For the first time yesterday I took a somewhat close look at the state-by-state census results (courtesy of USA Today's color-coded maps). I paid particular attention to a) county population growth rates, b) patterns of population growth b/w urban, suburban, and rural counties, and c) regional differences in these patterns.
Here's some interesting generalizations I came up with: 1) The further south you go, the more rampant exurban sprawl is, and the worse core city abandonment is. 2) The further you move to the interior of the country, the more rampant exurban sprawl is, and the worse core city abandonment is. 3) The further north you go, the more inner-city gentrification you get, and exurban "slow growth" becomes more prevalent. 4) The further you move toward the coasts, the more inner-city gentrificaton you get, and exurban "slow growth" becomes more prevalent.
In other words, where the (white) technical-professional class is the least "cosmopolitan" in taste and most racist socially -- i.e. Texas, Deep South, etc. -- inner-city abandonment and exurban sprawl is the worst. Examples -- Atlanta, Houston, Birmingham, Jackson, Phoenix. Where the (white) technical-professional class is the most "worldly" in taste and the least racist socially -- i.e. Mid-Atlantic and New England, Pacific Northwest, etc. -- gentrification and exurban growth controls are the most pronounced. Examples -- Bay Area, Portland, Boston, New York.
(Obviously there are exceptions to such rank generalizations -- Minneapolis, for example, has a northern but also a coastal profile).
The Republican Party is the strongest in those metropolises where exurban sprawl is most intense. Makes sense -- its popular constituency is here (conservative tech-prof suburbanites) and so too are those blocs of capital served by exurban sprawl -- i.e. the auto-industrial complex -- landed property, shopping mall developers, construction contractors, big oil, auto manufacturers, etc.
The Democratic Party is the strongest in those metropolises where inner-city gentrification is most pronounced. Makes sense -- its popular constituency is here (liberal yuppies) and so too are those blocs of capital served by urban core revitalization -- non-military related high-tech, finance, etc.
Objectively speaking, one place to build a constituency for radical eco-political movements and/or third party politics is an alliance of urban low-income people of color (in metropolises everywhere) and rural poor in places outside the vacation/second home/retirement colony loop (e.g. -- Mississippi Delta, High Plains, Indian reservations, Appalachia, etc.). Subjectively speaking, such an alliance is hard to fathom (not to mention a genuinely left-green politics).
John Gulick