Liberal cities and straddling otherness: more progressive yet more governmental
Urban areas are strikingly liberal while smaller towns are more conservative. Diverse exposure and governmental assistance may be the solution.
Liberal ideology classically promotes plurality and revolutionary paradigms. While conservatives endorsed civil right they are not too keen on progressive attitudes though that does not make them bad people. They have different values. Their opposition to newness rests on historical merit. There is a clean tradition that is undeterred. A linear methodology that pervasively consists of a singularity theorem. Tradition holds deep value. That consistent way of life is incredibly value and deeply immersive. Values are entrenched in the archaic Stonehenge. A symmetrical allegiance daunting on the forbearers to educate to their children. Children exposed to the liberal alterations. In medieval Europe liberalism was far short the minority. Today conservatism is. Diversity or not, the central statement of the capital will hail to those surrounding. The farther from the centre the more malleability to diverge. Nuances in thinking and practice arise with little oversight.
A liberal state will promote their agenda in the public. The cities are the most vulnerable to their starring advocacy. Denser population with more attractions. The city is not only a centre but a flow of information. The city is the heart of the state’s function. It is where the officials reside and legislate. While rural areas may have centres they are a drive away unlike cities that are next door to the citizenry. Putting an agenda on display to the public is democratically efficient in the promotion of liberal values. Marches do not take place in countryside Albany but in Manhattan. Location is evident for impact whether for national or international response. It is a spotlight not just for the citizenry but the state as well. It is the core of infrastructure and development.
The state’s agenda may also confirm the audience’s message. Cities are less homogeneous. Cities are the centre of employment. If the goal is to work then the desire to find community comes second. Immigrants looking for a new life will gravitate towards the cities with more opportunities. There are immigrant communities in smaller towns which may be due to location. The duration of diversity culminates in varied cultures interacting. More exposure to otherness slowly funnels other ideas into daily routine. Cultural overlap is bound to happen. A sense of liberalism perpetuates in a city of difference. The workplace is a facet of variety jumbled together to excel. Yet, is this diversity a notion of pure workforce regulation or state propaganda? Jobs are in the cities. The city centre is a miraculous exception for labouring duress. Shaped communities open up to the optimal citizenry.
Yet the state’s decision may be more nefarious. The state’s power rallies in the open cities. More power to enforce on the public. It is a public section for all to meet but it also centralises a joint effort of governmental oversight. The more citizenry regulated in the public eye the more exertion the higher ups can have. Cities provide an area to travel to do. They are designed for specified labour and yet people reside in them. There is something to be said of living close to a job but it is also of meshing diversity. People live in small apartments conjoined in skyscrapers. In this societal construction there is much exposure. A point for the government to procure diversity yet also a mode of producing their desired intent. Incidental communication between different individuals does not always lead to the best outcomes given the differences. Authorities need to step in to ensure the peace. Coming for a job does not mean that baggage stays at home. The meshing of diversity idealistically seems relevant but can be a ticking time-bomb.
Clashing of cultures may eventually lead to brotherly love but not at the beginning. The close proximity will endeavour brawls and other menacing acts. The need for extra security is provided by the state. The state ensures safety for its its citizens. Living in a democratic metropolis, needs more governmental assistance. Do not worry, the state will ensure serenity. It begins with good intent but then it becomes more nefarious. Clinging to the money grabbing elites over the common man. Shady deals for more celebrity status. Cities are immediate cages. A prison realised after some time. Proximity to others is too near but state exertion is more felt given the magnitude of its eliteness. It is a city. Jobs and a lot of money made in the area. Polishing culture wars with poverty quenching to derail improvements for the constituents. A close place but not necessarily a good place.
The ideal of progressive politics is urban warfare. The state is more conservative than progressives but more liberal than right wingers. A liberal count solidifies a push for more revolutionary programs. To provide diverse safety legislation is encumbered to protect minorities. Power is consequential. Wishing for minority excellence at the expense of the discriminatory public needs a reform to standardise public behaviour. Discriminated individuals are now provided the same access. Though ironically it is overturning a past legal exclusion. Protections for the perceived downtrodden is noble as long as it is a favour not a springboard for control. Governmental control slowly engulfs every facet pushing its own paradigm. Doing just enough for re-election but fairly inactive throughout. Progressive politics ideally is a beautiful sight but realistically a power grab. The more reliance on the government the more power it exerts.
No comments:
Post a Comment