift at stores that can't afford advanced security systems, lying about the quality of the food at a locally owned restaurant in order to get a free meal. I remember driving though Iowa and one of the gas stations let you fill up your gas tank then go inside to pay and the click and they would just trust the amount you said you filed up for and pay that amount without even checking. As a New Yorker this has always been absurd to me because I know if that gas station was set up in one of the surrounding areas of New York they would just fill up their gas tank and run. That's probably why you have to pay before you get your gas in the first place. When you have a society built on trust and honor get infiltrated by a culture that will lie, cheat and steal to survive infiltrates a culture based around honor and respect well let's be honest we know where that's going.
I think it’s simple, Liberals advocate for more government and government subsidized services that benefit cities while conservatives advocate for less government and more privatization that benefit the rural areas more.
Exposure to other cultures, ideas, religions, music and a plethora of other factors are far easier in urban settings than rural. This lessens the fear of the unknown and allows people to more easily see others as friends rather than enemies.
That and you really don't have a realistic option of just clinging to your own little political and cultural tribe in a city. You've got to learn to at least get along with people of vastly different beliefs and religions and ethnicity because they're going to be all around you.
The media plays the role of bringing the ideas of the world to rural areas. I live in a conservative section of the US, Idaho, which has a very small population of militant talking right wing people but most people here are open to new ideas, they just don't want people to tell them what to do including manipulating their media. We've found that we are happier with access to the truth and can discern what that is ourselves without a Big Brother feeding it to us with a liberal slant of what is safe and what is dangerous. Nature is our friend to get along with, not an enemy that has been subverted by CO2. We don't have a need to blame other people for making us sick so we don't put the blame on other people not being vaccinated or wearing masks.
Unless communities stick together within cities, the diversity presented and projected tends to be shallow. Mostly concerning surface level aesthetics, not values, let alone most unique varying cultural practices.
In my opinon, liberalism and conservatism are balancing forces. Too much in any one direction spells doom for society. Liberalism drags society along towards progress, while conservatism tempers expectations and makes sure society does not advance quicker than it can handle. The result after each collapse is an ideal mix of the two after which the cycle repeats.
The problem is we do not have classical liberalism but socialist leftism . I may not agree with what you say but I k fight for the right for you to say it ! Classical liberal view. Hate speech arrest him! Leftist .@
Agree 100%. And without a push back of the “other side,” any single party system is destined for corruption just in the structure of any single party system.
@josephpadula2283 you sound like you are from the right. After seeing Trump attempt an insurrection and a coup attempt, I would balance your observation that, here in the USA, “Conservatives” are shifting to authoritarian fascism, which isn’t really conservatism at all.
@@danielbob2628 How do we determine what is "fundamentally bad"? I will say that the political right has more of a propensity to oversimplify complex issues into white or black perceptions. Hence your question. But to answer your question, hopefully the problem would be corrected by a compromise between conservative and liberal leaders. That is fundamentally how democratic governments have operated for centuries. Examples of "Liberal policies" that are mainstream today: 5 day work week, 40 hours and then overtime pay. Free education for all children, minimum wage, child labor laws, anti-trust laws. I would consider these good things. Bussing in the 1970's was a bad idea and we no longer have it, thanks to the balancing system I referred to.
If Italy did remain Neutral, i.e. sign no Pacts or Alliances with Germany, Hitler would not have been as bold as he was. Hitler kept pushing things because he thought he could get away with more than he ultimately did. The UK was stalling for time, but still had a powerful navy. Hitler's own admirals needed years more, possibly 1943 or even later, to have enough U-Boats to really cut off the UK and starve them out. These projections were partially based on having the Italian Navy on Germany's side. Without that the German Navy would have needed even more time and Hitler would not have had any access to the Mediterranean at all. So even less chance of cutting off the UK from the rest of the British Empire. I don't know if it would have WW2 would never happen, but it would change things dramatically. Hitler would not have pushed as much without support at the start. Which might have allowed Stalin in the USSR to improve their position and start things themselves. One thing I have always thought was that WW2 would have started sooner or later by either Hitler finally ticking off Stalin or Stalin finally ticking off Hitler. Both wanted Europe under their control and were far too close to each other to not fight eventually.
Singapore exists as an independent city state because of the race riots in Malaysia against ethnic Chinese, meaning that Singapore in Malaysia was no longer tenable. Singapore's conservatism is reinforced by this. They understand that they can be ripped apart by racial and economic strife.
And in many social aspects Singapore is less conservative than muslim-majority countries nearby, like Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei. WAY less conservative
7:10 is an example of... 1. Good times create weak men. 2. Weak men create bad times. 3. Bad times create strong men. 4. Strong men create good times. We are in a period of transition between 2 and 3.
If we look at history: The weak men are not physically weak. They're mentally weak. -Emasculate men like Dr. Seuss do not crave political power. It's the ones who act aggressively on their own self-interest that create issues. And good times are what blind people to it. The public just doesn't see it until the stores run out. Or your home isn't safe to live in.
1:49 debatable. A lot of social conservatives (including this one) view social conservatism as very anti-utilitarian and pro-absolutist, where morals are guided primarily by inherent concepts of natural rights granted by God (effectively Christian ethics). We see utilitarianism as the fruit of social liberalism, where truth and righteousness doesn't matter but the common good does. I say this not only as a conservative but as a rural conservative who hunts and ranches. Yeah, we know about death, but we're more concerned with being morally right than we are with not dying, and we are WAY more idealistic than a lot of the urban liberals we know.
So Singapore becomes an interesting test. As people realize that all land has been accounted for. Idealism will have to face the reality of human density if we want to maintain nature. Must read more about Singapore.
Yes. America has not gotten out of this Idealist Phase yet. And even some countries in Europe as well. America being the most resistant to it. Because their whole history up to this point has been about Pioneers and Self-interest. They just don't want to hear it. And the number of pragmatic people is small. Almost like a persecuted, intellectual minority.
This is exactly why my family spent a lot of time deer hunting and fishing on the east side of the Sierra Nevada mountains, only mountain people back there and mountain lions, bear, forest, streams and cliffs. We're well educated, but deadly nature gives you balance and practical sense. If you survive. Haha But I still watch my surroundings in a big city or town. I never feel safe, so I'm always safe. There could be something to eat us in every bush, or as I always heard, fear kills, panic kills.
I think there's a lot more fear among the urban poor and homeless than among farmers and ranchers. There is a lot more crime in cities. Most people in rural areas are not extremely poor.
I broadly agree with this statement, but I think it comes with some important caveats. I grew up in a small farming community in Wisconsin and moved to the Minneapolis Metro as an adult. It isn't always helpful to paint urban and rural areas in broad terms. Large cities may have more violent crime and homelessness in total, but the seriousness of the situation depends on the neighborhood. The wealthier the neighborhood, the safer they tend to be. I used to believe that the real divide was between rural and urban, but now I think the real line runs through rural areas. If you live in a small community that can support a young population, you can grow wealth faster than in a city (even with lower wages). However, if you live in a community below a certain threshold, things can get ugly (extreme poverty, loss of services and deaths of despair).
@iamnobody2 briefly. I very briefly, for just a few months, lived in wheeling, west virginia, between pennsylvania and ohio. But i'm from south texas, and have lived here all my life, except for those few months. I was born in a small town of about 5000 people, south of san antonio. I spent my teens on a ranch/farm, several miles outside of a town of about 2000 people, and several miles from my hometown. I am currently living at a homeless shelter on the western edge of downtown san antonio. I had lived for about a year in san antonio's west side, near zarzamora, in an overwhelmingly mexican residential area. And about 2 years on san antonio's northeast side, near rittiman, in a mixed black/white/mexican/korean industrial area.
The video is generally correct, but missed the main reasons big cities tend to attract liberals. There are two kinds of liberals: People who pay NO attention and just go with the influences around them. Mentally ill. The latter breaks into a. Egotistical, self-centered, predator types, and b. Damaged types who feel they can't cope on their own. Easily influenced, want government to be mommy, and driven by emotional voids. "Conservative people are mean because they think laws should be enforced! They're rich and don't care about people like me who aren't! (Typically college-educated women.) Liberals are smarter and more fair!" Liberal = weak = huddle together for comfort = big cities. The rest is a by-product.
Never forget that the liberal idealism conservative realism divide is along lines as basic as C: "But if you ban cattle farming, how will you get milk?" L: "What do you mean, I'll just buy it from the grocery store?"
We genetically engineered yeast to produce cow's milk in 2021. Most of our agricultural needs can be met in a less land-intensive way. The deciding factor is cost. It's cheaper to offload the byproducts on the environment when we dont price that into goods.
I think I disagree with the fundamental premise of the argument. I think that societies become more liberal as greater cohesion is required and more conservative as things become more stable. For instance if things are all right why would you change it you would try to keep it or conserve it. Now cities are comprised of vast numbers of people and often act as a central hub of a lot of different cultures where they all meet. In order to make this possible the population must be accepting and permit dialogue. As an aside their is archeological evidence that in the state of nature where survival is critical people are a lot more socialist as everyone needs to contribute and share resources. Getting back to why rural areas are conservative it is because life their is stable with no real threats especially in developed states. This allows for the mindset that things are okay why change it and because their are far fewer people it becomes easy for this sentiment to spread and because no one from outside has a real reason to go their outsiders with other ideas don’t often come or stay.
I think people always want to tie in Liberal = Democrat Conservative = Republican. But it can be interchangeable. It's not as black and white as one might think because you could have a Conservative with a few Liberal ideas and visa versa. The only way that works is if someone is extreme left or extreme right. But that's not how humans operate. We aren't robots. We have red states, blue states, and purple swing states. There's plenty of cities (not large ones mind you) that are Conservative. And isolated small towns that are Liberal too.
I was about to stop watching after the fairly unappetizing description of what drives conservatism, but I stuck with it, only to hear an equally damning description of liberalism. Wow, I love it. So true.
Actually, after reading many comments on the thread, the next question might ought to be, "Why do so many rural people express such bitter hatred for their fellow citizens who happen to live in cities?" Seriously. I don't see any city person here making any references to "Deliverance," which frankly would be about as accurate as your sneer toward urban people who you imagine are some other inferior species. Which sort of makes me wonder whether there's a self-selection process going on whereby people like yourself who are fearful and suspicious of anybody who isn't like them just find it easier to live in less urban more homogeneous areas.
@@OliverHellenbachThe issue is that the cities dictate politics, which do not work with the issues of the rural population. It's resentment, and the after effects of northern discrimination of Southerners makes many of the rural populace hold bitter resentment.
@@Facesforce I'm not sure you're right that "cities dictate politics." In some places it's exactly the opposite--North Carolina, for instance. Or Texas. Or Missouri. It woiuld be useful if you could describe some of these that "do not work" with the rural population. I think you're probably right that in many southern states, a lot of right-wing white people are still bitterly resentful about, basically, the outcome and aftermath of the Civil War. I"m not sure what kind of "discrimination" southerners had to endure as a result. Again, maybe you could be specific about what these are. Seems to me a lot of resentment on the part of white Southerners is about the feds requiring them to get rid of laws forbidding black people from voting or using separate water fountains, or being able to go to state universtiies, etc. Or to stop gerrymandering to dilute the black vote, as a recent Supreme Court decision just required of the poor mistreated white people in Alabama. Or, the poor mistreated southerners are now required to recognize gay marriage. Does all this somehow "not work" for southern white people? Well, maybe not, but frankly, that's too damn bad. What's especially exasperating is that these people want to enact racist anti-gay laws, and then scream like stuck pigs when somebody points out that they are in fact being racist gay-haters. ("Why are you calling us such names, you big meanies?")
I think also it has to do with the theory of Maslow (hierarchy of needs). Life is tougher in the countryside and therefore people don't think about minority rights or other intellectual ideals because this is nothing that they are confronted with on a day to day basis
So in other words, Traditional values, Social Conservatism, and Christianity in the West are dead for good and there's no way of returning to them. Societal collapse will ensue, but what comes after will not be a return to the old Conservative, Christian values. Rather, it'll be something new entirely. It's sad, but those values are dead for good and with urbanization, it's safe to say that Traditionalism/Conservatism is a failed ideology and Christianity is doomed to die...
I can imagine our future being similar to the show Futurama. You have a lot of different people doing their thing. But there's still a system in place. So people can get along with each other.
I’m from a city of 7,000 people in Alabama and nothing boils my blood like people in NYC or LA or DC trying to tell people from anywhere in the rural south, to the rural west, to the rural Midwest, to the rural northeast, on how we should live. They want us to live like them.
I work in the tourism industry and see people from all over the world. I've noticed that people from cities lack knowledge of how the world works, I've had to stop people from approaching bears because they think "bears are used to people, so they're friendly." They also don't know anything about resources or how they are produced. Remember Bloomberg running for president called farmers dumb because their job is "plant a seed and pour water on it." These people are like ai in a video game. They walk around, say stupid things, then get farmed by a criminal for xp.
I’ve seen those same kinds of people but, on the other hand you also have people from rural areas who really don’t know how things work outside of their country or even small community. Their conception of foreign cultures ends with what they see at the local Chinese or Mexican restaurant.
. But they don't NEED to know about foreign cultures, because they have no say in foreign policy. The urban population has wealth and votes, which makes their ignorance dangerous. The farmer's ignorance is merely amusing.
@stevenscott2136 then maybe you're not as strong and manly as you thought if these weak city dwellers have such dominion over you. Reading your nasty comments makes me glad you're angry and frustrated, though 😂
@@michaelsurratt1864 No it's reality. The same reality that dems living in their parents basements deny. Until it happens, and then they sit there wondering what happened.
@@chandelier6811 You mean to tell me strong times don't make it easier on people, making it to where they don't NEED to develop their own skills or be able to protect what they need and therefore won't. If you are provided for and dont need to work, most don't! I mean honestly it just makes sense
progress is not inevitable. just because you're wealthier than you've ever been doesn't mean you can't suddenly be bankrupted by an illness or disaster. also, in the last 10-15 years cities have swung away from "social liberalism" to embrace their own unique form of "social conservatism" where the old "sins" of traditional conservatives are seen as an existential threat (racism, sexism, etc) despite all those things being less prevalent than at any other time in history. its the same "destroy the things that threaten our survival" mindset, but with emphasis on different "threats" than the ones that rural conservatives focus on. this is happening because life in cities is, financially, much harder now than it was in previous decades. the threat of lions and wolves is something humans are used to, but the threat of becoming homeless because your rent doubled in the last two years is a different kind of stress. the past is the best tool we have for understanding the modern world, but unfortunately its not good enough. things have changed, the core principles behind some concepts are still valid but they must take into account changed circumstances. cities were safer than rural areas 100 years ago, but today the reverse is true.
If the troops are conservative and responsible for generate the food, the resources, and the rights for the Liberal cities why are cities allowed to have more votes then those who put in the blood and effort for the ungrateful?
For most of human history civilization was centered around kings or religious figures where disorganized tribes or people would all be united under the authority of said King/priest. When cities developed the strength of this authority grows much more stronger especially in the religious sense so in some ways social conservatism can exist in cities. This is specially true in Muslim countries where strong enforcement of religious law is practiced. the social liberalism of modern cities I would argue is a recent development that specifically emerged in the West where socially authoritarian governments have not been as common as Non-Western countries except for a few instances throughout certain time periods of history. democratization itself came about when a new kind of morality centered around people which originates within a persons conscience especially when the people are unique in some way. This self-morality could also cause social liberalistic ideals like equal rights, higher standards of living, & democracy but when this self-morality can also be found among conservative as well but with a focus on specific people rather than it being universalized. Generally though I would think that social liberalism, while it initially starts out as self-morality can gradually lean into authoritarianism as the reality of the world with limited resources & people fighting to survive the ideals of social liberalism where wealth & resources must be distributed equally would require a higher authority to conquer all of nature in order to extract all possible resources and give it to people they find deserving instead of people doing it themselves. So in the West cities tend to be liberal & more socially authoritarian & while conservative areas may be socially conservative but are more free in rule by allowing people to naturally work together & care about each other through their self-moral conscience.
As you said in the most EXTREME sense it's based on fear and survival. But that is an extreme interpretation of the concept. But then when you speak about the other side, you refuse to go to the extreme view there. You are automatically biasing the overall video but stating one side as Extreme and fear based, and the other as Idealism (but not speaking to the extreme aspect of idealism). If you were to go to the extreme version of idealism (a naiveté about the essence of man and absence of common morals as the pursuit of ones own interests is of far greater importance over anything else no matter how it might impact or effect others), then the examples you give (why can't we give away food for free, why can't government take care of all medical costs, why do we punish criminals) fit better as that self-interest yet lack of any concept or impacts is easy to see. As you briefly mention idealism is a removing of ones self from an understanding of reality, with the more idealistic a person being the more unrealistic they become (in the extreme). Now again both sides in this case are the extreme (Fear vs Lack of understanding reality), and like anything in life there are a multitude of complexities and subtleties and differences up and down the spectrum between the two extremes. And when you get down to it the core in both is Pursuit of ones own interests (just with a different driver behind them). But at least provide a balance. But a side item to this whole video is, think about the ongoing fight relating to work from home and how the concepts above play into it. The move to the suburbs was a major blow to idealism as while only 18% of Americans live in rural areas, enough live in Suburban areas that it balances out against the social liberalism as we often see. Why is it that when people move from the cities to the suburbs they often develop more social conservative views (well consider this video). So what happens when remote work comes into play and people now are not being influenced daily by having to work in the cities and instead deal with the day to day within their suburbs and local life (consider the video). The entire implication is Social Liberals do NOT want work from home to grow and want it to reverse as when people leave the crowded cities, their world view point changes and the ability to get their votes change. As a matter of fact the pursuit of ones on interests starts to shift and they no longer see punishment for crime as inhumane and they now see their own items at risk (the fear in a sense). Hence the fight over remote work is more of one where the Social Liberal order is fighting to retain the power and balance they have over Social Conservatives, as the longer this goes on, the more ground they are likely to lose.
but that makes no sense. Surely in the more densely populated inner cities where crime is more rampant they would feel more fearful over their possessions? At the very least over in europe, working from home is heavily pushed by the social liberals, as you would call them. It reduces overall costs for things like gas and eating out whilst also reducing management's ability to overburden workers and limit their ability to take breaks as they need them. But what i dont understand is the vehemence for liberalisation. Surely living in a more idealistic society where your needs can be consistently met is a good thing. I dont get why conservatives and liberals spurn eachother. Progress without stability is cancer. Stability without progress is decay.
Idealism and Pragmatism. I don’t think that only being an idealist or only being a pragmatist is the best. The way I see it, it’s sort of like how a building is made as described by Civil Engineers. Architects come to them with a design that is beautiful but impractical, and the Civil Engineers have to work with the design, changing it in areas and compromising some of the beauty in hopes of making it sturdy and functional. You need both Architects and Civil Engineers to build infrastructure. One dreams it up and the other brings it to reality. The Liberal Idealists dream up a utopian society, the Conservative Pragmatists pull them back and slow their speed and make sure they don’t fly towards the sun with wings of wax, instead trying to build a rocket that can withstand the heat. If we just had idealists, we would see a Utopia attempted by ultimately fall. If we just had pragmatists, we would never see civilisation advance, we would never even attempt a Utopia. That tug of war is needed to help advance civilisation at a safe rate. That’s how I see it at least. Although I will say I’m probably more of an idealist so I likely have my own biases. Take that take with a pinch of salt if you think it should be.
Unfortunately only a few people like you have the common sense to see the need for reconciliation across the American political spectrum instead of agitating for civil war or secession. Both urban and rural inhabitants need each other because they're part of the same economy. City dwellers do need food provided by farmers but at the same time farmers also depend on subsidies ultimately provided by urban taxpayers, for example. The problem with conservatives complaining about the urban-rural divide is that they start with an assumption of city dwellers being automatically evil and wrong for the simple reason that they have different policies to prioritize than rural ones. Cities are more in need of welfare programs because there's much more concentration of poor and homeless people there, rural areas are more in need of gun ownership due to higher security risks caused by distance from police departments. City dwellers hate cars because of increased traffic in urban streets (where more public transit would be more efficient in serving their transportation needs) while rural dwellers need them because they don't live from a walking distance to a bus stop or a subway station, etc.
Short explanation: they Have to be. It requires a Lot more rules, policies and laws when you stack people on top of each other. Which Also means that the majority of Men willing to put up with it are more submissive.
Exactly. And the group-minded people breed there, with the misfits either fleeing or ending up in prison. So every generation is a bit more collectivist than the previous.
I'd argue that your analysis is way off base. If what you were saying were true, then places like Tennessee, South Carolina, and Florida would be becoming less conservative and not more. Cities are more liberal for the same reason anyone becomes more liberal, diversity of ideas. Tennessee used to be far more liberal than they are now. Unions were defended by rural coal workers holed up with firearms. The idea of community was a common threat rather than being considered communism. While racism was as bad, within racial communities, welfare was considered a public necessity and opposing those in need being given food was considered monstrous. But conservative politicians, seeking to build a stronger base, sowed division and concepts of independence and capitalistic self righteousness. And that, along with post-9/11 bigotry being normalized, pushed the areas more and more conservative until you have what you have now. But people still are liberal in those areas and there are plenty of conservatives living comfortably in cities. The main driver is independence vs community. Prior to the civil rights movement, southern Democrats pushed unity and community. Now Republicans push division and self sufficiency. That is why cities are more liberal, because they are the epicenter of diversity and community requiring people of all different backgrounds to work together to survive. You can't start your own 10 acre farm in the city. And you can't rely on 50 neighbors for help in the country.
Actually cities are more capitalist and individualistic than rural areas,there is nothing "communitary" about American cities at all. They vote for the left simply for 2 reasons,the first is the stereotype they have about conservatism and Rural citizens,they think they are all uneducated and unfit for office. The other is that these cities are full of immigrants who also believe in stereotypes about conservatism,but that last one is fading away,minorities now are more republican than ever and if you check the Democratic Margin in big cities have shrink.
Add density increases, so does anonymity As anonymity grows so does propensity for bad behavior I wonder if there’s a density “sweet spot” where economy is maximized but social behavior is maintained
Ask Monsieur Z Anything
Patreon: www.patreon.com/monsieurz/membership
Would have Philip the handsome become a good Emperor had he lived to suceed his father maximilian?
If you could restructure the US voting system, what would it be and why?
This is a really informative, well-thought out and highly nuanced video, Z. Good job for making such awesome political commentary.
What if Austria-Hunagry was made of Chocolate.
Interesting Video
I've been saying forever, rural and urban areas need totally different governance and laws. what works in the city, does not translate to the country.
Liberal governments overtake conservative governments, so that wouldn't work. They'd never let us be. They won't even let African or Middle Eastern countries be... they impose themselves on everyone possible.
You aren't wrong
That calls for pragmatism from both sides i dont think we will see in this current setting.
Also only to a point human rights, civil rights, and personal rights can not be an option in either governance.
I've traveled and worked across the country, globe. But I actually live in rural area for 40+ years. Very often, when "city" people move to the country, they start doing things they shouldn't be doing.
What works in the city?
Besides looting, drugs and food stamps?
"Every dark age is followed by a renaissance"
I like this quote, thanks. I'll probably use it later.
The "Dark Ages" or Midieval Times were the years when Islam rose up. Europe waa colonized by Africans.
And every renaissance is followed by a dark age.
Not if the dark age becomes an extinction event like the mouse-utopia experiments.
It might sound nice but it is wrong though.
Well civilizations have cycles as postulated by Oswald Spangler
what if Austria-Hungary was made of chocolate
It was made out of bananas irl , but chocolate is too much man
Switzerland would invade
They would no longer be Hungary
Were, not was. 😅
This would have adverse affects on on the Franco-Polish-Brittannian empire's colony of Italiano East Australia (New Zealand)
This is a phenomenon going back thousands of years...in a way. There was a time when the divide was farmers versus hunter gatherers.
The farmers are the first 🏙️ builders 😂…that’s the Irony…every city 🏙️ in history starts as some sort of farm 😂😂…there are still hunter gatherers all over planet getting encroached on by farmers who are being encroached on by ranches that are being turned into towns that become city’s…..it’s the literal story of human civilization itself as he said….
This explains why I think the initial colonizing population on Mars will be conservative. Martians will, at least initially, live in a VERY hostile natural environment where even the most "middle of nowhere" wilderness on Earth will seem luxurious because even in the middle of the Sahara you can still breathe without a pressure suit. One simple mistake will be a quick death on Mars, and thus Martian colonists are likely to be very strict. Due to the fact goofballs that act out of line might be prone to doing dumb things as well as having to justify oxygen and food usage, those who either cannot pull their weight or act in ways dangerous to others might very quickly find themselves thrown out the airlock! Expect the population to be very high in trait conscientiousness and only enough trait openness to allow them to solve problems in a quick manner.
And that's before the demons show up, necessitating shooting a hole into the surface.
Kinda like the situation in 'The Expanse' , where the older generations of Martians are stil trying to terraform Mars and make the atmosphere breathable, while the younger generation has grown up with that situation and do not see a similar strong need to terraform the planet.
@@MTTT1234 Honestly, I'd say screw terraforming! Let the harsh environment be a check/balance against the "liberalization" that occurs on Earth. Specifically it will be a check in a way that might favor center-right (rather than any extreme) as extreme beliefs would be dangerous either way.
Agree with your comment totally (not sold on the 'screw terraforming' darwinism yet tho).
Also, I find it funny and apt you called the anti-social and criminal goofballs. Lmao. Imagine a situation: "We do a little trolling" *opens airlock* *kills thousands*
@@robertdelrosario139 That is why the Martian justice system will be VERY unforgiving.
Rural Europe does not have alligators, rattlesnakes, and other deadly animals.
Nigera has a significantly higher population density than either the US and Europe and has plenty of dangerous animals
Australia enters the chat....Am I a joke to you?
I mean they definitely have venomous snakes just off the top of my head common European viper (a type of adder), and boars drop more people than alligators.
They killed off all the wolves and bears years ago
Well, unless of course you consider the German AfP and France's Marine LePen.
Finally. Someone who has a real understanding of what "Consevative" and "Liberal" actually is on a practical level.
I will say that while this is true for the most part, in our current political climate in the Western world, "Neo-liberalism" or the "liberals" of today are not liberal at all, but dressed up authoritarians interested in pushing conformity, which is nearly the opposite in may ways. This leaves actual liberals of today in a weird spot, where some can be found in "conservative" parties, and some elsewhere.
@@ethanwilliams1880 You are 100% right. Liberals now are not liberal.
They want a authoritarian control. Maybe even a monarchy. This is why the cancel culture is so ingrained in liberals now. It reminds me of the babyboomers that were very left liberal thinking in the 70's but now most babyboomers are conservative. They really created the world we live in now. Most of them don't go as far left as liberals now and they even started feminism lol. Now I bet they regret it if they even understand what the world they made is. "Free love" Though right? lol
@@ethanwilliams1880 Most conservatives are philosopically liberal as well.
@@ethanwilliams1880 Liberals of today are more liberal than anyone has ever been.
@@epicphailure88yeah because American liberals are just retarded socialists
Historically, cultures become quite decadent before they fall. Some of Our big city folk are so detached from reality that they will blame some guy who farms his own food for climate change while ubering a plastic wrapped bagle from across town for their lunch.
You really cant reconcile people with such different existences, especially considering the side with the power needs the labor of the side that makes the food. In the future this relationship is going to look more like slavery. Not because the average city folk, but because the boujie people with the loudest voices resent the filthy plebs who are blocking their utopia.
So true city people have no real life experiences or hardships. Cities make people soft. I call people from the city cititards.
I always find it ridiculous when anyone who uses a provate jet lectures about climate change. In reality it is suburbia that drives the vast majority of automobile emissions. People will drive giant pickups that never haul anything that you couldn't with a modern sedan. The root of these issue is modern addiction to consumption.
@vaderbuckeye36 actually most emissions and road damage come from heavy tractor trailers and their wide spread usage. The truth of the matter it doesn't really matter of u drive or not it doesn't really reduce your carbon foot print all that much. The criminal neglect and stupid regulations on rail roads and, housing development, car manufacturing is what's causing what ur really talking about not consumerism. Quite honestly new "work" trucks like pick ups suck. Everyone who I know who has a business that requires a truck run old ass trucks and look to buy old trucks because they are easier to work on and they can actually haul stuff because the cab doesn't take up half the bed. Also car manufacturers push those trucks your talking about on idiot liberals voters because they make the most money off them because of stupid regulations those idiots voted for that in reality don't do shit help the environment and ruin our economy. Like Obama made our current car market with cash for clunkers and the pushing car manufacturers to stop making parts to fix shit or make stupid expensive so their "high emissions" cars are off the road when in reality some of those cars were actually better on emissions then the peice of shit cars we drive today that barely anyone can fix.
Nobody thinks people who grow their own food are the big cause of climate change... stop lying.
Decadence has always been a thing. I don't see how it is any worse now, then say 50 years ago
There is a happy, forgotten middle ground. It's called medium sized cities. They tend to be the best of both.
@@AmericanScout-USA Fair enough. Still, I would prefer to live on a well planned, well managed medium city than a backwater town or a big city. They tend to have most of good thing of big cities minus the problems that scalate exponentially after a certain size.
"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.
We do need cities to continue our technological and economic growth, but farms and ranches are necessary to keep civilization going at all. These days, we see urbanites calling farms "unnecessary" or "environmentally damaging" because they can't fathom that their food doesn't come from a grocery store. What the people of the cities need is a reality check.
I would argue we don't need cities for technological and economic growth. not anymore, we have seena decentralisation of these factors as communication and transportation technology improve. industry is better dispersed in towns in terms of money and supply, they were only in cities due to the need for face-to-face buisness, but since telephones they have been dispercing increasingly and this has been accelerated by screens.
similarly, places of thought and learning are decentralizing.
French farmers came up with a term for this: "Bobos". Short for bourgeois bohemians. It's become more popular and used elsewhere since. A few years back it came up in a disagreement in France where urbanites were arguing to protect wolf populations while farmers would shoot them to protect their sheep and other animals that provided their income.
@@dalegleneagles5072 “Bobos”, I like it!
At the same time there's been some push for urban farming, and don't forget the whole premise of the victory garden.
I love that you covered Singapore!
I lived there for work, and your points are all spot on. A popular T-shirt was "Singapore is a fine city" with images of some of the ways to incur fines (there are many).
Singapore is the most successful in modern times of the older city-state model, and incredibly successfull: as an exercise, one might overlay a map of SG over Houston which is shocking to see for Americans
I know dozens of people who moved there from Malaysia (almost all ethnically Chinese) and they tell me the same. In the long-run, I think an added layer of proactive government policy on top of their beautifully crafted economic policies is essential to curbing the excesses of high civilization and high culture. Unfortunately for Singapore, I think this would require a government that is explicitly and unabashedly Christian, which is the polar opposite of the multi-religious mosaic they are trying to gold together.
Why would they need a Christian government?
@@user98344 Because it is difficult to maintain social conservatism outside of a religious framework. In a materialistic worldview, it is difficult to justify bans on homosexuality. There used to be such a ban in Singapore for many years, but it was repealed because it was impossible to strongly justify it under a secular ethos. Christianity is a particularly good religion for society in terms of maintaining traditional morality. It also happens to be one of the more popular religions in Singapore, making it an even more ideal choice.
But most importantly, Christianity is true and realist societies should publicly embrace truth on principle. Singapore is rightly praised for being an orderly society, but justice is a prerequisite for lasting order and truth is a prerequisite for justice.
@@williamcrawford7621 First of all, because you believe something is true doesn't mean is true for everyone. Secondly, Singapore isn't so successful because of the values it has but because of its economic policy and most importantly its geography. Belarus is also an authoritarian country with traditional values (Christian ones) but is far from prosperous.
@@user98344 Why do you think Singapore has had such a successful economic policy? It is ideally located, yes, but it also made many good economic decisions on the basis of its communitarian ethos. Singapore explicitly rejects both liberalism and communism. They reject communism because it crushes the entrepreneurial spirit of ownership, but they also reject individualistic liberalism because it places private interest ahead of the public interest. That is not a mere economic policy; it is a value system.
And it is misleading to describe Belarus as Christian. It was part of the Soviet Union for decades. Consequently, it was an officially atheistic state for most of the last century and its economic policy has hardly changed since then. While much of the population of Belarus is Christian, the country is a dictatorship that doesn't exactly express the will of the Christian majority.
Except in Brazil, here the cities mostly ( especially the capitals )are conservative and the countryside( the poorer ones in the northeastern region as the ones in the south are usually conservative too ) is leftist, except for São Paulo
Belo Horizonte, Rio de Janeiro, Curitiba, Goiânia and even Brasília itself are some examples
I am sure this is only valid for northeastern brazil,southeastern brazil is more like the rest of the world,and minas only is diferent because northern minas is northeastern geographicaly and culturaly
Are the rural people actually more socially liberal or are they just voting left wing because they’re poorer areas and want city wealth redistributed to their local region instead? I doubt if you asked rural and urban people the same questions about social issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, divorce, immigration etc. That you’d get more ‘progressive’ opinions from the country folk. People vote left wing because they want other rich peoples money for themselves and has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal socially.
I don't know if that is even relevant since the elites in those cities tend to be just as liberal and push for the same things as the elites in the US.
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 What the guy said there is only half true. There's more of a divide between the northern and southern halves of Brazil than a urban/rural divide; for example in São Paulo the countryside voted way more for Bolsonaro than the capital, while the opposite happened in Amazonas. However, the left is strong in northeastern Brazil majorly due to their economic policies of a (kinda weak) welfare state and wealth redistribution; some could argue that the northeast is more socially conservative than the southeast, since it is the most catholic region in Brazil.
This is somewhat like India where the right wing BJP first emerged in the big and medium sized cities in the 1990s and 2000s
Ive lived in Rochester NY, Miami FL, spent time in LA CA, SF CA, Vegas but the majority of my life has been spent in smaller towns and countryside.
Just from my own perspective, both political view make sense based on the day to day of the people and their communities.
Finally someone who makes some sense.
Conservativism is based on experience, and Liberalism is based on imagination. People would cease to exist without both.
Liberals have the time to imagine...sometimes too much.
@@diogenesdacynic8656yeah like imagining a man can become a woman….
@@sebastianorozco1114there's always someone like you in these videos, da hell did trans people do to you? mfers think they're doing god's work by being a douche to someone
@@sebastianorozco1114 transphobic ass
Experience = reality, imagination = delusion
Cities mean relying on people to the point of not knowing their names
Small towns know the cashier/linesman/construction worker and they bring each other deserts occasionally
Rural people are the new barbarians/uncivilized. City people think of themselves as Roman
Yes most upper class urban dwellers think of themselves as sophisticated erudite .
Yes they remind me of sausage on a Noble Roman's pizza, that look and taste like rabbit turds.
Then you remember inner city crime, violence, and poverty and waste and realize the city dwellers resemble the barbarians more.
@@YAH2121
Do you know how the CRIME RATE IS CALCULATED? It's the number of crimes divided by the number of residents.
Red States have a higher crime rate than Blue States, even the big cities of Blue States. For years, HAZARD, KY has the highest murder rate in the U.S.
I already know that you never passed a course in statistics, and chances are good that you didn't earn a bachelor's degree. I also
already know your political opinions.
INCEL much?
It’s true cities will slowly but surely impress their values on the rest of us, but it’s not inherently liberal. Just the will of the corporate interests that insist on open trade, open borders, and stripping the consumer of creed or color.
Nice to see someone else understands. If you are a leftist, it's likely you are unwittingly doing the bidding of megacorps, and you need to realize this and stop it to become a true leftist.
Bro you just described Republicans
@@michaelsurratt1864 More like democrats. It's not that there are many real differences anymore. It's more like a Uni-party, with slightly different factions.
I don't think the corporate interest is the cause, they're more like an effect that's turned into a positive feedback loop.
@@johnperic6860 it’s not necessarily these powers themselves who reside in the cities, but their foot soldiers. The thought leaders. Media, marketing, entertainment, and education. Geographically, it makes sense that the city dwellers they live among would be the first to fall under their influence.
A couple of thoughts: I am 62 years old. I was born in a relatively large city and have lived in that city all my life. I am a social conservative. You stated that 18% of Americans live in rural areas but about half of Americans vote socially conservative. Perhaps the difference is that conservatives understand the ideals, methods, and structures that afforded us the ability to build such great metropolises and they want to conserve those so that the human condition can continue to thrive.
But conservatives are the very ones holding back progression. Just because things worked(for those with a fairer skin) doesn’t mean that was or is the best way.
I’d bet you growing had some progressive ideas that are now mainstream but was suppressed by conservatives of those days.
@@skoolboi9901 True Conservatism would have saved the planet. If it weren't for "Progressives," people would all be living like the Amish right now. Instead, "Progressives" kept pushing for the world to be easier to live in. It's all of the modern decadence that has caused the untenable amounts of pollution. "Progress" is what led to ships crossing oceans, which led to more wars, more colonizing and the intercontinental slave trade.
Conservatives of each generation largely want to be left alone, to work, raise a family, and mind their own business. Then the Progressives come around and stir things up. Whenever that happens, they throw the baby out with the bath water and make something unforeseen (by them) way worse, while trying to make something else better.
You're guilty of this, yourself. You talk about trying to do things the "best way." The _best_ way was for people to live in small groups, minding their own business, living whatever life they could make for themselves. "Progress" has been the opposite of that, throughout history. Arrogant morons who think they know better than the next guy how that guy should live. It's asinine.
Only about half of the country actually votes (if you look at the number of voters from the last two presidential elections), making conservatives make up about 20-25% of the country's population, much closer to the 18% of Americans who live in rural areas. (This also means the roughly 20-25% of Americans vote liberal as well, while a significant portion either abstain from voting or are children too young to vote).
@@skoolboi9901 What progression, exactly, are Conservatives holding back? The progression to let women get the shit beat out of them by playing football with me? The progression to chop the dick off a 9 year old boy who knows he's a woman because lunatic mommy said so when the boy can't even decide what he wants to eat for dinner? Or maybe electrical vehicles, which are sourced by slavery and still backed by fossil fuels? Maybe you mean renewable energy which is a blatant lie on it's effectiveness and lack of carbon footprint, when the factual science shows the exact opposite - As if renewables could fuel the lifestyle Americans are accustomed to in any way (they can't). So tell us exactly what factual progression that would truly benefit this country are you referring to?
@@GoeTeeks So the other half of the country that doesn't vote are _all_ liberals? Have you ever studied statistics?
Politics are secular religion. People always wanting to subjugate one another to conform to their beliefs of what the world should be. Rather than cooperation, we have conflict. It's all about ego (I am better than they are) rather than genuinely wanting to make society a better place.
This 3:39 depends on "what part" of "what Urban city" we are talking about here. Not all parts of Chicago, Philadelphia or St. Louis would meet the standards of "not harsh, cruel or hazardous" or meet the standards of being "orderly and comfortable" trust me. For example take a ride down Kensington Ave in Philly and will see the exact opposite of what you just described. You won't have to look very far to find your entertaining content. Content creators on youtube make videos of it and get monetized for it, that is how bad that area is.
Singapore goes too far for my liking. All media is owned by the government, citizens don't have the right to obtain government records, the government and corporations intermingle way too much, and the government has the right to censor or remove anything they deem to be "misinformation", or "defamation", including on the Internet.
The disconnect comes from a few things, of which you alluded to.
The big government/small government argument can be looked at this way: people in the bigger cities are inherently dependent of government services: sanitation, water, sewer, etc. Without the bureaucracy that comes with urbanization, life in those urban centers would be unlivable.
This is also reflected on tax revenues and spending. Particularly with the de-industrialization of large swaths of rural areas, where one or two companies were the life blood of these communities, money from taxes and fees is generally invested more in urban centers.
I live in Pennsylvania, and this is shown by the differences between, say, Philadelphia and somewhere in NEPA or central PA. Years ago, the Commonwealth invested $250 million in a convention center complex in Philly. Our "upstate" tax dollars went towards this, and it can be argued that we'd see neither a direct, nor indirect, benefit (see also the arguments for and against trickle down economics). Roads/bridges as well; vehicle registration fees, and, in particular, liquid fuels taxes, fund these projects.
We inherently bear more of a burden with these LFT by virtue of where we live.
Overall, the feeling is that, although we are all citizens of the Commonwealth, us in the non-urbanized areas (The T, or Pennsyltucky as it is sometimes called) are left behind in favor of the more populated areas. There's a resentment there.
Unfortunately, neither side can appreciate the others views, simply because neither side lives as the other does. And, it has defined cultures. High speed rail connecting to NYC? Probably a good thing. But at what cost would the growth come with?
Ideally a rail system would benefit the rural areas it travels through, allowing for greater movement and commute opportunities for those living in such areas, as well as greater investment in those areas from businesses hoping to partake in the economic activity a railroad would bring. Railroads are how we settled the west, and I believe greater investments in passenger rail will provide a lot more economic benefit than normal highways do.
The cost of NOT being left behind in a World where the Rest of the planet will Not pump its breaks on advancing technology as rapidly as possible just to make some people in the woods feel better about themselves…weather the woods are in China or the US…AI could care less about the woods or the city’s🤣..all are just units of IMPUT..production…consumption..
summary: human domestication.
I lived in central pa and northern pa for five years, I really feel ya. The government didn’t really invested in rural areas, some towns I went to only have basic fire and end services. Many people contracted with private companies to plow the snow in the winter instead of city offering plowing. There is a senses of self- reliance in the area. However, these people are basically paying same amount of taxes as city folks. They got charged on grocery shopping, gas refill, income taxes and so on. But the benefit they got from paying these taxes are much less than city folks. It always makes me wonder why I am paying so much money while I ain’t get less from it
@@darksmith7318 Not the same amount, taxes are definitely higher in the city. And in the urban areas, you're paying significantly higher taxes for maybe a quarter-acre of roadfront and water pipes and whatnot. Whereas in the country, taxes are lower but there are several miles of road and water pipes and whatnot because the population is so spread out. So where does the money to support that come from? From the cities. Paying higher taxes and getting less for it, because they have to subsidize the rural areas. The rural areas are getting much more from it than urban areas.
Yes, there are less services in rural areas, because there's so much less tax revenue, and there's only so much supplemental revenue that the cities can send to spread around and give to the rural people. Because it's so much more spread out, and so much more expensive to support.
The farmers are the first 🏙️ builders 😂…that’s the Irony…every city 🏙️ in history starts as some sort of farm 😂😂…there are still hunter gatherers all over planet getting encroached on by farmers who are being encroached on by ranches that are being turned into towns that become city’s…..it’s the literal story of human civilization itself as you said….
In developed countries, it’s true that cities are usually more politically liberal than the surrounding countryside, however, this pattern doesn’t necessarily hold up in the developing world. In fact, it’s often the inverse. In the last Brazilian election, for instance, Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch conservative, carried both Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, while his opponent won big in many relatively rural states like Bahia. In the last Peruvian election, the conservative Fujimori won handily in the coastal capital of Lima, but lost by wide margins to her left-wing opponent in the country’s interior. And across the world in India, the conservative nationalist Bharatiya Janata party won easily in major cities like Delhi and Mumbai, while also carrying much of the countryside, except for areas with a history of ethnic and religious separatism.
The Urban-Rural political divide as a Liberal-Conservative divide is a developed world phenomenon, and more than anything else, a Western phenomenon, as even in Japan and South Korea etc, conservative parties have no trouble doing well in cities.
In the developing world, it's more about wealth and socialism vs capitalism and poorer rural areas more socialist and wealthier urban areas more capitalist whilst socially conservative believes are found across political spectrum, while in developed world, more social issues with the progressive cities vs traditionalist countryside. Also perhaps ethnic breakdown too, eg developing countries, ethnic minorities, and in India, religious minorities, which tend to vote more left wing, tend to live in the countryside(eg Brazil and Peru, cities disporpotionally white while countryside disporpotionally indigenous or African). In western countries they tend to live in major cities, while countryside has homogenous population of majority ethnic group
The experience of living in a big city is above-all and exercise in pluralism. We encounter all kinds of people, food, languages, etc. that is why big cities are generative centers for new ideas.
If you are related to 10% of the folks in your town, it is harder to find folks of a like mind, unless you are a vanilla person.
Walz is right about the MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS principle when it comes to your right to privacy, sexuality, religious beliefs, philosophy. But if what you do actually impacts someone's quality of life, you will be asked to cease and desist.
In the Minneapolis/St.Paul metro, half the population came here from somewhere else. So, if you didn't go to college here and have few or no relatives in town, it is somewhat harder to meet new people than in the BIG metro areas.
In even smaller cities with big universities or military bases, there is enough churn of population that there will be many who want to meet you, perhaps share in a project.
Simple.
Cities are completely controlled by the state and sometimes that does make things convenient, especially for those who can't help themselves.
The further out, the less the government has to offer, the less the government is even involved.
Liberalism is the worship of the state.
I grew up in Binghamton NY hahaha I don’t think I’ve ever heard that placed mentioned for anything ever. Thanks for the comparison to Vatican City!!!
You bring up some good points.
I think another factor, which you didn't address, is that the survival needs of living surrounded by so many people is very different from the survival needs of living in even a fully-tamed, but empty, "wilderness" park. Living in a crowded place may mitigate many of the "natural" risks, but also introduces new ones.
Let's take guns as a prime example. Living out where the nearest neighbor is a good fraction of a mile away, or more, you do not need to seriously worry about getting hit by a stray shot, from a poorly considered discharge. In a city environment, however, where the only thing separating you from your neighbor might be two sheets of half-inch drywall and a little paint, the chance of your neighbor accidentally shooting you, in your own home, from their own home, entirely by accident, is very real.
I can understand why someone in a city might be afraid of guns, but I'd sooner every city be forced to obey the 2nd amendment, than every rural area that exists in the shadow of those cities, every state that has more city dwellers than rural dwellers, the nation as a whole, lose access to private ownership and use of guns. If it's one OR the other, If one of us is going to be forced to bend to the will of the other, it's not going to be me or mine any longer. 89 years of encroaching gun control is too long, and too much, already.
Let's look at another. Casual friendliness. I could be wrong on this, but it is my impression that city dwellers tend to be, ruder, than their country-living brethren.
In a city, you're likely to see hundreds of strangers just on your way to work. Dozens to hundreds of strangers at work. Hundreds of strangers on your way home from work. And dozens to hundreds of strangers whenever you go out to play.
In the country, depending on where you are and what you do, you might see fewer than a hundred people all day, and you'll likely know most of them, by name and by habits.
And none of them are angling to mug you as soon as you drop your guard.
Edit. A word.
I've had similar thoughts. That the needs of living in close quarters with others are different than the needs of living more spread out.
In a crowded environment being able to live together with people you don't know requires more rules that limit freedoms, such as noise ordinances or leaf burning. Being free to swing your arms around as you wish runs a much greater chance of smashing into someone else's nose. There's also a concentration of resources, so its much more efficient to pool together to share plumbing rather than a well and septic tank. As well as closer resources of police and fire.
In a rural environment there is a greater need to be more self sufficient. You can't always rely on quick access to fire or police, or even quality handyman help. Rules and regulations that professionals can meet get in the way if you need to patch your roof yourself. You need to be more personally responsible and thus need greater freedom to swing your arms freely.
Regarding casual friendliness. I live in a midwest city but have lots of family who live in more rural areas. When I go visit, people driving, walking, boating by more often than not give a wave, something that doesn't happen much in the city. However, in my case my rural family are more reticent to talk to or strike up a conversation with a stranger (Not just some rando, I mean someone you have reason to talk to).
On your point about friendliness you are correct. People in small comunities are closer and at some level or another connected in their relations. There is a need for cooperation in those comunities if any thing needs to be done. However that closer connection comes with a lot of negatives. Gossip and peer pressure is really opressing, everyone knows each other and their families for generations. I was born in a small town, but in the same week moved to a larger industrial town where i was raised. It is impossible for me to understand my relatives that stayed their whole lives there and they to understand me. The cultural divide is on the level of being from a different country.
Well...as far as city dwellers bring rude....well remember that cities are more civilized. "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
- Robert E Howard
I will say, that country people are definitely friendlier, but only to people who look and behave like the people around them. They tend to be wary and closed-off from someone who is very obviously a stranger. There are more obvious manifestations of this, like someone of a different ethnicity, someone who dresses very differently than expected, someone who has outward expressions of being a different faith, like a hijab in a rural town in the US, or a cross necklace in a rural town in Quatar. But there are also more subtle manifestations of this, like how they might start to gossip about and undermine a person who seems like them on the outside, but expresses ideas and beliefs that don’t conform with those of the overall community.
I’ve noticed people from rural areas have a tendency to drop their friendliness when their homogenous culture is disturbed by a perceived outsider.
Sorry, but you don't need an assault weapon with a hundred round magazine to protect yourself if you live in a rural area. When the 2nd Amendment was created, they had no idea of the destructive capacity that modern weapons would be capable of. There was also no standing army and they wanted to be able to call upon citizen-soldiers at short notice, if we were invaded, which we were, during the War of 1812. That's why the first part of the amendment states "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", you know the part that the NRA always like to leave out. is written the way it is. We have a militia. No, not the Proud Boys, etc, but the national guard. And the Amendment, throughout the centuries, has been ruled as being regulated, until the NRA became the representative of the gun lobby, rather than its members. I'm not saying that nobody should be able to own guns, but we don't need those weapons of war in our society, urban or rural. Most of Europe has strict gun laws and their democracies have been rated as freer than ours and their gun related deaths are a small fraction of ours. Switzerland e.g. is a gun loving country, but they regulate where they can be used and the people are fine with that.
As for people being more rude in cities, that depends on where you live. I've lived in NYC, LA, DC and South Florida (urban areas) and didn't find people in LA, or DC to be rude. I've often found people in rural areas to be more standoffish, because they view you as an outsider and therefore suspicious. I've found that New Yorkers, on the other hand, will go out of their way to help people who are from out of town. Go figure.
This is what is called informative video. no bias no agenda, just pure information
What a weird thing to say under one of the most biased right wing propaganda pieces I've seen on yt so far
@@deadtake2664 as a centrist its pretty true in my opinion
@@deadtake2664 how is this right wing propaganda?
In my opinion, this kinda boils down to government. People who like or feel they need the government tend to be more liberal, while people who want to be left alone to tend to their own area tend to be conservative. This is why cities are liberal, because cities are largely deprived of privacy or personal ownership while most city dwellers don't know their neighbors or feel as though they can't depend on their neighbors living in their apartment block especially if they move around a lot.
Meanwhile rural dwellers tend to own their own homes and are locked into that location so they kinda have to know their neighbors because the populations tend to be lower and you're seeing the same people all the time. This means they're a much higher chance that those people will come to depend on each other and have a greater sense of community and are less likely to be dependent on the government.
Not that one is better than the other, but the problems start to show when the city dwellers start to impose their view on the rural people. Rarely do you see conservative people moving into cities and trying to change everything to fit their world view, but you certainly see liberal people moving away from their cities to someplace less expensive and voting for the same policies that caused them to leave the place they fled from.
You nailed it. My experience also.
@OptinihilistI'm not saying there aren't elements of conservatism that don't endorse a form of collectivism, but there is a difference between community and communism. In a community the relationships and exchange of goods tends to be voluntary, while in communism it's compulsory.
There's a difference between a farmer choosing to share their produce with the community and the government saying you MUST do it or else. Not to mention that city dwellers tend to develop this sense of "the government has resources and therefore **should** provide me with those resources" while doing as little as possible to provide for themselves.
And again, that's not to say every liberal/city person is like that, but it's a lot of them. That sense of entitlement that bleeds over into their entire world view. I don't consider myself to be conservative but I would much rather be around conservatives at this point that people with that entitled communistic mentality.
@@chrisbeer5685 Well I can't speak for conservatives, but those are moral issues. Speaking for myself I think all drugs should be legal and regulated, as long as we never have universal healthcare because I don't want to pay for drug addict treatment. If I become a drug addict I don't expect others to pay for my treatment.
I don't like abortion but I believe in personal freedom so if a woman wants to killer her unborn baby go ahead, kill as many as you want, just so long as we call it unborn baby killing and not abortion. I'm not religious so I don't care.
As for trans, if adults 18 and up want to transition that's personal freedom, but they gotta be 18 before they start any hormone replacement or surgery. Under 18 is legally a child and children are stupid and change their minds too much to commit to permanently altering their body (I include circumcision in this except for religious exemption). But personal freedom does not demand people address you by your identity if they don't want to, that's **their** personal freedom.
@@chrisbeer5685okay, I think we're mostly on the same page here, but like I said I'm not a conservative so I'd assume a conservative person who's deeply religious would have more of an issue with the abortions and the trans stuff, but for me it boils down to: don't physically hurt other people, don't abuse children, and don't cost me money. As long as you are 18+ and exercising your personal freedom and it's not conflicting with anyone elses I really don't care what people do.
Also by that same token, I also don't like the Jehovah's Witness approach of people knocking on my door trying to convert me to their religion while praying on my politeness in not slamming the door in their face and telling them to f-off.
I think that's kinda how conservatives feel about teachers talking to their kids about sex stuff. I don't have kids but if I found out my kid's teacher was talking about sex stuff and telling my kid not to tell me about it and keeping secrets from me I'd assume something nefarious is going on, especially given most US kids can't read or spell or do math. I'd feel the same way if the teachers were talking to my kids about Scientology and trying to educate them about Xenu.
Teachers teach it's who they are it's what do it's what they get paid for
As a Pole, I will add that the political division in my country is not only the division into large cities and the countryside. Of course, large cities are generally liberal, but the same largely applies to the areas in the west and north that were incorporated into Poland after WWII, the Germans living there were expelled and Poles were resettled there from the areas that the USSR took from us.
In my opinion, views on politics and culture are more determined by the degree of settlement continuity. People who have lived in a place for many generations and create communities with strong bonds are definitely more conservative than those who are new to a place. In the west and north of today's Poland, most of the population was immigrant, there were no strong social bonds, so they are not very socially conservative.
This division can be seen even in cities. Large cities in Poland are, as I mentioned, usually more liberal than conservative, but in the old eastern cities, such as Lublin, Radom or Rzeszów, which survived the war without major losses, the advantage of liberals over conservatives is less visible than in those whose inhabitants were mostly murdered or were expelled during the war, as in Warsaw, Gdańsk or Wrocław, and were settled from the beginning by mostly new population.
That makes sense. Everyone is in the same "village." Which makes cooperation and human bonds easier.
Liberal ideas are kind of an attempt to make a new community from scratch.
@@eksbocks9438 There is also less pressure on the members of the new community to adhere to conservative social norms, because everyone is a stranger to each other and feels insecure in the new place.
one of the big differences in mindset is who fixes a problem.
in a rural area if you see a problem you are the only one to fix it.
in a city it's always someone else.
not only that, if you try to fix a problem in the city yourself most of the time you will be punished and your efforts destroyed or wasted.
The reasoning might be as simple as cities attracting more people in poverty without the land or means to sustain themselves. Relative poverty and people in cities getting bitter that they can never afford a nice house may also be a catalyst for cities getting more left leaning post 2008 as well.
The other problem is an over-concentration of people who want to "save every wounded animal in the forest" no matter how dangerous that 'animal' might be to society as a whole. Many also think that every problem can be solved by government, which is not always the case.
Mind you, I look around my city (Toronto) and grouse how it seems like many young liberals have never taken an Economics class in their life, the way they go on about things.
The biggest factor is that the majority of the population in a city is lower class and the majority of immigrants live in cities, so the xenophobic and blindly nationalistic ideology of conservatives and the economic policies that favor only the rich and refuse to spend in public services that benefit everyone just won’t sell there
@@thiccchungo1041If it’s the conservatives whose policies favors only the rich, then why are corporations and most billionaires supporting and funding left-leaning policies?
@@Rand0mPeon Factually false. Both the left and the right are about equally funded in America, you're a two party state after all.
Not to mention that your left is considered pretty right in any other context, you don't have a left. Just extreme right and right.
@@Rand0mPeonthey support AN aspect of social liberalism because that gives the appearance of being progressive more than economically left-wing. If it means protecting the system then they’d rather have a include a few, female, POC’s, and LGBTQ people in it than let it get torn down completely. That’s not to say I have a problem with representation but it’s clear they don’t mind doing that if it means the structure can remain unchanged.
Who ever made this lives in an urban bubble their entire life. Rural America is wayyyy more peaceful and comfortable than urban environments.
It might just be that people are sorting themselves in to urban and rural areas based on their personalities. Collectivists want to join a big collective. They like population density. Individualists want to work on their own. They don't like to be in crowds.
This is certainly true for people who are born in rural areas, but I don't think it's true for people who are born in cities.
This makes sense and also explains why youths and academics are typically more liberal: kids usually experience less harshness than adults and may not know how the world works, and academics have tenure and ivory towers that likewise insulate from reality.
and this explains why liberalism has flourished relatively recently: "knowing how the world works" is much less of an advantage when the world is constantly changing. Conservatives at various points of time have tried to preserve how their society functions against various revolutions (information, industrial, republican, and agricultural), but it is only a matter of time.
@@MP-dn4bs There's an old quote that's something like "Today's radicals are tomorrows conservatives."
In it a way it's rebellion to the falsehoods of a conservative upbringing. It's not that learn something or don't have the experience. Do you think most red state rural America knows how to get along with folks that don't think like they do in a big city? I've become much more liberal as I get older because I see the hatred of living a conservative lie.
When it comes to the united states, it’s not like the conservatives aren’t out of touch. In fact, in the united states, conservatives are far, far more out of touch. A lot of them want to vote for a actual felon, many are horrifically racist, and some advocate for literally executing trans people.
It’s not hard to see why young people drift left when the right is becoming fascist.
I've heard this spiel from Dean many times, but it never ceases to be true.
Hello Josh! Love your videos!
I think it’s just that people with liberal views like urban environments more and tend to move there to a degree greater than conservatives, there’s evidence of this from a study conducted in Switzerland, and other studies that show how people’s political views don’t change when they move between urban and rural areas
That seems unlikely considering there's no historical precedent for this.
@@johnperic6860 There isn't? What about how various formerly republican U.S. states have become contested or even thoroughly democrat due to in-migration, Colorado comes to mind because the changes in voting cannot be solely attributed to hispanic growth, or how Texas and North Carolina are becoming more liberal mainly due to migration. Those are examples of how political change is not people changing their minds, but rather new people moving in, usually to the major cities. People with more conservative views are likely more content with their environment regardless of where it is, whereas liberals will actively seek out urban areas and so tend to dominate them while leaving the rural areas to the unmoving conservatives. Most people don' t drastically change their political views, and so the idea that cities cause people to be liberal is odd, whereas it makes more sense that liberals are attracted disproportionately to cities
@@darthguilder1923 Example, in the US, except northern New England, states with large percentage born locally tend to be conservative whilst state with low percentage born locally tend to be liberal
@@darthguilder1923 The irony is that the people moving to Colorado, NC, Georgia (Atlanta) and Texas (and even New Hampshire) are largely those from places like California and New York. So liberals leaving the most liberal places to go somewhere comparably conservative. Seems like idealism in the voting booth vs pragmatism in the day to day. Your point about conservatives being more content could also explain why one could argue formerly reliable liberal places are becoming more contested as well - like in the industrial midwest - as their liberal population has more moving away to the same places you mention while the conservatives are more likely to stay behind.
@@dalegleneagles5072 Those transplanted Californians don't KNOW that they ruined California. So it never occurs to them that they will ruin Colorado. They believe in their ideology, so it must be something else that caused the problems.
I think that what many people forget is that the entire reason we succeeded as a species is because we worked together to reach common goals that helped one another and created these safer communities/environments. We need to set up a happy medium where we support people so that they can feel able to reach out and contribute towards a greater society while not enabling those of us who aren't as altruistic and would just mooch off of everyone else. From what I have seen, people who feel hard core strong in one direction or another are heavily influenced by local tradition, culture, and parental influence.
2:00 I dont think the conservatives live in fear because they are well trained and prepared to take on what is dangerous in the world. Like you said, they know the world is not a safe place, but training and preparing to survive in this world is not because of fear, its because of reality.
i am well trained because i know how bad the world can go. i prepare because i know danger. on some level this is true, fear motivates me.....but that's not a bad thing
Lol yeah apparently liberals dont fear the world. Apparently there are no liberals living outside of the city. The video was completely ridiculous.
I can't believe people get paid to make this type of stuff😂
@@gh0s1wav Agreed, like theyre not out here saying "white supremacists are coming" every segment of the MSM.
The assertion that conservatism is caused by fear is idiotic in the extreme. Conservatism is about self-reliance, peace in one's community, and keeping big government out of one's business. It has nothing to do with fear at all. Reducing crime isn't driven by fear. It's driven by not wanting crime in your community. The rest of the assertions about Conservatism are not even worth addressing. The thought that anyone in America is not near to stores with products on the shelves is stupid. Unless you live in a remote part of Alaska or in a wilderness area, you can probably get to a store. Most people in America are no more than an hour away from any store they need. That isn't an absolute, but most conservatives don't live in shacks in the woods.
As for the assertion that Republicans want immigration, that is stupid and a complete fallacy. Democrats want votes and give free everything to migrants to get those votes. Before anyone says something stupid like "immigrants can't vote," just stop. In areas that don't require ID to vote, they vote. How else does anyone explain the 2020 statistics in Los Angeles County, where 130% of legally eligible voters voted. Not 130% of registered voters, 130% of eligible voters, post election stats, so nope, people who moved into the area were counted as eligible if they met California's extremely lax requirements for voting.
Liberals are people removed from reality who can't think critically or logically. Releasing violent criminals from jail the same day they shot someone is what causes gun crime, not law-abiding citizens owning guns. It's not rocket science. No consequences for bad behavior result in more bad behavior.
Pie in the sky assertions that if you're nice to the criminal who is raping you, everything will be just fine is stupid in the extreme.
Anyway, stay in your big cities and deal with the consequences of your voting. Don't come to my neighborhood and bring your bad policies with you. I don't need the government to provide me anything, I don't want more crime, and I don't need homeless junkies sh*tting on my property or in the streets.
Have a wonderful day.
Classical liberalism (Reaganesque version of late 17th C. Enlightenment) seemed sustainable. Coastal urban dwellers who interact with foreigners found it commercially beneficial, and rural types who dislike government intervention found it patriotically wholesome. Today the '80 Reagan-Bush ticket ("Let's Make America Great Again") wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
wait i'm confused
we already had MAGA what are you talking about "it wouldn't stand a snowballs' chance in Hell"
Where were you in 2014-2021 during the Trump Era?
I don't recall the '80 Rep campaign slogan as "LMAGA." No they wouldn't stand a snowballs chance and rightly so, the red team's heroes did more to destroy the working class than Clinton and the Shrub's were ever able to do. In 2023 there is no middle class, you're either rich or poor, living in Mexico or living in Mexico North.
@@fduranthesee i think he means in urban communities
@@fduranthesee The borrowed slogan was the only similarity between those Republicans and MAGA. To me, Magas, Freedom Caucus, etc. are Republican In Name Only. The RNC has booked the second candidate debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, and Trump is whining about the venue. He will not be welcomed there by Reagan fans.
in 1980 boomers were like 30 years old and had just lived through the stagnant 70s with a recession and gas shortage. They were longing for the America they grew up in, in the 50s and early 60s. So the "make America great again" slogan really worked. It helped that Reagan was about their parents age, seemingly welcoming them home and promising to take care of them.
Even though I've moved to a bigger city, I do feel myself becoming more conservative as I get older.
Youre becoming more wise
The opposite of Progressive, is Stagnant. It's not wise to be stuck in your ways.
But there is such a thing as “progressing” too far. Surely you don’t just go along with everything people are trying to normalize these days, many of those things are immoral, like say abortion, sex-changes for kids, pedophilia or beastiality. You have to strike a balance between optimism and realism, because the tail-end of progressivism always ends up accepting morally bankrupt practices into society as a way of promoting “inclusion”.
@@MikMoencertain ways are actually good to be stuck in. Why break something if it doesn't need fixing? New ideas are good, but not all of them are
This happens to a lot of people due to a lot of things that kind of work in the background.
Often as younger people you want to help everyone and for there to be world peace etc but then as you get older you realize how hard that is and kind of give up, instead you only need to focus on yourself . So in a way for many there’s an extreme loss of empathy that happens over time.
At takes a lot of seriousness, grit and determination to continue a lifelong fight against the machines
Let’s think about the “hippies” of the 70s. Turns out none of them were serious about their causes! Instead they were just being kinda flashy and selfish with their lives. They were born from a generation that had given their all (albeit in an incredibly racist time) and had been proud to fight in ww2. So fast forward to the 60s and 70s and you have a a lot of privileged
people just not wanting to go to war, instead they preach free love and equality. But then after NOT DYING in Vietnam nor suffering massive ptsd from the horrors of war, these hippies eventually got jobs and took advantage of their Status and privileges in society and then folded into the same machine they were fighting against.
Kinda how today a lot of white punks “go conservative” but they were always conservative, they just needed to use their middle class white economic privilege (ability to live at home, good schools in the suburbs etc) to realize, that hey this system i was fighting against isnt exploiting me! Welp, better go be part of the problem and make money!
So yeah, it’s easy to lose sight of bigger goals like for workers rights, the end of racism and whatnot simply because as you become more comfortable, you don’t really need to think of us vs them, instead now it’s YOU vs them and you take more self interested views.
Whats hard is to be comfortable and question the society around you and the forces that have brought you those comforts. Marx and Engles kind of “made up” communism from a rather comfortable position in society, which was probably not the easiest thing to do, especially as Engles would’ve had a much bigger pill to swallow being a more successful capitalist.
Growing up outside of Chicago, a few things became apparent quickly. That no matter how grandiose and elegant things within the city are, the further from the nucleus you get, the fragility of civilization becomes clearer. The question then begs, is the outer edge of urban blight caused by the recession of modernity and prosperity, or the encroachment of nature and scarcity. Keep going however, and you run into the suburbs, in which the same process continues. Cities at their core, serve as a testament to mankind's innovation and ignorance, its desire for beauty and brutality, the balance between order and chaos. It all may ultimately boil down to whether or not conservatives see any benefit to reestablishing a presence in urban domains, or remain content to stand guard within the vast rural swaths of America.
Recession at the urban fringe is the product of a realignment of investments, both public and private.
The best example of this is White Flight throughout the middle 20th century. Investments made in transit infrastructure (trains and trollies) became redirected, through local, state, and federal channels, into highway construction. Areas that lost access to transit due to line closures became economically depressed, while private investment went to new suburban housing development within greenfield. Those older "streetcar suburbs" would lose their tax base as their more affluent (white) residents redirected their investments into cheaper suburban housing backed by low interest, government-insured mortgages. The older brick buildings would rot, drop in value, get replaced by parking lots, and soon enough you end up with places like Houston or St Louis, with desiccated urban interiors.
This dynamic still perpetuates today, but in reverse. As previously depressed, inner-urban neighborhoods become gentrified thanks to investments in street-scaping, new transit, bicycle facilities, denser zoning ordinances, etc, affluent residents are again redirecting their investments into buying townhouses or apartments, which leads to depression in suburban fringes where new investments are no longer being made in highway construction or new subdivisions.
It's a vicious cycle, and frankly and it has little to do with culture or the urban/rural divide, but more to do with simply finding the cheapest, most comfortable place to live within your means.
It's safer out, in the rural areas. Cities are - more and more - starting to show their tendency towards destruction and violence. The balance is becoming less so. Moving towards that is a fool's errand.
@@TheCharleseyeViolent crime in cities is down massively from its peak in the 80s, statistically, they’re safer than ever. If you’re referring to more recent-ish protests, then that will likely never stop, as people protest where people are, and where the government pays attention, which trends towards cities
Edit: You don’t have to like cities or want to live in one, this was in response to your claim that cities are showing more violent tendencies.
@@dane1317 Meanwhile, stores in Chicago, Seattle, SF, etc. are all fleeing those cities due to criminality. Crime in NYC dropped during the mayorship of the conservative Giuliani. It is rising since then. Major crimes is up 22% last year, for example. It is a fact that cities tend towards greater violence and crime. Noting occasional dips in violent crimes in this or that city does not disprove the general trend.
The civilized city folk laugh at the uneducated barbarians in the country side, but when the sophisticated city folk are in trouble it's up to the barbarians from the country side to defend the country.
At least that's what I learned from history.
I learned the opposite
did you know the draft was always geared to hit rural areas harder per capita?
"Kill or be killed" is an essential element of American conservatism. I was surprised the author did not incorporate the classic definition of conservative, i.e., resistance to change(whether political, economic, or social) in his argument. While "fear of the other" is a strand common to current American model of conservatism, this is an outgrowth of America's history of race-based slavery and racism.
Especially in the South. A lot of stubborn people, and a history of Plantation Society.
Basically, all the smart people went to the city. Because that's where the jobs are. So, now you're left with the people who are not as real-world oriented.
Their philosophy of wanting to fight someone is more based on Tribal Egoism. Which is usually a given, when you have a lot of ignorant people in one place.
They complain a lot about how bad urban neighborhoods are. But they're not immune from crime or antisocial behavior either.
Sounds like the solution is it’s come time for nature to be integrated into the cities in a major way to balance the ideology with reality.
Or said another way so creativity can shake hands with common sense
Common sense isn't reality
@@-gemberkoekje-5547 whatever helps you sleep at night
@jangofett6950 This has nothing to do with my comfort. This is about reality. Facts don't care about your feelings.
Back in viking Scandinavia it was common sense to believe that the earth was flat.
@@-gemberkoekje-5547 I wouldn’t disagree with you but perhaps only in perspective.
Common sense as defined usually has to do with every day matters.
Like any good joke there is always a kernel of truth, same with common sense as both are typically based off of pattern recognition.
The better you are at pattern recognition you begin to perceive archetypes in the world that are timeless.
I find timeless archetypes as common sense. They are things that have persisted throughout history in some form because it’s reality and truth and you can hide the truth in a culture but only for a time because you can’t hide the truth forever.
Like a light in darkness people with seek out that light once again in good time. Even if for just pure curiosity of what is there.
Some good examples are humans needing religion, have human agency, biological differences, and humans as social creatures.
As to the details of these can bog down at times and science can shed light on some details but as to whether these statements are wrong would only be based off someone’s emotions intervening because of ideology or pain or most likely mixture of the two.
While I happen to think that adding some nature back into the cities would be a good thing for other reasons, it wouldn't solve this problem (if you consider ongoing liberalization a problem), because the core element that causes this change isn't just the presence of nature, it is the presence of natural danger.
It is the fear of danger that causes the rural conservative to resist changing what worked for his forefathers, and it is the lack of any external danger (except that created by his urban-dwelling fellows) that causes the urban liberal to strive towards his utopia (after all, if the only danger comes from the actions of other men, men are fundamentally flexible; surely with the right persuasions and educations, incentives and safeguards, these harmful actions can be eliminated, right?).
Unless you can give the urbanites the same fear of drought or wildfire, or of being isolated by snowfall or flooding, or dying of accidental injury before you can get to help that rural folk experience (or, alternately, until you can free rural folk from those fears to the same degree as urbanites), you will always have a strong divide in viewpoint between urban and rural people.
The problem as I see it is not that there are differences but that people on both sides of the divide want to force their ways onto everyone. A truly just and equal society would let people live the way they want - urban idealists, rural survivalists, and off-the-grid anti-industrialists alike. There's plenty of room to allow everyone to do their own thing without causing a collapse. I've long said that the line between good and evil is not how extreme your beliefs are but what you're prepared to do to the people who don't share them. And as a semi-rural idealistic conservative, I keep advocating for others to adopt that attitude without trying to pass legislation that would force them to do so.
Agreed, but until we can get 90% of the government out of our business, it's never gonna happen.
@@ericb4127 Then we gotta change how we vote and stop electing the corrupt and power-hungry. People who aren't like that don't want to be in our business in the first place.
In my experience it’s usually urbanites forcing their ways on rural folk. Either via government control by having more representation or by moving to said rural areas and essentially colonize it to be more like the urban hole they just escaped from. It doesn’t really work the other way around because there’s less rural folk to change the political demographics of cities.
@@trevinschaerr3732 I don't approve of it either way.
I would argue that rural areas, at least collectively, are actually more "multicultural" than urban ones, because sooner or later a computerized city will descend into mediocrity and bourgeois blandness. Rural areas are where it's the easiest to preserve folk customs that represent ethnic traditions.
“Why not bring in a bunch of people from the third world into a first world country, what could go wrong?”……..
Culture dies, society is divided and collapse, no unity, authoritarian governments,
It's funny how Star Trek: The Next Generation covered this in the 80's when the 'galaxy' had to deal with the Ferengi race whom was 'given' technology instead of creating it naturally and being approached like everyone else. Now the space faring races had to deal with a 'less advanced' race using all the same toys with no historical guidance or precedent. Yes it makes for good TV, but not good reality.
You are right. It should be the other way around. Conservatives should be deported.
it is more race : urban and rural blacks tend to vote Democrat ,and the rural whites now and urban whites : Republican
Because conservatism is fear - fear of others, fear of change, fear of threats, etc. And while there are a lot of things to fear in cities, such as crime, cities also offer opportunities that directly oppose fear. Better education, more diversity, better economic stability. Better education naturally decreases fear through a better understanding of the world around you, and understanding makes everything less frightening. More diversity allows for more empathy, and better understanding of people who are different from you. The more you get to know the people around you, the more you see them AS people, rather than threats/different/degenerate. And economic instability is the gateway those in power use to generate fear of everything. So the more economic stability, the more liberal.
Agree with this 100%
Having lived in both rural (farm in Michigan) and urban (Silicon Valley California) I think this is true.
On my mom's farms, she has a well for water which we paid for to get drilled, and a septic system which we paid for to get buried. The heating is a propane tank that gets filled twice a year and it is big enough to last the entire winter. The only things provided by the government are a paved road (and even in the area many have only dirt roads) and electricity. Even with the electricity if you need it further back on your property YOU need to pay for the cost of poles, so even that isn't provided for. With regards to law enforcement, there are very few crimes here and my mom doesn't bother to lock the door to her house sometime. But we also have friendly neighbors with guns who look out for each other and if anyone were to try to hurt here, they would think twice about shooting a criminal dead. If all the cities disappeared I don't think they would notice.
On the other hand, in the city I've met people who I don't think could even cook their own food, forget about growing it. But listening to them talk they are full of opinions about how the world "should" work.
City folk have opinions about how the world "should" work from their perspective and experience. You have a different perspective and experience. So you think differently. The fact is we are all like the blind men in the elephant and 5 blind men allegory. We think we know what we are dealing with when we can only ever know it from our perspective. The problem occurs when we don't respect another person's perspective -- liberal or conservative. We end up screaming at each other instead of listening to each other. We try to force our opinions down other people's throat and tell them how to live.
@@grepora I'm living near San Francisco right now where they are giving drug addicts needles and foil to make their drug addiction deeper. And a DA that doesn't prosecute criminals and crime is through the roof here. I was in a Home Depot the week before a shoplifter killed an employee there and the DA only wants 6 years for this person.
I'm generally an open-minded person but I've lost respect for the people that run the cities.
@alansnyder8448 and I love in the south arkansas Mississippi Louisiana Alabama and Oklahoma ate way worse than San Francisco or LA will ever be
@@elvangulley3210 You need to take BART to the Civic Center station and walk down Market St. It is a drug users' sh*tshow right now.
Before I stopped going to downtown SF because I was tired of stepping in human poop, I could count 50 (as in FIVE-ZERO) drug users on my half-mile walk to work.
And walking up the stairs would be someone smoking fentanyl right on the stairs. I'd step over people passed out.
I've been working in SF since 2002 and stopped just last year it has gone downhill very fast. Sorry, but you are full of it or have visited SF recently if you think something else is worse.
A more conservative survival mindset. I dont think that is what is developing on the south side of Chicago. They may act conservative when it comes to survival, but want incredibly liberal policies that jave zero basis in reality.
11:04
What’s funny is that on the south side they hate gays and liberal talking points, but then vote in the most liberal and left wing people.
The real ones causing the most damage though in Chicago politics isn’t the south siders or the working class people/immigrants. It’s the rich liberal people in the north side/suburbs that don’t live in reality. They control all the institutions and then when the working class/immigrants put their kids through the schooling system the rich people control, they become indoctrinated into liberal hive think. That’s why you have all these Hispanic kids that come from conservative households become extreme liberal activists.
I would also argue that because in cities most people are strangers to each other there’s less pressure to conform. If you’re a person with beliefs that criticize the society’s traditions or a foreigner/ethnic minority with no personal attachment to them, there’s more room for you there than in small towns.
Have you tried being a pregnant woman in a small town recently?
@@robgraham5697?
Exactly. Small towns are oppressive.
@@jasonsands5881 Aw, were the people in small towns mean to you? Cities are causing societal collapse and global climate change that could bring about an extinction-level event. But gosh...at least they're not mean to you there (except for all the people who are, of course).
@@TheCharleseye I mean that small towns are very conformist. Everyone is all up in everyone’s business. The people there aren’t as good and pure as they claim to be. I couldn’t wait to get out. And, are cities really causing the downfall of civilization?
@Monsieur_Z, this is a much better video than Whatifalthis when he makes similar videos. Thank you for this. You are obviously conservative, but you don't just say "woke bad" and say things that sound educated and philiosophical. This video isn't heavily biased or insulting to people you disagree with AND I largely agree with it. Obviously not everyone in cities or the countryside falls in these stereotypes, but it is largely true and you did a good job talking about it.
👍 thumbs up from a liberal
Thank you, pal.
Whatifalthis views on political and social outcomes are more realistic. Whatif accurately points out that if a developed country continues fulfilling leftist policies, the country will experience degradation. Monsieur seems to believe the opposite: The nation will prosper even if it adopts the woke counter-culture and absorbs millions of undesirable immigrants from underdeveloped countries.
Yeah I’m honestly impressed that an ethnonationalist is fairer to the left than an alleged libertarian.
Wouldn't say Whatifalthist is only "woke bad" since he does tend to have logical justifications for that opinion. The dude is just on the younger side and has issues with reading his scripts.
Send him to a public speaking coach and your criticisms might just fade.
@@The1TrueEcho Hard disagree. Mr. Z sounds like someone who has actually spoken to a leftist and is approaching the convo in good faith. Whatifalthist comes off as someone who is starting from a place of vitriol towards the left and has a whole wall of article clippings behind him connected by red lines of string in order to craft some absolutely batshit conspiratorial narrative explaining why people hold views he disagrees with.
Ancient cities still lived in fear of raiders and nomads pillaging…
Rome must be shaking then.
@@Jaimob lived was in the past tense
@@Guacamocok? Rural people still had it way harder on average. So what?
What if Yugoslavia was made of caramel?
I guess you could say that would be a... sticky situation.
You'd still need to find a way to cover it in chocolate.
The problem isn't the inevitable "liberalization" of cities. The problem is the amount of political power cities have. In election systems based solely or mostly on population, it is the heavily urbanized areas that basically control national policy, and that is what really causes the national divide. It would almost be better in a representative republic for cities above a certain size to be given independent city-state status where they can enjoy the economic ties and the national defense like US territories do, but without the ability to vote in state and federal elections in exchange for no income tax by state or federal governments. The cities can then determine their own policies without effecting everyone else and if they are disastrous (which they often are), the rest of a nation are insulated from much of the repercussions.
@@chrisbeer5685Thank you! Someone said it!
@@chrisbeer5685 Because it's the equivalent of the entirety of Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba the Northwest Territorys Yukon Alaska Washington State Idaho Montana being out voted by some Mega city with a bigger population
@@titanicbigshipcope 😂
Trees need wind to grow strong and tall. Without it, their roots grow a mile wide, but an inch deep, and when the winds of adversity final do blow, and they will, they will fall. Likewise, the modern urbanite, raised in a city they played no role in building, has no clue what it takes to build and maintain civilization, and will fall for any harebrained scheme to protect them from the adversities of life. It should be noted however that any population shielded from the adversities life by government aid will miss those vital lessons.
The only solution is ensure that every generation be personally engaged in the building of something new. It's the winds of the frontier that maintains a strong civilization.
Or, you know, that these new generations that weren't involved with the building of the current social structures can more easily see and call out the flaws since they have no investment in seeing their creation continue to stand.
@Kyle_116 Critics outnumber creators. It is easy to tear down but difficult to build. The best a critic could do is identify a legitimate problem. Then what? A people raised in an artificial environment which has not lasted very long seek to fill their lives with meaning. They hear about heroes of the past who stood up against injustice and changed society. Wouldn't one also want to be a hero someone in a future history class can read about? It is all too tempting to exaggerate the danger and cost of a given problem (which is likely far less of a scourge on the human condition than past injustices) in order to make one seem all the more heroic. There are cures worse than the diseases they attempt to treat. Is the benefit worth the cost?
Idealism has been and always can be dangerous. The dysfunction in this so-called zenith of human achievement bears this out. This quote from C.S. Lewis speaks to these times: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
@@richardwalenga1688 That is one of my favorite and most consistently relevant quotes.
I'm going to hazard a guess and say "Indoctrination induced Insanity."
EDIT: Huh, this is a really nuanced video. You state that Conservatives generally do have a problem with the Liberalness of the cities, but what you have left out here is the fact that with said liberalization comes cultural and moral decay, which inevitably leads to a time of collapse. We're well educated and have a lot of common sense, so so many of us see that all of this Wokeness, degeneracy, and evil (yes, what these people are becoming is genuinely *evil,* what pedophile isn't?) can only lead us to ruin.
An exclusively city-dwelling person isn't more removed from reality necessarily, but their everyday reality is more of a special case than that of someone living more rurally. Good thoughts overall though.
Oddly enough I have seen people in the cities more racist and wary of other people because they have had to deal with it in the past were I have seen friends with a rual Christian upbringing believe in the goodness of everybody. Could just be my lived experience but the city people I speek to are ready to get jumped at any second, understand what ethnicity they are and what it is perceived by other groups but rual people seem to just think everyone is going to be your friend no matter what. Friends in Brooklyn New York vs rural Nebraska in this case. I'm not sure if this is a edge case or the norm.
Yeah I'm sure all those rular Nebraskans would accept a bunch of Middle Eastern Muslims setting up a church in their community 😂😂😂😂😂
@@johncunningham8213 true but within a city's population that is 5% - 10% at most the vast majority is either working class, lower management or the working poor. Now these demographics are not necessarily right wing but they do know they are one or two paychecks away from living on the streets so they would want to have some type of safety-net. Your typical construction worker or Subway train engineer is not really going out there all lgbtq+ and stuff but they would like some union benefits to provide education and food for their families. They vote blue out of necessity not over social issues and many of them don't have time to go to church do to working 60 hours a week.
@@gold-818nice, that explained some questions I had.
Rural people have the opportunity to see each other as individuals. Urban people have SO MANY people around them that this becomes impossible.
Racism and similar attitudes thrive when you can't connect as individuals.
@dilorenzo2797 That is very true because do to the more local religious upbringing they will assume people are just going to to the right thing. Also chances are almost everybody knows each other so if someone misbehaves it's the talk of the town compared to most major cities if someone shoplifted or robbed that would just be a normal Tuesday. Unfortunately in the current socioeconomic climate a lot of people fleeing cities are taking advantage of kind hearted rural communities by doing things such as saying they can't afford things when they totally can, shoplift at stores that can't afford advanced security systems, lying about the quality of the food at a locally owned restaurant in order to get a free meal. I remember driving though Iowa and one of the gas stations let you fill up your gas tank then go inside to pay and the click and they would just trust the amount you said you filed up for and pay that amount without even checking. As a New Yorker this has always been absurd to me because I know if that gas station was set up in one of the surrounding areas of New York they would just fill up their gas tank and run. That's probably why you have to pay before you get your gas in the first place. When you have a society built on trust and honor get infiltrated by a culture that will lie, cheat and steal to survive infiltrates a culture based around honor and respect well let's be honest we know where that's going.
I think it’s simple, Liberals advocate for more government and government subsidized services that benefit cities while conservatives advocate for less government and more privatization that benefit the rural areas more.
Completely missed the social conservative element of it and how it’s necessary for an ordered society.
And yet farmers and companies are the major beneficiary of welfare.
@@LaTierraNueva19 It isn’t, conservatism just has an intolerant quality inherent to it.
@@v.sandrone4268Major *corporate* elements.
You still missed the part of the individual there.
Not much difference between the government and a corporation.
Exposure to other cultures, ideas, religions, music and a plethora of other factors are far easier in urban settings than rural. This lessens the fear of the unknown and allows people to more easily see others as friends rather than enemies.
Spot on. Exposure equals insight.
That and you really don't have a realistic option of just clinging to your own little political and cultural tribe in a city. You've got to learn to at least get along with people of vastly different beliefs and religions and ethnicity because they're going to be all around you.
The media plays the role of bringing the ideas of the world to rural areas. I live in a conservative section of the US, Idaho, which has a very small population of militant talking right wing people but most people here are open to new ideas, they just don't want people to tell them what to do including manipulating their media. We've found that we are happier with access to the truth and can discern what that is ourselves without a Big Brother feeding it to us with a liberal slant of what is safe and what is dangerous. Nature is our friend to get along with, not an enemy that has been subverted by CO2. We don't have a need to blame other people for making us sick so we don't put the blame on other people not being vaccinated or wearing masks.
Unless communities stick together within cities, the diversity presented and projected tends to be shallow. Mostly concerning surface level aesthetics, not values, let alone most unique varying cultural practices.
Thank God for the country
Basically: “soft living creates liberals” / good times create weak men.
In my opinon, liberalism and conservatism are balancing forces. Too much in any one direction spells doom for society. Liberalism drags society along towards progress, while conservatism tempers expectations and makes sure society does not advance quicker than it can handle. The result after each collapse is an ideal mix of the two after which the cycle repeats.
The problem is we do not have classical liberalism but socialist leftism .
I may not agree with what you say but I k fight for the right for you to say it !
Classical liberal view.
Hate speech arrest him!
Leftist .@
Agree 100%. And without a push back of the “other side,” any single party system is destined for corruption just in the structure of any single party system.
@josephpadula2283 you sound like you are from the right. After seeing Trump attempt an insurrection and a coup attempt, I would balance your observation that, here in the USA, “Conservatives” are shifting to authoritarian fascism, which isn’t really conservatism at all.
Here's a question: What happens to your balance theory when the next bit of "progress" is fundamentally bad?
@@danielbob2628 How do we determine what is "fundamentally bad"? I will say that the political right has more of a propensity to oversimplify complex issues into white or black perceptions. Hence your question. But to answer your question, hopefully the problem would be corrected by a compromise between conservative and liberal leaders. That is fundamentally how democratic governments have operated for centuries.
Examples of "Liberal policies" that are mainstream today: 5 day work week, 40 hours and then overtime pay. Free education for all children, minimum wage, child labor laws, anti-trust laws. I would consider these good things. Bussing in the 1970's was a bad idea and we no longer have it, thanks to the balancing system I referred to.
What if Italy was neutral during ww2
There would have been no WW2.
The axis would have won because the Germans would not have been wasting their resources on bailing out incompetent baffoons.
@@gocool_2.0Not true.
My grandfather would have fought in France instead of Italy.
If Italy did remain Neutral, i.e. sign no Pacts or Alliances with Germany, Hitler would not have been as bold as he was. Hitler kept pushing things because he thought he could get away with more than he ultimately did. The UK was stalling for time, but still had a powerful navy. Hitler's own admirals needed years more, possibly 1943 or even later, to have enough U-Boats to really cut off the UK and starve them out. These projections were partially based on having the Italian Navy on Germany's side. Without that the German Navy would have needed even more time and Hitler would not have had any access to the Mediterranean at all. So even less chance of cutting off the UK from the rest of the British Empire.
I don't know if it would have WW2 would never happen, but it would change things dramatically. Hitler would not have pushed as much without support at the start. Which might have allowed Stalin in the USSR to improve their position and start things themselves. One thing I have always thought was that WW2 would have started sooner or later by either Hitler finally ticking off Stalin or Stalin finally ticking off Hitler. Both wanted Europe under their control and were far too close to each other to not fight eventually.
Singapore exists as an independent city state because of the race riots in Malaysia against ethnic Chinese, meaning that Singapore in Malaysia was no longer tenable. Singapore's conservatism is reinforced by this. They understand that they can be ripped apart by racial and economic strife.
Well, that, and you guys have been run by the same political party since...ever?
And in many social aspects Singapore is less conservative than muslim-majority countries nearby, like Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei. WAY less conservative
7:10 is an example of...
1. Good times create weak men.
2. Weak men create bad times.
3. Bad times create strong men.
4. Strong men create good times.
We are in a period of transition between 2 and 3.
If we look at history: The weak men are not physically weak.
They're mentally weak.
-Emasculate men like Dr. Seuss do not crave political power. It's the ones who act aggressively on their own self-interest that create issues.
And good times are what blind people to it. The public just doesn't see it until the stores run out. Or your home isn't safe to live in.
1:49 debatable. A lot of social conservatives (including this one) view social conservatism as very anti-utilitarian and pro-absolutist, where morals are guided primarily by inherent concepts of natural rights granted by God (effectively Christian ethics). We see utilitarianism as the fruit of social liberalism, where truth and righteousness doesn't matter but the common good does. I say this not only as a conservative but as a rural conservative who hunts and ranches. Yeah, we know about death, but we're more concerned with being morally right than we are with not dying, and we are WAY more idealistic than a lot of the urban liberals we know.
So Singapore becomes an interesting test. As people realize that all land has been accounted for. Idealism will have to face the reality of human density if we want to maintain nature. Must read more about Singapore.
Yes. America has not gotten out of this Idealist Phase yet. And even some countries in Europe as well.
America being the most resistant to it. Because their whole history up to this point has been about Pioneers and Self-interest.
They just don't want to hear it. And the number of pragmatic people is small. Almost like a persecuted, intellectual minority.
This is exactly why my family spent a lot of time deer hunting and fishing on the east side of the Sierra Nevada mountains, only mountain people back there and mountain lions, bear, forest, streams and cliffs. We're well educated, but deadly nature gives you balance and practical sense. If you survive. Haha But I still watch my surroundings in a big city or town. I never feel safe, so I'm always safe. There could be something to eat us in every bush, or as I always heard, fear kills, panic kills.
I think there's a lot more fear among the urban poor and homeless than among farmers and ranchers. There is a lot more crime in cities. Most people in rural areas are not extremely poor.
i reckon you haven't been to appalachia.
I broadly agree with this statement, but I think it comes with some important caveats. I grew up in a small farming community in Wisconsin and moved to the Minneapolis Metro as an adult. It isn't always helpful to paint urban and rural areas in broad terms. Large cities may have more violent crime and homelessness in total, but the seriousness of the situation depends on the neighborhood. The wealthier the neighborhood, the safer they tend to be. I used to believe that the real divide was between rural and urban, but now I think the real line runs through rural areas. If you live in a small community that can support a young population, you can grow wealth faster than in a city (even with lower wages). However, if you live in a community below a certain threshold, things can get ugly (extreme poverty, loss of services and deaths of despair).
@iamnobody2 briefly. I very briefly, for just a few months, lived in wheeling, west virginia, between pennsylvania and ohio. But i'm from south texas, and have lived here all my life, except for those few months. I was born in a small town of about 5000 people, south of san antonio. I spent my teens on a ranch/farm, several miles outside of a town of about 2000 people, and several miles from my hometown. I am currently living at a homeless shelter on the western edge of downtown san antonio.
I had lived for about a year in san antonio's west side, near zarzamora, in an overwhelmingly mexican residential area. And about 2 years on san antonio's northeast side, near rittiman, in a mixed black/white/mexican/korean industrial area.
Best explanation of the political spectrum and underlying ideologies I've ever seen. Excellent video.
The thing which causes this divide is that everyone who lives in urban areas is batshit crazy.
Crazy people move to the city because they can't get away with it in a small town. So they accumulate.
And small town Walmarts aren't full of morbidly obese circus freaks on Rascal Scooters?
Most rural people tend to be more religious fundamentalists...
The video is generally correct, but missed the main reasons big cities tend to attract liberals.
There are two kinds of liberals:
People who pay NO attention and just go with the influences around them.
Mentally ill.
The latter breaks into a. Egotistical, self-centered, predator types, and b. Damaged types who feel they can't cope on their own. Easily influenced, want government to be mommy, and driven by emotional voids. "Conservative people are mean because they think laws should be enforced! They're rich and don't care about people like me who aren't! (Typically college-educated women.) Liberals are smarter and more fair!"
Liberal = weak = huddle together for comfort = big cities.
The rest is a by-product.
Never forget that the liberal idealism conservative realism divide is along lines as basic as C: "But if you ban cattle farming, how will you get milk?" L: "What do you mean, I'll just buy it from the grocery store?"
Sounds like something a boomer white dad would post on Facebook
We genetically engineered yeast to produce cow's milk in 2021. Most of our agricultural needs can be met in a less land-intensive way. The deciding factor is cost. It's cheaper to offload the byproducts on the environment when we dont price that into goods.
I think I disagree with the fundamental premise of the argument. I think that societies become more liberal as greater cohesion is required and more conservative as things become more stable. For instance if things are all right why would you change it you would try to keep it or conserve it. Now cities are comprised of vast numbers of people and often act as a central hub of a lot of different cultures where they all meet. In order to make this possible the population must be accepting and permit dialogue.
As an aside their is archeological evidence that in the state of nature where survival is critical people are a lot more socialist as everyone needs to contribute and share resources.
Getting back to why rural areas are conservative it is because life their is stable with no real threats especially in developed states. This allows for the mindset that things are okay why change it and because their are far fewer people it becomes easy for this sentiment to spread and because no one from outside has a real reason to go their outsiders with other ideas don’t often come or stay.
I think people always want to tie in Liberal = Democrat Conservative = Republican. But it can be interchangeable. It's not as black and white as one might think because you could have a Conservative with a few Liberal ideas and visa versa. The only way that works is if someone is extreme left or extreme right. But that's not how humans operate. We aren't robots. We have red states, blue states, and purple swing states. There's plenty of cities (not large ones mind you) that are Conservative. And isolated small towns that are Liberal too.
Can a city ever become conservative? Berlin did in the 1930's, and stayed that way till 1945.
I was about to stop watching after the fairly unappetizing description of what drives conservatism, but I stuck with it, only to hear an equally damning description of liberalism. Wow, I love it. So true.
The next question is "Why do liberals always turn cities into cesspools?"
Borderline personality disorder/narcissistic personality disorder
Actually, after reading many comments on the thread, the next question might ought to be, "Why do so many rural people express such bitter hatred for their fellow citizens who happen to live in cities?" Seriously. I don't see any city person here making any references to "Deliverance," which frankly would be about as accurate as your sneer toward urban people who you imagine are some other inferior species. Which sort of makes me wonder whether there's a self-selection process going on whereby people like yourself who are fearful and suspicious of anybody who isn't like them just find it easier to live in less urban more homogeneous areas.
@@OliverHellenbachThe issue is that the cities dictate politics, which do not work with the issues of the rural population.
It's resentment, and the after effects of northern discrimination of Southerners makes many of the rural populace hold bitter resentment.
@@Facesforce I'm not sure you're right that "cities dictate politics." In some places it's exactly the opposite--North Carolina, for instance. Or Texas. Or Missouri. It woiuld be useful if you could describe some of these that "do not work" with the rural population.
I think you're probably right that in many southern states, a lot of right-wing white people are still bitterly resentful about, basically, the outcome and aftermath of the Civil War. I"m not sure what kind of "discrimination" southerners had to endure as a result. Again, maybe you could be specific about what these are.
Seems to me a lot of resentment on the part of white Southerners is about the feds requiring them to get rid of laws forbidding black people from voting or using separate water fountains, or being able to go to state universtiies, etc. Or to stop gerrymandering to dilute the black vote, as a recent Supreme Court decision just required of the poor mistreated white people in Alabama. Or, the poor mistreated southerners are now required to recognize gay marriage.
Does all this somehow "not work" for southern white people? Well, maybe not, but frankly, that's too damn bad. What's especially exasperating is that these people want to enact racist anti-gay laws, and then scream like stuck pigs when somebody points out that they are in fact being racist gay-haters. ("Why are you calling us such names, you big meanies?")
I think also it has to do with the theory of Maslow (hierarchy of needs). Life is tougher in the countryside and therefore people don't think about minority rights or other intellectual ideals because this is nothing that they are confronted with on a day to day basis
Well minorties arent as nealry as prevalent in rural areas
So in other words, Traditional values, Social Conservatism, and Christianity in the West are dead for good and there's no way of returning to them. Societal collapse will ensue, but what comes after will not be a return to the old Conservative, Christian values. Rather, it'll be something new entirely.
It's sad, but those values are dead for good and with urbanization, it's safe to say that Traditionalism/Conservatism is a failed ideology and Christianity is doomed to die...
I can imagine our future being similar to the show Futurama.
You have a lot of different people doing their thing. But there's still a system in place. So people can get along with each other.
@@eksbocks9438 It's not a future that I want to see. I'm sad as a Christian and a Traditionalist that I'll never see those values return again..
Because cities have more social deviants and those who cannot care for themselves.
"People in cities live removed from the harsh of the natural world."
I’m from a city of 7,000 people in Alabama and nothing boils my blood like people in NYC or LA or DC trying to tell people from anywhere in the rural south, to the rural west, to the rural Midwest, to the rural northeast, on how we should live. They want us to live like them.
I work in the tourism industry and see people from all over the world. I've noticed that people from cities lack knowledge of how the world works, I've had to stop people from approaching bears because they think "bears are used to people, so they're friendly." They also don't know anything about resources or how they are produced. Remember Bloomberg running for president called farmers dumb because their job is "plant a seed and pour water on it." These people are like ai in a video game. They walk around, say stupid things, then get farmed by a criminal for xp.
I’ve seen those same kinds of people but, on the other hand you also have people from rural areas who really don’t know how things work outside of their country or even small community. Their conception of foreign cultures ends with what they see at the local Chinese or Mexican restaurant.
. But they don't NEED to know about foreign cultures, because they have no say in foreign policy. The urban population has wealth and votes, which makes their ignorance dangerous. The farmer's ignorance is merely amusing.
@stevenscott2136 then maybe you're not as strong and manly as you thought if these weak city dwellers have such dominion over you. Reading your nasty comments makes me glad you're angry and frustrated, though 😂
Alternate title: Explain the mantra “Hard times create strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make hard times”
It's something incel Republicans say to make themselves feel tougher.
@@michaelsurratt1864 No it's reality. The same reality that dems living in their parents basements deny. Until it happens, and then they sit there wondering what happened.
More like conservatives create hard times, progressives create good times, conservatives sabotage the progress made.
This saying makes zero historical sense if you actually think about it
@@chandelier6811 You mean to tell me strong times don't make it easier on people, making it to where they don't NEED to develop their own skills or be able to protect what they need and therefore won't.
If you are provided for and dont need to work, most don't!
I mean honestly it just makes sense
progress is not inevitable. just because you're wealthier than you've ever been doesn't mean you can't suddenly be bankrupted by an illness or disaster.
also, in the last 10-15 years cities have swung away from "social liberalism" to embrace their own unique form of "social conservatism" where the old "sins" of traditional conservatives are seen as an existential threat (racism, sexism, etc) despite all those things being less prevalent than at any other time in history. its the same "destroy the things that threaten our survival" mindset, but with emphasis on different "threats" than the ones that rural conservatives focus on.
this is happening because life in cities is, financially, much harder now than it was in previous decades. the threat of lions and wolves is something humans are used to, but the threat of becoming homeless because your rent doubled in the last two years is a different kind of stress.
the past is the best tool we have for understanding the modern world, but unfortunately its not good enough. things have changed, the core principles behind some concepts are still valid but they must take into account changed circumstances. cities were safer than rural areas 100 years ago, but today the reverse is true.
If the troops are conservative and responsible for generate the food, the resources, and the rights for the Liberal cities why are cities allowed to have more votes then those who put in the blood and effort for the ungrateful?
For most of human history civilization was centered around kings or religious figures where disorganized tribes or people would all be united under the authority of said King/priest. When cities developed the strength of this authority grows much more stronger especially in the religious sense so in some ways social conservatism can exist in cities. This is specially true in Muslim countries where strong enforcement of religious law is practiced.
the social liberalism of modern cities I would argue is a recent development that specifically emerged in the West where socially authoritarian governments have not been as common as Non-Western countries except for a few instances throughout certain time periods of history.
democratization itself came about when a new kind of morality centered around people which originates within a persons conscience especially when the people are unique in some way. This self-morality could also cause social liberalistic ideals like equal rights, higher standards of living, & democracy but when this self-morality can also be found among conservative as well but with a focus on specific people rather than it being universalized. Generally though I would think that social liberalism, while it initially starts out as self-morality can gradually lean into authoritarianism as the reality of the world with limited resources & people fighting to survive the ideals of social liberalism where wealth & resources must be distributed equally would require a higher authority to conquer all of nature in order to extract all possible resources and give it to people they find deserving instead of people doing it themselves.
So in the West cities tend to be liberal & more socially authoritarian & while conservative areas may be socially conservative but are more free in rule by allowing people to naturally work together & care about each other through their self-moral conscience.
Simple and concise! I wouldn’t have been able to put this into any coherent words.
As you said in the most EXTREME sense it's based on fear and survival. But that is an extreme interpretation of the concept. But then when you speak about the other side, you refuse to go to the extreme view there. You are automatically biasing the overall video but stating one side as Extreme and fear based, and the other as Idealism (but not speaking to the extreme aspect of idealism). If you were to go to the extreme version of idealism (a naiveté about the essence of man and absence of common morals as the pursuit of ones own interests is of far greater importance over anything else no matter how it might impact or effect others), then the examples you give (why can't we give away food for free, why can't government take care of all medical costs, why do we punish criminals) fit better as that self-interest yet lack of any concept or impacts is easy to see. As you briefly mention idealism is a removing of ones self from an understanding of reality, with the more idealistic a person being the more unrealistic they become (in the extreme). Now again both sides in this case are the extreme (Fear vs Lack of understanding reality), and like anything in life there are a multitude of complexities and subtleties and differences up and down the spectrum between the two extremes. And when you get down to it the core in both is Pursuit of ones own interests (just with a different driver behind them). But at least provide a balance.
But a side item to this whole video is, think about the ongoing fight relating to work from home and how the concepts above play into it. The move to the suburbs was a major blow to idealism as while only 18% of Americans live in rural areas, enough live in Suburban areas that it balances out against the social liberalism as we often see. Why is it that when people move from the cities to the suburbs they often develop more social conservative views (well consider this video). So what happens when remote work comes into play and people now are not being influenced daily by having to work in the cities and instead deal with the day to day within their suburbs and local life (consider the video). The entire implication is Social Liberals do NOT want work from home to grow and want it to reverse as when people leave the crowded cities, their world view point changes and the ability to get their votes change. As a matter of fact the pursuit of ones on interests starts to shift and they no longer see punishment for crime as inhumane and they now see their own items at risk (the fear in a sense). Hence the fight over remote work is more of one where the Social Liberal order is fighting to retain the power and balance they have over Social Conservatives, as the longer this goes on, the more ground they are likely to lose.
but that makes no sense. Surely in the more densely populated inner cities where crime is more rampant they would feel more fearful over their possessions?
At the very least over in europe, working from home is heavily pushed by the social liberals, as you would call them. It reduces overall costs for things like gas and eating out whilst also reducing management's ability to overburden workers and limit their ability to take breaks as they need them.
But what i dont understand is the vehemence for liberalisation. Surely living in a more idealistic society where your needs can be consistently met is a good thing.
I dont get why conservatives and liberals spurn eachother.
Progress without stability is cancer.
Stability without progress is decay.
Idealism and Pragmatism. I don’t think that only being an idealist or only being a pragmatist is the best. The way I see it, it’s sort of like how a building is made as described by Civil Engineers. Architects come to them with a design that is beautiful but impractical, and the Civil Engineers have to work with the design, changing it in areas and compromising some of the beauty in hopes of making it sturdy and functional. You need both Architects and Civil Engineers to build infrastructure. One dreams it up and the other brings it to reality.
The Liberal Idealists dream up a utopian society, the Conservative Pragmatists pull them back and slow their speed and make sure they don’t fly towards the sun with wings of wax, instead trying to build a rocket that can withstand the heat.
If we just had idealists, we would see a Utopia attempted by ultimately fall. If we just had pragmatists, we would never see civilisation advance, we would never even attempt a Utopia.
That tug of war is needed to help advance civilisation at a safe rate.
That’s how I see it at least. Although I will say I’m probably more of an idealist so I likely have my own biases. Take that take with a pinch of salt if you think it should be.
Unfortunately only a few people like you have the common sense to see the need for reconciliation across the American political spectrum instead of agitating for civil war or secession. Both urban and rural inhabitants need each other because they're part of the same economy. City dwellers do need food provided by farmers but at the same time farmers also depend on subsidies ultimately provided by urban taxpayers, for example.
The problem with conservatives complaining about the urban-rural divide is that they start with an assumption of city dwellers being automatically evil and wrong for the simple reason that they have different policies to prioritize than rural ones. Cities are more in need of welfare programs because there's much more concentration of poor and homeless people there, rural areas are more in need of gun ownership due to higher security risks caused by distance from police departments. City dwellers hate cars because of increased traffic in urban streets (where more public transit would be more efficient in serving their transportation needs) while rural dwellers need them because they don't live from a walking distance to a bus stop or a subway station, etc.
American conservatism seeks to conserve personal Liberty, the Founding ideals, which is, in essence, freedom from government.
Short explanation: they Have to be.
It requires a Lot more rules, policies and laws when you stack people on top of each other.
Which Also means that the majority of Men willing to put up with it are more submissive.
Exactly. And the group-minded people breed there, with the misfits either fleeing or ending up in prison. So every generation is a bit more collectivist than the previous.
I'd argue that your analysis is way off base. If what you were saying were true, then places like Tennessee, South Carolina, and Florida would be becoming less conservative and not more. Cities are more liberal for the same reason anyone becomes more liberal, diversity of ideas. Tennessee used to be far more liberal than they are now. Unions were defended by rural coal workers holed up with firearms. The idea of community was a common threat rather than being considered communism. While racism was as bad, within racial communities, welfare was considered a public necessity and opposing those in need being given food was considered monstrous. But conservative politicians, seeking to build a stronger base, sowed division and concepts of independence and capitalistic self righteousness. And that, along with post-9/11 bigotry being normalized, pushed the areas more and more conservative until you have what you have now. But people still are liberal in those areas and there are plenty of conservatives living comfortably in cities. The main driver is independence vs community. Prior to the civil rights movement, southern Democrats pushed unity and community. Now Republicans push division and self sufficiency. That is why cities are more liberal, because they are the epicenter of diversity and community requiring people of all different backgrounds to work together to survive. You can't start your own 10 acre farm in the city. And you can't rely on 50 neighbors for help in the country.
Actually cities are more capitalist and individualistic than rural areas,there is nothing "communitary" about American cities at all.
They vote for the left simply for 2 reasons,the first is the stereotype they have about conservatism and Rural citizens,they think they are all uneducated and unfit for office.
The other is that these cities are full of immigrants who also believe in stereotypes about conservatism,but that last one is fading away,minorities now are more republican than ever and if you check the Democratic Margin in big cities have shrink.
Absolutely stellar video. Well made and well spoken. Definitely sharing this one.
Add density increases, so does anonymity
As anonymity grows so does propensity for bad behavior
I wonder if there’s a density “sweet spot” where economy is maximized but social behavior is maintained
The real problem is that the cities political power doesn’t stop at the cities borders.