Over the past century, the world has experienced an unprecedented level of urbanization. People continue to move away from small, rural communities to inhabit highly developed and densely populated cities. Within these metropolitan areas, a worrying development has been occurring: a greater prevalence of progressive ideology. Look no further than America’s major cities such as San Francisco, Atlanta, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, Austin, and so forth. Virtually all of them, even in supposedly red states, have a majority or plurality of the population who identify with left-wing progressivism and support the Democratic Party. Researchers calculated the distribution of Democrats and Republicans in America based on geography utilizing Gallup survey data from 2003-2018, and their findings (pictured below) showed that Democrats are heavily concentrated in or near cities and densely populated areas, while Republicans tend to inhabit places farther away from cities with less population density.
One of the main factors as to why cities are progressive is they incentivize bigger government. The great conservative political talk show host and writer Dennis Prager has often remarked, “Most people do not yearn to be free. Most people yearn to be taken care of.” Humans are often tempted to abdicate personal responsibility and have another person or institution provide for their needs. Rural areas are a logical check against this because they cause individuals and families to be self-sufficient. Many rural inhabitants, for example, source food like milk and eggs from their own farms. Gimpel and Karnes (2006) explain the link between rural inhabitants and their support for conservative and Republican candidates, “…their individualistic ethic and legacy of self employment and home-ownership inclines them to adopt the self-image of the independent entrepreneur and property owner rather than that of the laborer in need of state regulation and protection.”
People in rural areas also have greater community since they know most, if not all, of the inhabitants in their area personally. They participate regularly in activities such as sports, picnics, and church gatherings, all of which reinforce a sense of morality as well as religious observance. As Gimpel et al. (2020) articulate,
“Institutions within less dense communities are small in size, sustaining a higher frequency of interaction. Consequently, values in these places are more interdependent and distinct. Habitual ways of thought and behavior are upheld and perpetuated over long periods of time. These viewpoints are typically associated with social and political conservatism.”
Although cities seemingly provide the chance to form lots of meaningful relationships, it can actually be more difficult since it is easy to get “lost” in a crowded urban area. To further add to the challenge of relationship-building in cities, people often have to work long hours to afford living in densely populated cities. And metropolitan areas in many cases have a presence of gang violence and crime. These can inevitably lead to a poor social life and minimized interaction with others outside of the workplace. In cities, it is easier to isolate and fall away from the activities that encourage morality, namely attending church. It is harder to get married and raise children, both of which are crucial tenets of conservatism. Additionally, the population mobility of cities is substantial due to causes like migration. With people moving in and out of an area constantly, it can be hard to ground oneself and form deep lasting friendships.
How does this all relate to progressivism in large cities? When there is an area with thousands or millions of people tightly packed together, there is less opportunity for people to exercise self-sufficiency. The density contributes to a high cost of living as well as limited space, and so people are not as likely to own land or a home. Many might not even have their own personal mode of transportation. And so the need arises for a strong central authority to step in. A bigger government and more bureaucrats are required to ensure essential services such as road maintenance, water and sewage management, and public transportation. Because people are in close proximity to strangers, they desire for the government to regulate social behavior. With less capability of self-governance and no deep ties to community or family, urban inhabitants rely on the support system of the state for things beyond essential services and constitutionally enumerated areas, including healthcare, higher education, and housing.
In 2016, Franco-Colombian scientist Carlos Moreno created a novel urban planning model called the “15-Minute City.” As the name suggests, the vision for this type of city is to have every service and necessity–work, education, food, healthcare–within a comfortable fifteen-minute walking or biking distance. Moreno’s model is quickly gaining popularity, with European cities like Paris and Barcelona already beginning to incorporate it into their urban developments. By implementing 15-minute cities around the world, proponents hope to decrease society’s dependence on automobiles, reduce carbon emissions, promote sustainable living, and improve human flourishing. The same year Moreno devised his 15-minute city concept, the World Economic Forum, an international non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Switzerland, published an article containing eight predictions for our world once we reach the year 2030. The first one listed is that all products will become services, meaning that people will own absolutely nothing. In the words of Danish MP Ida Auken, in this future society, “I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.”
These visions may sound great in theory but have unprecedented ramifications for our constitutionally protected liberties. If the private citizens do not own property, then the central government takes control of it. Everything one has can be instantly taken at a moment’s notice should he or she step out of line. The state will have the ability to regulate where and when you can travel, how many vehicles you can own if any, and of what type, the space you are allowed to live in, etc. With such a tightly concentrated population, it will be much easier to force compliance by creating a national surveillance system similar to the ones in communist countries where people are monitored at every moment. In this “Brave New World,” people will lose their freedom and become slaves to the government. That is where America and global society is headed if rapid urbanization continues and progressivism remains prevalent.
Urbanized metropolitan areas become progressive in part because they create an environment where a bigger government is not only required, but also desired. Peter Jacobsen, writing for the Foundation for Economic Education, stated, “…government overreach is to some extent a function of what makes a city, a city.” Conservatives who seek to preserve the ideals of limited government and personal responsibility ought to be cautious about the policies that encourage the development of dense, highly populated cities.
