Although I have known this for a long, long time, while watching analysis of the 2016 election results as they came in – they highlighted the great divide and stark differences in ideology between those who live in population-dense regions versus those rural.
I read this morning that “Geographically speaking, Trump won at least 80% of the Nation”. When looking at a recent ‘red-blue’ election results map of all U.S. counties, it is amazingly clear how the vast geographical landscape is ‘red’, while pockets of ‘blue’ (the cities) are spattered about – with some ‘regions’ of blue in swaths of high population-density.
It is highly evident the sheer differences in political ideologies between these geographical areas. Mostly, the cities and city regions vote ‘left’ while most all others vote ‘right’.
As I watched the statistical commentary while election results came in during the night of NOV-8, it was a remarkable ‘visual’ to observe a given state colored mostly all ‘red’ while it came down to one small ‘blue’ county to determine the overall results for that state. It points out the great geographical divide…
For so many states, their political direction is determined by a very small population-dense geographical region, which is most always ‘left-leaning’. Often, and mostly, this direction is in conflict with the lifestyle of those who live more rural. These differences can be very stark.
In the case of the 2016 general election, it appears that more of the rural folks came out to vote this time – energized by Trump. And now the city folks are quite pi$$ed off (the televised protests around various cities and colleges)…while it seems that this time they’re getting a dose of what has often been the other way around…
To an extent, the population make-up of many or most ‘cities’ are younger people – many of whom are going to college there, and many of whom have found higher paying jobs there – even though it costs LOTS more to live there. Many move to various populations-dense suburbia’s, raise families there, work there – or in the city – and live their lives there. Suburbia has been ever expanding as population continues to grow, while ‘life’ is different there.
When people live very close to each other and when people are essentially ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ while out and about, interacting, or at work, or even ‘at play’, apparently life’s ideologies are affected, and different (to an extent) from those who live further apart from each other.
As city regions have grown and expanded, and as more ‘young’ people have left the countryside to live there, it has led to an increasing political divide in this country – especially as many colleges and universities themselves have indoctrinated our young into left-leaning ideologies (a well-known general fact).
Additionally, our ‘young’ (who are now approaching and entering ‘middle aged’) have been coddled much more so than ever before. Generally, many are ill equipped to deal with failure and conflict compared with others who have grown a ‘thicker skin’ – perhaps having been brought up a bit differently or via having attended the ‘School of Hard Knocks’ (e.g. ‘real life’).
Rural vs The City
I suppose that it comes down to lifestyle differences, the associated value systems that go with them, the differences in up-bringing, differences in schooling, differences in mass media marketing influences, differences in perceptions of ‘quality of life’, differences in the definition of ‘success’, differences in life’s stresses, …
I suppose that these differences lead to ideological differences which translate to political differences which translate to elections. The outcome of one mass group affects the other, and there will always be this general but great divide.
While I know that I am speaking generally and am using a broad brush in this painted picture, the fact is that it’s generally true. And while I don’t have the solution how to resolve these geographical political / electoral differences (I do have some ideas though 😉 ), this thought process has led me to think about ‘what if’ SHTF or ‘collapse’ scenarios – and how it would unfold in the cities vs rural…if it were to happen.
Life in the city literally depends upon a MASSIVE working infrastructure. EVERYTHING is brought in from the outside. The flow must not be disrupted. While much of this is true too for those who live rural (food trucked in to grocery stores, electricity requirements, fuel delivery), the reality is that life in the city will be IMPOSSIBLE without it while the lifestyle of those who live rural is in many ways more conducive for survival through major disruption than those who only know ‘the city’ and its ‘life’.
In short, these ‘blue’ colored regions would be ‘toast’. Burnt toast.