February 01, 2004

Where the Liberals Live

I'm picking up on a comments thread below (a blog is much fun -- you pour your heart out on an important topic and get no comments but a "hello, I'm home" post gets a conversation started...)

Here's something that bugs me. I love the places where liberals live. I like Austin. I like Boulder even though I complain about it. San Francisco, Maine, Monterey California -- these are not real Bush strongholds. But they're cool.

Chris Matthews said "'Blue states' are Starbucks -- 'Red states' are coffee at the Diner." Hmm, can I please change my registration? I am a Starbucks guy.

Rachel Lucas has a great blog -- she sells a coffee mug that said "Imagine a world without liberals..." It's funny, but I gotta ask my right-wing friends: "do you want a world with no NPR, no New York Times? Would movies be as good without those vapid celebrities? I don't know.

Can we have liberty and good coffee?

Posted by jk at February 1, 2004 12:26 PM
Comments

Hmm... I dont listen to NPR, and I only read or hear about the NYT by reference to it, not because I actively seek it out..... Maybe there are tons of other good "non-liberal" or "non-political" celebrities out there, but they're being blocked out by the ones we have now... maybe.
Coffee? Can live without it.
You could roast your own like Donald Sensing.

Posted by: AlexC at February 1, 2004 02:12 PM

Fair enough. But don't you live in a liberal city? You choose to live in Philadelphia. I live in Boulder County, Colorado. Neither of us have seen fit to move. (Johngalt has moved to a more rural Colorado location.) Interesting...

Posted by: jk at February 1, 2004 04:25 PM

Kinda.. i live in the Philly 'burbs.. technically a blue county, but it seems pretty red to me. I actually moved back here from Houston, Tx... by choice.... my job lets me live anywhere.
I like the four seasons the most, followed by the history....

Posted by: AlexC at February 1, 2004 04:54 PM

JK, in defense of Alex I challenge you to name one large city that ISN'T dominated by "homo leftis." The cause is their collectivist mindset. They feel comfortable in groups. More importantly, they feel uncomfortable when they're alone. They seek approval from the group. They gain strength from the group. As a group they can manage to survive despite putting the needs of animals and redwood trees ahead of their own.

Matthews' characterization of "good coffee - liberal, bad coffee - conservative" is myopic. Not surprising considering he lives in San Francisco. A better analogy would be "Blue states - well-funded government social service offices, Red states - 'Piss on the IRS' bumper stickers."

Posted by: johngalt at February 3, 2004 08:34 AM

JK,

We would love to have you on the liberal side, but I expect that even really good coffee will not be enough to entice you. I am a coffee snob too, Starbucks or Peaberry and dark roasted thanks. I think this is a perfect example of liberal capatilism. Feel strongly enough about the rain forest to pay more for a pound of coffee grown by enviro farmers in Brazil, then boffo to you!

John,

(ooh, a double comment, is that allowed?)
Interesting take on the reason for city dwellers to tend to be more liberal than rural folks. Could also just be easier to lean conservative or libertarian when the neighbor is five miles away rather than 5 feet. Sort of a sphere of rights, easier to hold onto when fewer people penetrate with differing ideas.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at February 3, 2004 12:27 PM

Hey, this isn't the old "unenlightened country bumpkin" vs. "progressive urban sophisticate" argument is it? No, you couldn't possibly be calling country people names. But you do seem to be admitting that conservatism is the natural human proclivity. I might be tempted to support the theory that people adopt a liberal (modern variety) mindset primarily as a byproduct of urban cramming, except that all of the urban cramming is self-inflicted. Why would anyone choose to live 5 feet from his neighbor, when he could live 5 miles away instead?

Posted by: johngalt at February 3, 2004 10:28 PM

JK...i feel I didn't give you a full answer to your question of why.... so I posted a longer response on my blog.

SD, you dont think that the rural proclivity towards conservatism (maybe libertarianism), is the idea of doing it "by yourself, for yourself?"
Yeah, you might grow some food in the garden or hunt deer etc.... doing it on your own.
In the city, you don't even have to wipe your own ass if you dont want to. Someone does nearly everything else, in some way.
A dependancy on a third party.. for liberals, it's the state. For conservatives its to yourself.
Maybe?

Posted by: AlexC at February 4, 2004 12:08 AM

Absolutely no name calling was intended or implied. I don't subscribe to the country bumpkin concept at all. I just think that the cramming of metropolitian areas has an effect on human behavior. This has actually been scientifically tested with lab mice, put too many mice in a box and they go wild. As for the free choice to live outside the metropolis that is not so free if that is where your job is. Getting to that 5 mile zone could mean moving 50 or more miles away from some metro areas.

As for the bigger conservative vs. liberal question, I am a liberal but not a socialist. I see liberalism as being open to new ideas and being willing to let other people live their life in a way that I don't approve of.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at February 4, 2004 09:31 AM
| What do you think? [8]