The urban angle (Profound differences from city to country in Canada)

David Warren's blog/Ottawa Citizen ^ | 01/25/06 | David Warren

[Heartofsong83]

It's so true. It's just like the big differences between Red and Blue states, for example from the SF Bay Area to the Central Valley, or from South Florida to the Panhandle, or from east to central Pennsylvania.

If you travel just 50 miles from downtown Toronto to Simcoe County, or 50 miles from downtown Vancouver to the Fraser Valley, it is as conservative as Alberta or Texas.

[Alberta's Child]

Great article. I think this guy stole a lot of this article from an old post of mine here on FR. LOL.

[caddie]

Very brilliant analysis by this guy.

The funniest thing about urban leftists is that they think they are cool because they live in a city.

The cooler the city, the cooler you are.

Right.

[Heartofsong83]

Yet the "not-so-cool" cities, that are either economically prosperous or aesthetically pleasing (or both), are leaning on the conservative side too...those being cities like Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Ottawa, St. Catharines-Niagara, Quebec City and St. John's.

[TheBigB]

Who's the MP for St. John's? I have a green-voting friend who lives there. I sent her an email gently teasing her about her new PM. ;)

[RoadTest]

Yup. New York is as much like the US as Paris is like France. San Fran Freako - well, just ask Michael Savage about that. It has much to do with "The Enemy Within".

[Heartofsong83]

The three MP's in the area are Loyola Hearn, Norman Doyle and Fabian Manning - all Conservatives.

[thackney]

The difference between countries is geographic -- and derives from the fact that so little of Canada is habitable. We lack the vast, occupied, American outdoors. Against the wind blowing from the Arctic, we are huddled together more densely in cities. A much higher proportion of our population is therefore to be found in typical “Blue State” environments -- where people have lost all contact with nature, and by increments, with the realities of life.

Poor excuses. Alaska fits this description with most of its population in cities. We have Republican Representative, Senators, Governor, State Legislature and vote Republican for the President.

[TheBigB]

Thanks!

[fanfan]

Canada Ping!

Please FReepmail me to get on or off this Canada ping list.

[speekinout]

Poor excuses. Alaska fits this description with most of its population in cities.

Um, what passes for "cities" in Alaska would be called "towns" in any other state or Canada. The entire population of Alaska is something like 635,000. Anchorage (which I think is the largest "city") has a population of something like 260,000.
NYC is >8M, LA nearly 4M, Toronto nearly 4M, and Montreal >3M.

I've lived in large cities, small cities, and towns (admittedly, none in Alaska), and the difference between a few hundred thousand and a few million is enormous.

[JerseyHighlander]

This is a great article, well articulated, and as Alberta's Child said, a line of thought that has been well explored on FR and the 'net already.

I don't think Alaska fits into the analogy as you presented it thackney, for at it's core, Alaska is a state of immigrants who have, like the ex-urban people across North America, left behind their home states and cities to reach Alaska. Alaska has also not yet had it's fisheries depleted and collapse such as the Maritimes and Maine, and they haven't had their old growth lumber forest stocks depleted such as north Ontario or north Appalachia and Upstate NY.

And even if Alaskans are voting Republican, it's not as if they're voting against the guys who are bringing home the large pork, which cuts into larger national issues, off topic to the thread.

[JerseyHighlander]

Right, another good point, a friend of mine grew up in Queens, NY and moved to Juneau, there were more people in his NY State University then there are college age college students in Alaska.

[kanawa]

I think this guy stole a lot of this article from an old post of mine here on FR.

I think he's been reading my mind ;~)
What a dead on article!

[happyathome]

Even more critically, in the States its the ex-urbans (and rurals) who are having all the kids. Those "cool" urban dwellers are having none. Hopefully the demographic tilt towards self reliant conservatives accelerates in both countries.

[qam1]

Edmonton is a far left city, stuff like this doesn't happen in Conservative cities

[x]

Good article. Exurbanites or Ex-urbanites do tend to be conservative. But the exurbs tend to get more or less swallowed up in the suburban belt over time. You can see that on Long Island or Northern Virginia or Southern California or New Jersey. Areas that were very Republican quite recently are now trending Democrat. There are also some exurbanites who are liberal. You can see that in Vermont.

[Clive]

There is a saying that I have always thought rather apr, that describes the attitude of the power elites:

"They think that everything in Canada that is important can be seen from the top of the CN Tower."

[Cannoneer No. 4]

The over-urbanized are the willing clients of the nanny state. They are loathe to take responsibility for anything; they assume when anything goes wrong, some specialist or expert will fix it.

They have a different concept of reality. In their world there ought to be a law against every annoyance, and a public servant to clean up every mess.

[speekinout]

Alaska has also not yet had it's fisheries depleted

That part isn't completely true. I took a tour in Dutch Harbor a year or so ago. The tour guide was explaining to us that their crab industry was depleted due to overfishing, and now their economy was dependent on catching pollock (which, she said, was then processed to remove the flavor, so they could supply fish sticks to the lower 48. Never mind how I reacted to that!).
I wonder what they will do when the pollock is gone?