[chrisser]

I know there are exceptions, but the sad fact is that people who live in the cities want to be dependent on government. There are degrees to this, of course, but if they wanted an independent life, they'd move.

The Dems pander to, manipulate, enable and insure this dependence, thus guaranteeing the votes of the populace.

Repubs don't do so much pandering. Heck, sometimes I wonder if they're even on our side, but those of us who don't want the dependent life also don't have much use for politicians - we get the pubbies by default and they're not nearly as bad as 'rats would be.

I'd be fine with all of the above if we had a way to limit the influence of cities to their geographic area, or if they were content to keep their governance to themselves. The fact is, the cities and the politicians therein aren't content with limiting power to the cities and their citizens. They want to rule the rural areas around them and that's where most of our conflicts lie. I would argue they not only want to rule the rest of us, they demand deference to their enlightenment. That is never going to end well.

If they'd just stick to the cesspools they created, most of us in the in-between wouldn't give them a second thought.

[Reily]

There was a Supreme Court ruling in the 1960s that greatly expanded the power of high population areas i.e., cities over the rural countryside. (I think it in some way diminished the power of state senates but I can’t swear to that!) Everett Dirksen then Senator from Illinois made a comment on it and said it would financially devastate his state as well as others. I think we are seeing that now. Maybe some FR legal beagle can find the ruling and post it.