Progressivism increases with population density (2021)
oxfordpoliticalreview.com
oxfordpoliticalreview.com
Has the author spent any time in rural America or are they just imagining what they think it’s like? Or, in a city for that matter?
Have they visited a large church or a county fair? The countryside is full of inequality, drug abuse, drunkenness, etc.
Also progressives are trying to solve addiction? Really? My experience is that living in a city just trains you to tolerate it.
Addiction is a health issue, not a criminal issue. It should also be noted that the War on Drugs was never about "protecting people" -- it was a tool to oppress the people (people of color, counter culture (anti-war)).
We've collectively agreed that it's ok to allow dangerous and addictive drugs (alcohol and tobacco). We need to stop being hypocritical about that.
The answer to the problem:
1. Legalize all drugs
2. Tax them
3. Regulate them
4. Educate and assist in minimizing the risks.
5. Treat addicts in a medical context rather than a criminal one.
I agree that addiction is first and foremost a health issue. However, relying on addicts to voluntarily enter treatment isn't working. We're seeing very few enter treatment - last I heard it was well under 10%. I think in the case of highly addictive drugs like opioids/fentanyl, and meth they should be made illegal again (Remember, Oregon essentially did your #1 above) however, instead of incarceration in a prison, we need some kind of treatment hospitals that are involuntary - something between a prison and a hospital with emphasis on treatment.
We need to take a much more nuanced approach: some drugs are highly addictive (fentanyl, meth) - people can get hooked on them after only 1 or 2 uses, you want to prevent that as much as possible and that requires that they be illegal. Other drugs are not addictive: marijuana, LSD, shrooms, etc - making those legal is fine, but in the cases of the psychedelics you really want to encourage people to have guidance as much as possible.
I agree on the involuntary institutionalization (both on the need and the fact that current treatment plans aren't working). When we talk about addicts in the area, we're pretty much talking about the homeless population.
I've yet to see any census of sorts, but I'd wager that a significant portion of the homeless population is mentally ill. That also need to be revisited in the context of involuntary institutionalization.
As far as opioids and meth go, making them illegal has been an abject failure. Let the addicts have their drugs (a la methadone clinics) but minimize the the dangers as well as the organized crime that thrives on their criminality.
Because the emphasis has been on punishment not on treatment as a health problem. They have to be illegal if you want to be able to involuntarily hospitalize the users. Dealers of the addictive drugs should be punished (if they're not users and thus not addicted - if they're dealer/users they need to go through treatment first, punishment later if they continue to deal).
If you live in the PDX area I don't need to tell you that our current system which relies on voluntarily submitting to treatment isn't working. Yes, mental illness plays a part, but in many cases it's tough to tell which came first: the mental illness or the drug use - the drug use makes the mental illness worse and the mental illness often leads to more drug use.
That's not true. People are confined all the time for being a danger to themselves or others, even if they're not using drugs.
Which is why I'm saying the highly addictive drugs need to be illegal - a court can then order treatment.
My mother was an alcoholic and in and out of psych wards. They'd let her out the moment she could charm them and say she was ok. Fun times. But no illegal drugs involved, just plain old alcohol.
And it's looking that alcohol has no "medical benefits" and is flat out bad for you. In the interest of the people wouldn't you agree that's reason to make it illegal?
Sadly, just look at the god awful “linkage centers” in SF for how your ideas play-out in reality.
These “harm reduction” ideas are more like life-support for addicts. Yes maybe there are fewer deaths but I think there probably is more suffering.
I think it has to do with more emphasis on physical labor as conviences one would find in an urban environment are not available. Traditional gender roles are more prominent. A healthy culture will mean more peace, happiness, & coexistence with these rules. There are certainly strong women in rural areas, but men have a biological advantage for physical labor.
> drug abuse, drunkenness, etc.
I'm not sure if it's better or worse than urban environments, but a healthy culture & economy certainly helps.
Progressives tend to favor redistribution, which makes sense for high population densities. High population densities tend to rely more on inputs from the outside to support the population. Rural areas tend to be more self sufficient & even net producers of food, raw resources, & non manufactured products. The survival of the people in high population densities requires these resource inputs. A bit less so for rural environments. Rural populations do benefit from urban centers, but there are also costs in supporting high population densities. So rural areas are incentivized to take progressive policies with more of a cost/benefit analysis rather than requiring such policies for its survival.
I think the Hank Williams Jr. song exemplifies the attitude of many in rural environments. Note in the song, he befriended an urban finance professional, who was murdered at a convenience store. If he met the murderer he would "love to spit some beech-nut in that dude's eye"...where even justice is a self-reliant responsibility, rather than delegation to institutions. This attitude would be seen as an anathema to progressive ideology which has more faith in delegating justice to institutions.
"A country boy can survive" -- Hank Williams Jr
I would argue that this idea of rural areas being independent is a remnant of a bygone era, an era where frontiers yet unsettled still existed. Now, with our desire for modern infrastructure, lifespans, and education, rural areas are kept alive through the very redistribution they claim to oppose.
[1]: http://archive.today/2017.09.16-013424/https://www.theatlant...
I don't think that data supports the argument 'require massive amounts of monetary support from the more population dense' especially given the majority of population of those states strongly desire lower federal taxes and lower spending, even if it means less transfer of wealth to their states. 'require' is a high bar of evidence. I think 'adapt to changes' would be a better argument if we decided to allow states and private citizens to have more control of how their wealth is deployed (by not taxing and spending as much at the federal level). Those states would not go bankrupt or worse if federal spending decreased, but yes they would have to adapt. Maybe poor people in those states would have to move to areas where they had higher productivity and/or better welfare, which is not exactly a bad thing compared to paying them to stay in a state with low productivity?
>"For example, if you were told about two conversations – one about guns, taxes and crime and the other about gay marriage, animal rights and abortion – you could guess with confidence which took place among progressives and which took place among conservatives – even without knowing anything about the content of either conversation."
Was written by a real human being. Like... I know plenty of church going Catholics who are happy to talk about gay marriage, animal rights, and abortion, and they aren't conversations that anyone is going to call "progressive".
I grew up as a Roman Catholic & studied it's history, including the schism from the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church centralized it's authority to the head of the Church of Rome (the Pope) while the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church kept the more decentralized governance structure of synods of churches & the founding theology from the Council of Nicaea commissioned by Emperor Constantine in AD 325.
The Roman Catholic Church is an Imperial Church, founded by the Council of Nicaea during the reign of Constantine that later consolidated influence to a single prominent urban area...Rome. The Roman Catholic Church "innovated" it's theology over ~1700 years while the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church strove to stay true to the original theology.
With that being said, I would consider the Roman Catholic Church to have urban imperial tenancies & was among the major centers of power from it's founding, through the middle ages, to current times.
Also note that "progressive" is a comparative term of progression...meaning it is compared against current norms. As the norms change, the definition of "progressive" changes. A large institution such as the Roman Catholic Church has inertia & will usually not be at the vanguard of the current form "progressive" ideology. There are elements of vanguard progressivism within the Roman Catholic Church, but that is counterbalanced by others in the institution.
Tangent: my biggest political pet peeve is thinking of the country as red states versus blue states, when it's really cities versus surrounding areas.
Sociologically there are bigger differences within the state, but viewed from the outside, a state's main effect on you really is very close to all red or all blue. Only a small number of states play a significant "purple" role, where differences in individual opinion might matter to somebody from outside the state.
Well, except for 2 that aren't in the EC.
> and gerrymandering makes them nearly so in the House.
10 out of 41 states with two or more reps have a single-party delegation.
The most egregious might be my home state, Maryland, with only a single Republican representative out of 9, despite 1/3 of the state having voted Republican in 2020. Similar ratios occur the other way in Tennessee and Alabama.
Which is to say, winner-take-all and winner-take-practically-all happen in about half of the state Representatives with more than a single member delegation.
I guess that's just my gripe as a liberal who grew up in Texas (which is actually threatening to flip purple in the future due to people like me).
It also does not ring true with my personal experiences or observations. I grew up with progressive politics but in a rural area, and when I came to live in urban areas where these ideas dominated, I was disappointed to observe that they just don’t seem to work as well at solving real world problems as I had imagined they would.
Or is is the more the other way around. A location that has attractive geography or abundance of some resource leads to people wanting to live there. Once population reaches a certain density, there is desire for more rules and regulations to prevent a "tragedy of the commons". Progressive policies are more a result of "success" than a cause.
In the US, the state Mississippi get stereotyped as failing area. Progressive policies can't do a whole lot there. Maybe higher taxes on the wealthy, but that could only go so far until companies and wealth can just go to other another state. Mississippi is more of a victim of geography than ideology.
Interesting point for introspection.
why?
I myself find myself careening to the right for a laundry list of reasons, and I live in a major city.
Respectfully , I post this not to get into an argument or to hear reasons why I'm wrong or a terrible person, so please refrain from the personal attacks those who choose to reply. I'm just answering the straight forward question of "why?" from my personal view of the world.
Could you clarify this?
My search came up empty for examples of what you stated as a fact -- would you be so kind as to share a source that confirms your concern?
"The initial legislation said courts deciding custody cases must consider whether each parent affirmed the child's gender.
AB 957 encourages parents who support their TGI children by "making it clear that affirming a child's gender identity is part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child."
It also allows courts to consider a parent's affirmation of their child's gender identity when making decisions about visitation and custody."
https://abc7.com/jurupa-valley-high-school-teacher-fired-stu...
"Jessica Tapia was fired for refusing to follow a state law that forbids teachers from talking to parents about their child's gender choices without consent from the student."
https://nypost.com/2023/04/17/washington-bill-to-allow-medic...
"An act relating to supporting youth,” or Senate Bill 5599, allows host homes for runaway youth “to house youth without parental permission.” Furthermore, the host homes do not need to notify parents about where their kids are or if they are getting medical interventions “"
Plenty more
https://www.city-journal.org/article/when-the-state-comes-fo...
The government taking kids from families is an incredibly delicate subject. I think that we can all agree that it should never happen with one important exception: if the child is in danger by their own family.
I think we could come up with some horrific scenarios that is the (unfortunate) right thing to do. It should done only in the most extreme cases, with extreme oversight and opportunities for redress etc.
There have been miscarriages of justice in this in the past, so it would be naive to say that the system is perfect and nobody should be bothered if and when it happens.
That said, taking kids away to allow them to transition (at a superficial level) does seem to be crossing a line. I'm going to have to look deeper into the actual legislation because I also am aware there's a lot of disinformation in this subject.
I know three families with trans kids. One happened very early (I had no idea she was trans until I was told), the other after going away to college, and the third is a teenager that may or may not be but they're rolling with whatever way the child sees fit.
Those kids are lucky, because their parents love them and accept them for who they are, but not all kids are so lucky. Some parents are not so accepting and will do everything to stop them, going as far as disowning them (or killing them).
https://www.advocate.com/crime/2021/3/04/trans-and-nonbinary...
Many runaways leave home because of sexual abuse: https://childsafety.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/runaways.ht...
And finally, I'd like to point out that the reason that the GOP loves demonizing trans people is because it's a highly effective tool to emotionally manipulate voters using fear and hate. They did it will gays a generation before, it's not a new trick.
This is a nuanced subject and requires nuanced reasoning.
Sounds to me like they're accepting them for who they aren't.
Which is a big problem, as these kids are going to have an awful shock when they grow older and realize that most people in the outside world don't go along with the lie that man can become women and women can become men.
To gaslight these children into believing otherwise is terrible parenting bordering on child abuse. Especially if these kids had so-called 'gender-affirming' medical or surgical interventions inflicted upon them. It's awful really.
I'll agree that this is a potential problem and that it does happen, albeit a very small percent of the them (~ 3% in the US): https://www.gendergp.com/detransition-facts/
The parents are not gaslighting them, because they're also painfully aware that there are people who hate and fear them for who they are, but there are also those that will love them. These are incontrovertible facts.
I understand that what they're doing is "not normal", and it's clear that you are deeply offended by how they're choosing to live their lives. But here's the thing, it's really none of our business.
You're being coached on a daily basis to hate and fear these people and to be angry enough to vote for the people who want to eliminate them. I'm not saying that in a morally condemning way, it's a simple observation of what makes the political machine work.
Do you know any trans folk? Have you ever talked to any? I have, and their stories prove you wrong that their decision on how to live their life was the correct one.
That means they're born literal with both sexes, and "correcting" that is effectively 50% accuracy.
So please tell me how immoral they are for "fixing" the original "correction" when it was done incorrectly.
You mentioned states seizing kids if you wont allow children to begin transgender transitioning. What is the actual policy here, and when would it apply? The scenario sounds like: a minor wishes to transition and the parents are opposed, the kid wants to run away, and the state takes the side of the child rather than the side of the parents. This is the exact scenario you described, correct?
I think I'm in agreement with you that I'd generally prefer state policy to side with the parents rather than the child in this case. Certainly so in the case of younger children, or when puberty blockers or elective surgery is involved. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that the state should never side with the minor. There are cases where it's better for the kid to be allowed to get away from their parents. Most Democrats and most Republicans will agree that it depends on the circumstance. This is why we have judges and a court system.
But this is also the kind of issue that I think is blown far out of proportion to its merits. Transgenderism is just about the least important issue facing America and the world today.
I strongly believe that most Americans are centrists. This goes for Democrats and Republicans. The problem is that so many on the left see Republicans as racist quasi-fascists and so many on the right see Democrats as woke socialists. Both of these views are wrong.
As far as being centrist, absolutely. I still think I am, I just think the Dems have moved very far left and while the reps. moved too, not as far. I am not a fan of either. Currently planning on voting for split government whenever I can. One side can have the house, the other the presidency and senate. No one gets to make massive changes unless both sides agree.
If you’re challenging the hateful part, you must be blind.
I've even done it with open anti Semites and neo Nazis [it was a very good conversation] while I'm Jewish. These days instead of trying to understand where someone is coming from and having an open exchange of ideas, everyone just resorts to personal attacks and outrage. It's exhausting.
For me, moving right does not mean I would ever vote republican. They’re not a party of anything in particular other than obstructionism, identity politics, and institutional self-destruction for the enrichment of a very small (<0.1%) group of Americans and corporations.
That said, some things I trend more “right” than I used to, as a consequence of living in San Francisco:
- Highly addictive drug use should not be a free for all, it should be aggressively curtailed. This doesn’t need to be punitively, but I don’t think institutionalizing and forced rehab is strictly wrong. I also have no problem with increased taxes funding this.
- Homelessness is not a right. Common space in cities is not a place for us to let the lowest of society collect and inhabit.
- Crime should be punished, and organized crime/gangs should be aggressively snuffed out. This almost sounds like an absurd statement to make, but SF/Oakland DA’s have taken the stance that prosecuting crime is inherently racist, and essentially opt to release criminals rather than charge them.
- Race based affirmative action/reparations/benefits should not exist. These are great ideas on paper, but they are radicalizing to other systemically oppressed groups (e.g. poor white people end up pissed off and alienated, and align with the Republican Party, despite it being completely opposed to their own interests)
For anyone reading, this is just some personal takes in response to the question. I’m not looking to have a political debate on here.
These are lefty positions if I've ever heard them
- an old optimist you're liberal
- an old pessimist you're conservative
- a young optimist you're conservative
- a young pessimist you're liberal
I have no idea why or even if this is really true but it is my impression.
Working from home can isolate you from people leading to mass media and social media becoming your window on the world. Such media tends to over focus on the scary or the outrageous.
> In low-density areas, quality of life depends on not being interfered with; in high-density areas, it depends on the effective management of inevitable interferences.
> As population density increases, residents increasingly depend on governmental authority to manage the impact of others’ lives on their own.
Progressive - a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas
Conservative - a person who is averse to change and holds traditional values
And now if we drill in, we get a problem.
Traditional values - long-standing beliefs, customs, and practices passed down through generations within a particular culture or society, often reflecting moral, ethical, or religious principles
Problem number 1, different conservative hold different set of traditional values. To be conservative kind of requires some level of social hegemony, where everyone holds the same traditional values.
Liberal -
1. a supporter of policies that promote social welfare.
2. a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Problem number 2, there are now two definition of liberal ideas. One are geared towars social welfare. The other towards democracy and individual liberty.
This makes it that, all conversation that stays high level, and talks about clusters as conservatives and progressives, to me, is misconstrued, and confusing, because the subject could dramatically be different. Are we discussing Judeo-Christian values, gender roles, etc. ? Are we discussing the need for social welfare, the importance of democracy, the value of individual rights?
It all gets conflated in a way that simply divides people based on labels, not substance.
The hallmark of traditional liberal ideals are now mainstream conservative thought (at least in the US). That is why you see a lot of people saying they are 'classical liberal' when describing their political beliefs.
This is why things like bussing works. Why inclusion is important and why representation is vital.
I wonder about the premise of this idea as well. Cities are more expensive and cramped and have more fun things going on - the perfect mix for younger people, who also tend to be more progressive.
A very large majority of homeowners with babies move out of dense cities. These also tend to be more conservative.
Where they homeowners that moved out or moved out to be homeowners?
Where they more conservative then loved out or became more conservative once they had babies?
No one is static
I grew up in rural Indiana, during the implementation of bussing (https://blog.history.in.gov/tag/forced-busing/). It generated so much hatred in the people around me, and had a lot to do with my decision (as a queer white person) to get the hell out of Dodge, ASAP.
In our middle school, Black boys were put into home economics class with the white girls, while white boys took shop class, where they would learn skills that they'd use to find jobs in the community. There was still segregation, lots of those boys ended up in "Special Education" where they'd be moved to outbuildings built for those "special classes". It was warehousing people, plain and simple.
Some of those boys were my friends. They were intelligent, curious, funny, creative young men, who were fully aware their ticket had been punched. It was a waste of human potential that America is right to be ashamed and in denial of.
Denial is one of the steps in the healing process. It's ugly, and everyone outside of the sufferer is right to have feelings about it. Sometimes it's frustration, sometimes pity, sometimes it's rage. "How can you be so blind?" we exclaim. I was a victim of the system, same as them, but I'll be damned if I don't have complicated feelings about it. We all do, I expect, though none of us feel quite free to express them in totality these days, if we had the safe space to express and process them. Instead, we have this.
We live in a better world, though. Even Indianapolis and the rural towns that spoke and wheel connect to. Even people in Knox, one of the towns I grew up in, where the town's head of the KKK worked at the local Sears. We all grew up a little bit since then, though, maybe not so much as we still need and deserve.
HN is best, not because of the articles that get posted, but because we have a place to discuss them, with honest inquiry. I'm grateful for it, and grateful for your comment. It is 100% true and it concurs with my anecdata.
And connecting the dots: “of course Bob’s not going to hell for <insert thing here>, what else are my sacred books wrong about“