Democracy, Demographics, and Urban Failure
by David Sims
I WAS JUST now reading an essay that examined the relationship between politics and population density, with the writer scratching his head upon discovering that there is a correlation between population density and liberalism and/or leftist politics. He wondered why.
Intuition has never had an easier task.
Cities are built by people who can build cities. But, after a city appears, people who need to have other people to mooch from — because they can’t do much of anything to sustain themselves when they are by themselves — move into the cities and take over the urban political life via the democratic process.
Once the losers are in charge, the appeal, promotion, and pursuit of liberal-socialist policies just never ends. The people who were able to build the city move out, and the people who might have been able to keep it going eventually follow them. The city begins to develop budgetary problems, and it must begin the destructive practice of raising taxes, which leads to further flight among the able part of the population.
It’s a slow-motion tailspin that can take 50, 100, or even 200 years to complete, depending on the quality of the remaining inhabitants. But ultimately the city turns into what Detroit became.
In places that remain fairly close approximations to a frontier, a wilderness that has been only lightly touched by civilization, the people are found to be much more self-reliant and, therefore, more conservative.
* * *
Source: David Sims
DAVID SIMS was generally liberal in outlook until 1995, when he attempted to debate a group of National Alliance members on the subject of racial equality. Although sure he’d win, Sims lost. Badly.
He discovered that he had been making, with regard to his belief in racial equality, the assumption that at least one of the many liberals that he knew had bothered to check the scientific data on the subject. It turned out that no one had. The theory of racial equality was nothing more than a catchy meme, contrary to all the available evidence. At that moment, David Sims faced a crisis in which his mind urged him one way, but his emotions urged him in the opposite direction. He could have done what most liberals do when they lose an argument to a racist: retreat under a smokescreen of invective, pretend that the debate had never happened, and keep on professing beliefs that he now knew to be false.
Fortunately, he didn’t do that. Instead, Sims became the racist that he remains today. He is proud of the fact that he has been able to withstand much criticism since from people with weaker minds, less honesty, or inferior resolve.