Replies

I am fascinated by the anaylsis you both offered here. It's excellent. I must inject, however, the question of whether or not one might still come up with that 'toxic liberal thought' in one generation within a heartland fatherless family on welfare.

While there appears to be a preponderance of libs in big cities, I would submit that the same could be achieved in rural areas if one could shred the family and create government dependence. In fact, I think we're beginning to see some of that in suburban areas. The latter seems to be tipping liberal in many places as we see increased familial breakdown, coupled with urban liberals moving into the suburbs to 'get away from it all'.....

You're thoughts?

I think the idea of Heartland purity as a uniform constant is a myth. In some rural pockets across the interior of the US, welfare is as high or higher than comparable demographics in urban areas.

The blessing and the bane of urban living is that the higher concentrations of people translate into higher initiative which equals greater wealth which creates greater opportunities for more development - and more scheming, scamming and skimming.

In rural areas with greater self-reliance, the folks in the area know pretty well who's a slacker and who's a good neighbor. In urban areas, the dead weight of non-productive elements is hidden in anonymity and the impact is spread out over millions of productive members so their sloth and virtual theft is far less noticable.

Like the numbers in Las Vegas, the house (and government) never loses as long as human nature wants something for nothing. I think it is the degree of the opportunity for parasitic dependence and the sheer numbers that practice such behavior that makes the difference between rural and urban.

...It is the paternalistic, elitist, libertine philosphies of the large cities which grow Liberals like toxic mold in a petri dish....

the question of whether or not one might still come up with that 'toxic liberal thought' in one generation within a heartland fatherless family on welfare.

Sure, but it is a bit less likely. Why? Because in urban areas there are two things that are promote the (above) maladies): "Anonymity" and "unaccountabilty".

Man's propensity to sin is usually encouraged by the personal anonymity and lack of moral accountability to others - whether a church or close-knit community, particularly if unencumbered by spiritual renewal (born-again experience and a relationsip with the Lord) which often can provide the inward brakes.

People usually seek the free-wheeling personal immorality of the crowd to cover their sin proclivities. But, such proclivities are also practiced readily by the more bold in a rural environment. What is in the heart will eventually come out. Although people in the city are freer to practice it, those in the country can find more subtle ways. But generally not as readily or without the personal secrecy urban society permits.

Unfortunately, the fatherless family on welfare is often the result of sexual immorality, and the remaining family (and society) lives with the results of these mutual sins for years. It is caustic for all involved.