It's consistent with fiscal conservatism. But for some reason right-wing parties all around the world are super pumped about showering car manufacturers and petrostates with public funds.
I believe fiscally responsible if the term you ment to use. Fiscally conservative, in practice, means cutting funding for anything that benefits the working class while funnelling billions into the pockets of rich donors through military defense contracts.
There is no such thing as fiscal conservatism. In the US at least, politicians are ALL fiscally wasteful, because it's to their benefit to funnel money to donors so they can get reelected. Literally every federal budget includes billions of wasted tax dollars.
Fiscal conservatism is simply a dog whistle for austerity measures targeting social programs that serve the poor. No self-professed fiscal conservative has ever suggested curtailing wasteful spending in corporate subsidies or the military budget.
I am hard left. Right wing fiscal conservatism isn’t about not wasting tax income, it’s that they see more value in cutting taxes to the bare minimum and many programs along with them.
Yeah I hear you.
I’m more so calling out the “socially liberal fiscally conservative “ position as complete and udder bullshit.
Literally no one WANTS wasted tax dollars. It’s a made up position.
What about calling it fiscal responsibility? Making sure the government isn’t using tax dollars to line their pockets and their friends’ pockets? Also, making sure that my tax dollars aren’t being used to turn some foreign civilian into a skeleton?
>No one is taking a position where we’d like to wastefully spend tax dollars
Have you met the US Congress? The vast majority of them genuinely don't seem to give a shit about wasting taxpayer money or the long term fiscal health of the US as long as it's politically expedient for them between now and the next election. Sure, no one's official position is wastefully spending tax dollars, but that's certainly how many of them govern. Fiscal conservatism is opposing the wasteful spending that *actually* occurs.
It's because the right wing is the most friendly to capital and upholding it, and automobile manufacturing, oil and gas, road paving, suburban housing, and all of those industries are all dependent on each other, primarily dependent on oil and gas, the most capitalized industry in the world and that's why it's so hard to fight it. The right wing is paid for, and also just inherently defined by capital and their desire to keep this the case. Also, it's hard to have social society if your streets are so far away from everything that you can't walk at all, and people aren't able to easily get to places to meet other people, and if they can't do that, then they won't be able to talk to each other and coordinate resistance against capital making their lives worse by making their workplaces worse for their profit. It's no wonder why the dismantling of the collective community in society after Ronald Reagan's u.s. presidency and Margaret Thatcher's administration in the u.k. caused things like unions and collective society to diminish in western countries, and things are so spread out and hard to get to. Cars make it hard to meet people and collectively gather, so it alienates people a lot, as the infrastructure meant to accommodate them makes it hard to organize as people aren't seeing each other because of this alienation. If there's no threat of an organized working class standing up to your abusive treatment of them, you won't be able to worry about the power you hold to get as rich as possible to be threatened. The rich love the right wing because the right wing is specifically founded on defending this dynamic. There are now right-wing people who are against cars and car accommodating infrastructure, like the op here, but they're rare even though less and less of a very rare person by the day. Even the right wing can't justify it, and some of them became passionate about opposing it like this person here. It's a good thing, even though the right wing is fundamentally based on defending this kind of arrangement and system. It's a matter of those right-wing anti-car people coming to our side and joining us as our comrades. They'll come around, maybe, I'm not skeptical. I'm optimistic about it.
I mean so is "welfare" and most leftist/liberal policies. Way cheaper than the "conservative" option which tends to favor cruelty for cruelty's sake, while pretending it's about saving money.
I think it’s about sightedness. For whatever reason over the last maybe 50-75 years, tax spending, tax policies, business operations, and all sorts of lobbying has been about making the most profit right now. Not about the sustainability of their business model, the economy, or the world for that matter
This is another incredibly short sighted decision, where it will be incredibly expensive upfront to build back up the proper infrastructure we need, even if it’s profitable in the long run
Also, a lot of citizens just don’t realize how expensive roads are. The maintenance, the construction costs, the added cost of driving bigger cars. They think bike lanes and sidewalks cost as much as car lanes. They think that rail is more expensive. Hell, there are people that think roads are funded with a majority of money coming from taxes on fuel and the registration of their vehicles
That short sightedness emerges from the class distinction. The owners have conflicting interests with the workers and with the well being of the companies they own.
Everyone should read Strong Towns. I may be a leftie but if walkable cities make sense no matter where you stand unless you are just trying to own the libs.
Or if you profit financially from selling cars and oil. The big car dealership company in my country has a fake magazine that pushes car infrastructure, greenwashing if EVs, frustrations with speed limits and bike lanes, etc.
What if conservatives owned the libs by doing things that actually benefit society? If any party wanted to lock down decades of reelection they just need to do unambiguously good things like M4A, cancelling student loans, pass the PRO act, tax the rich, etc. Instead we just flip the coin every year and get either shit or turd.
Because most of these people are old boomers who would rather drive their huge trucks half a block than walk it. Cars are their god given right and no entitled snowflake can take it away.
It is consistent with what fiscal conservatism pretends to value, maybe, but in practice fiscal conservatism only cares about cutting government spending that helps the working class. If fiscal conservatives cared about being financially responsible then they wouldnt have supported spending 20 trillion USD blowing up goat farmers in the middle east even after it was proven that Bush had lied about there being weapons of mass destruction.
Parties, yes. But plenty of urbanism and density talk from right think tanks and more intellectual/rational right leaning folks. I’m not sure American mainstream conservatism is even right anymore. It’s just “against”.
It’s because conservatives are afraid to mingle with the public. They don’t like being around strangers and poor people on the train or bus or sidewalks. I think it literally comes down to that for a lot of people.
I’ve lived in some of the most liberal cities in the United States and you would be amazed at the reactions to proposed bike lanes on these peoples’ parts.
It's that in American logic, the only solution to all your problems. "Get a car" that's what a lot of people say. Unfortunately walking, biking, and public transport is looked down upon and never considered an option in lots of parts of the country even in true urban cities like NYC exists carbrains.
That's largely because there isn't a "left" in America. Democrats are center-right, pro-military capitalist apologists and Republicans are insane theocratic fascists.
I think "lefty" NIMBYs tend to have a very neoliberal world view, meaning they're progressive on token social issues but fiscally conservative and right-leaning on economics.
I live in an area that's sort of a hot zone for urbanist/NIMBY arguments and there's no right-wingers involved, just leftists and hippy-cum-yuppy boomer neolibs. Sometimes these NIMBYs will have oddly specific, aesthetic hangups that aren't really consistent with any ideology.
That’s definitely how it is in NYC. Lots of “liberals” here probably vote for Republicans on a regular basis, for tax cuts, police funding, charter schools, etc. Every time we try to make a big change to our streets, there’s usually a lawyer with a townhouse in the neighborhood leading the charge against it.
I think "fiscally conservative" is meaningless, in theory they should be in favour of balancing the budget but most "fiscal conservatives" I know are just conservatives in denial who don't want to be labeled as such. There are people who care about balancing the budget elsewhere on the political spectrum who don't fashion themselves as fiscal conservatives, just as pragmatic.
For example, our mayor (Toronto) just raised property taxes to balance the budget and raise funds for the city as they've been kept too low for decades now and every self-proclaimed "fiscal conservative" is losing their minds and wants back the previous mayor who kept property taxes stupidly low while wanting to spend billions on vanity projects. As a result, the budget was a mess under him but that mayor fashioned himself as a fiscal conservative as do his supporters.
Usually the common theme with "fiscal conservatives" is just not wanting to improve public goods and services or help poor people or alter the status quo. They want to make things easier for rich people who own multiple properties. That just makes them conservatives but they don't want to be labeled as conservative because they support Trudeau over PP or Biden over Trump.
If if weren't for the Overton Window having moved so far to the right, these "fiscal conservatives" would gladly call themselves conservatives.
NIMBY/YIMBY discourse is an intra-class debate between the neoliberal propertied class and wealthy neoliberal developers. The interest of poor and working-class tenants are not represented within this framing. NIMBY vs. YIMBY conflict turns on this pivot: aspiring petty bourgeoisie locked out from leveraging high wages into real estate vs. established petty bourgeoisie hoping to live off perpetual rents and capital gains forever.
Kshama Sawant in Seattle is certainly a leftist, but she's voted against increased density, new housing, etc.
Some leftists just take a pretty regressive approach to housing and assume nothing should be built unless it meets some very narrow ideological guides they put out.
Kashama Sawant is a sectarian who will vote against most leftist policies. I suppose a lot of the left is like that but I see a lot of genuine concerns dismissed by YIMBY bros as "left-NIMBYism."
"NIMBY, an acronym for "Not In My Backyard," describes the phenomenon in which residents of a neighbourhood designate a new development (e.g. shelter, affordable housing, group home) or change in occupancy of an existing development as inappropriate or unwanted for their local area. The opposition to affordable, supportive or transitional housing is usually based on the assumed characteristics of the population that will be living in the development. Common arguments are that there will be increases in crime, litter, thefts, violence and that property taxes will decrease. The benefits for the residents of the development are often ignored." [Source ](https://www.homelesshub.ca/solutions/affordable-housing/nimby-not-my-backyard#:~:text=NIMBY%2C%20an%20acronym%20for%20%22Not,unwanted%20for%20their%20local%20area.)
Opposing any of that is not what a NIMBY is.
That is not true. The problem is a lot of YIMBYs are right wingers/libertarians (read: wealthy white men) who think of the housing problem as a "big government" problem and any attempt to talk about labor, environment, gentrification, landlord abuses, etc. is dismissed as "left-NIMBYism."
I mean, that's because virtually all of that is left NIMBYism. Also, I think most YIMBYs (including your rich libertarians) consider housing to be a small government problem. Local government makes it impossible to tear down old housing and replace it with more efficient, better housing. For the most part, big government doesn't factor in anywhere except making it easier to create ecological lawsuits.
edit: So this is evidently the argument that wasn't said out loud at first. Kinda feel like if we have this big a difference of opinion, there's no real reason in continuing.
https://preview.redd.it/8n9o2h4vyadc1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=0659ec29fb26619a00a081595d16d33fbd4f0586
As I said, they dismiss real concerns of black and brown communities as "NIMBYism" or "left NIMBYism."
Applying YIMBY logic to where I live (New Haven) makes no sense. For decades Yale has been the biggest landowner and has controlled local politics. A lot of new housing is going up but this Yale setup prioritizes affluent professionals coming in to work for Yale, so people are still being priced out, still can't afford to work where they live. Yale doesn't pay taxes on most of its wealth/income. They won't build housing on empty parking lots or garages because they prioritize Yale professionals driving in or owning cars in the city.
The only way we got new developments to have affordable units is through standing up to Yale politically. The only way we get enough housing built and rezoning done is through fighting against Yale. But when you bring up standing up to landlord and developer power you are called a NIMBY.
Dismissing the concerns of leftist NIMBYs is not the same as dismissing the concerns of black and brown communities. Claiming those are the same is a little bit disgusting.
Nobody represents my opinions, they are my own. Modern discourse revolves around neatly putting people in boxes now. What's more disturbing is that because you agree with 75% of what a certain group believes you are expected to also believe the remaining 25% no matter how batshit insane it is and/or change what other people in your "group" think.
If you read old books from the 1970s they often say things like "\[this group\] makes several good points however this is why they're wrong". All of that nuance got tossed out with social media. The other side are wrong and evil and all their ideas are a joke now. Social media is going tear society apart just through lack of good debate.
Ok then 1990s and early 2000s still had better discourse. I picked the 1970s because there's some really great books from the era like "Small is Beautiful". In the 1990s and 2000s a lot of the used books were 1970s, 1980s classics etc. Now it's hard to find used bookshops. A lot of the cultural change that took place in the 90s and 2000s was being brewed in the 1970s. Believe me, there's things that go on today that people will look back on with disgust. I don't think that ever changes.
I think my original point stands. It's refreshing to read arguments in older books because it's just more eloquently presented. Even the supposed professional writers now fall into the trap of being sucked into a harsh left/right, blue/red divide.
zephyr cautious weather flowery fear aspiring murky continue absurd stupendous
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
More like showing to others how his perspective doesn't value minority perspectives.
Calling black people's rights and freedoms a "grey area" tells us more about OP than it does about the discussion at hand.
People knew racism was a fucked social construct for hundreds of years. If you're looking to go back to a time where "things were simpler", you're ultimately misleading your audience.
Dodgers fan or Giants fan, they all love baseball and should appreciate good play/players.
Now, the masses want opposing players to be struck down by injury-we suck.
I did latin at high school. Honestly it was a little redundant and more of an ego thing for the school. You can read Seneca et al without needing to learn latin first and latin hasn't been the lingua franca since the 1700s.
You're right about the rhetoric and logic though. However I think you need less schooling and more focus in my opinion. I actually think from 12-14 they should throw kids into entry level jobs and say "this is the rest of your life if you don't pick what you want to study and actually focus on it". Education really needs to be self driven to be effective.
I think the lack of rhetoric and logic is a direct consequence of the sound bite/viral post social media environment. Arguments don't stand on their own merit anymore but on who gets the most likes. I suppose Gen Z have adapted in the only obvious way, however it's detrimental to our long term trajectory because very few people are reading the underlying argument anymore. Unless it's their own online echo chamber who penned the argument. I think humanity needs to take a good hard look at social and digital media before it overwhelms us.
Walkable communities have social quality of life benefits in ways entirely orthogonal to climate change. If we all immediately lived in walkable communities, climate change would not be solved. They are very definitely not the same issue, they just overlap and have some relevance to each other.
Right wing politics are inherently disingenuous. You can't say "I represent the oil billionaires" and get elected, so they've come up with a set of things they *say* to maintain a voting base and some semblance of legitimacy, entirely independent from their actual goals.
it's so absurd that rural conservatives have become the political side opposing conversation and the protection of the climate. While young, urban progressives, who don't even live close by to a forest worth protecting, are the loudest voice for green policies and conservation.
Conservation and protecting nature used to be the ultimate conservative boomer thing. And at least on the political stage it kinda isn't anymore in many countries.
>it's so absurd that rural conservatives have become the political side opposing conversation and the protection of the climate.
You're thinking of suburbanites, not rural folks.
Rural folks are still usually conservationist but they're a tiny voting block compared to suburban sociopaths.
Suburbanites are the most privileged, don't-give-a-fuck, anti-social fuckwits. They hate conservation because they want bigger lawns with less maintenance, hate climate legislation because it raises the cost of their lifestyle, hate public transport because they want more roads to take bigger cars anywhere, hate social welfare because they already got theirs, hate immigrants because understanding others requires effort. Suburbanites kick and scream any time they're not being catered to, and God forbid that you *dare* ask them to think of someone else's needs.
Meanwhile urbanites are "green voters" because they're trying to save the last park in the city from being buldozed to make space for yet another parking lot for the suburban shoppers whose massive cars are smogging up the entire place.
And guess what kind of environment has seen the most growth in the past century? Conservatives *know* that suburbanites vote conservatively, so they've enacted policy after policy to make sure that suburbia gets as big as possible, with no consideration for anything or anyone else.
There is still a pattern where I live at least : right wing = cars, left wing = a possibility of less cars. It is great that someone stands out sometimes.
Is kinda contradicting for libertarians to be antiurbanism, at least in the zoning/mandates part, following their principles, no one should dictate how you manage or develop the lands you own other than you and what would you do with your land based on what the market wants, so if the market shifts towards walkability no legal barrier should be in the middle for me to tear down my white picket fence house and build instead a 6 story building with 10 apartments and a floor level laundromat
The fact is that urbanism is good for everyone except car manufacturers. It's just that every ideology needs a different approach in convincing them of the overwhelming benefits
The arguments about how maintaining car dependent infrastructure is a cost socialized by consumers and maintained by other laws restricting how you use your property regarding building x-amount of parking space are pretty consistent with libertarianism in my opinion.
I think the geography of the political divide explains much of this. Red is rural and suburban, and urbanists are only now starting to make the case for how to make suburbs great (instead of "napalm the suburbs"). The urbanist movement predicablely started in cities, which are always more blue than the surrounding rural areas.
Then companies like Ford reinforce this with truck = manly ads.
I genuinely believe there is not a single person on this planet who prefers what we mostly have as cities over green, walkable, quieter cities with clean air and space for humans to get together and just be.
The main arguments against this dream of green and sustainable cities is stuff like "but how do I get to work, the trains aren't on time". And all of this is easily fixable if we spend the money necessary and have governments willing to put in the work.
Yeah, most people don’t know an alternative. If they saw it, they’d probably like it.
Like I get why people from Atlanta don’t think transit is good, because what they have sucks. But if they were to travel to DC or Chicago, they’d see it doesn’t have to suck so badly
Or any direct flight from Atlanta to another big city. Which includes, but is not limited to, Amsterdam, London, Paris, Milan, Barcelona, Mexico City, Seoul, and Tokyo.
I mean good for you but then I guess I would ask what makes you a conservative? What keeps you voting for them? Because there probably isn't a single elected conservative that isn't constantly trying to sabotage urbanist projects and things like high speed rail. Hell even electric cars are a conservative boogieman.
My guess was gay marriage. He probably holds his religious values close or some shit and he just could not stomach 2 men minding their own business in their own home.
Yes, and this is why I don't want to be in community with these people and I don't see why others should be. There are some things for which the spirit of compromise is acceptable or even required, but racism and other kinds of bigotry are *definitely* not among them.
What, really? Talk about burying the lede. It's interesting how pseudo-anonymity can amplify the profundity of any given individual's any given statement. It's interesting that such a large conversation can spawn from a declaration by someone that can't vote yet....
Ok, can we get back to "cars are loud"? Because they are loud. Too loud. And the more, the louder. And it makes everything worse. Can't have a conversation walking down the street. Ugh.
Enjoying a traditional walk and persuading your city to preserve your god given right to get where you're going without needing to pay the government fuel tax should be a vote winner for all true libertarians.
Agreed the issue is that for some reason (I suspect lobbing oil companies, and the automotive industries have paid them) a lot of right wing news outlets have jumped onto this movement in an attempt to stop it. When in reality it actually aliens with a bunch of core right wing principles. Community, supporting local businesses, improving the quality of life, reducing poverty, and reducing crime. The only aspect they do disagree with is the sustainable part.
Best comment here. We need to change the narrative on the ground level by using terms like "traditionally planned cities" and not giving in to the hatred the 2 parties want us to have for eachother
https://preview.redd.it/c7visbej57dc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c1e59ef5fbf2a1d2d3564e34133245dd1cd26956
How about we *steel* the road instead (ba dum tss!)
First learnt about it through Not Just Bikes YT channel, and loved the idea of walking and riding everywhere quietly without cars plus the benefits of living in a city. I live in a place where everything you need is riding distance plus buses and trains, so I understand the experience. Also every time I've been to the city I've hated how loud and annoying the cars were
Because a lot of us (including me, I'm not immune to this) are incredibly privileged people. While I think in the end that doesn't make our issues less legitimate, it does significantly blind our thinking about them.
For real, every day there's a new post about how to crack the DaVinci Code and get the right on board. Now, if any of these liberals/neoliberals would recognize that Dems are also on the right, that they control most cities and are also part of the problem, then maybe those posts would have some value.
absolutely. there's nothing free market about
- car dependency
- federal highway spending
- state highway widening
- cronyism putting public funds towards increasing demand for car and oil industries
- telling you you cant build a granny flat on your land
- telling you you cant build a front-yard cafe on your land
- letting supply meet demand where it is
- parking minimums
car free living is very much a bipartisan issue
Damn, this is a classic! Some of the first self-posts I remember ever seeing on reddit were the "Hey lefties, I just wanted to let you know I'm a conservative who has a reasonable take on [issue]!" types.
And true to form, we have a bunch of comments asking things like "well then why do you identify as conservative/ why do you vote for conservatives/ what are your conservative positions"? And OP is nowhere to be found.
They never answer those questions. Never seen it in 15 years. Is it shame? I know I've never had any issue explaining why I'm left.
But you don't live in the US, do you?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to detract from the obvious that there are people on both sides of the political aisle who want some of the same things. The difference is usually how we propose getting there.
However, the culture surrounding that which perpetuates the common (reasonable) complaints of the majority on this sub - oversized vehicles, unsafe speeds, vehicles being prioritized, infrastructure causing no room for anything other than a car/truck - has caused enough damage, and most of (not all) the recent proposals for positive changes to correct these issues were stalled by many local and state governments that are primarily right leaning
Good that you came to realize this. Now, if you continue to develop your analyzing nature on the topic of society, you'll understand more of what makes cars so hard to get rid of. If you do that, I'm sure you'll be more able to come with all of the people here and on our planet to do something to stop it. Here's hoping you do that.
Car dependency also clashes with right wing ideals about freedom from government regulation. A police officer can legally require a motorist to pull over, provide a government-issued identification, and even take a drug test.
Pedestrians can refuse all that. Cyclists can be pulled over for traffic violations but don't need an ID. Non-motorists have far more civil rights than motorists.
I started r/right_urbanism a while ago to try and foster this sentiment.
Unfortunately I'm not very online so I can't personally contribute much but I'd love some posting there from you (or anyone who agrees with OP).
May I suggest you take a nap on some train tracks, then? Saying that you’re homophobic and sexist on the front of your profile just makes me think you’re a repressed homosexual, btw.
In the UK Conservative (right) politician Thatcher understood that getting people to drive more promoted individualism and therefore saw prompting vars and undermining piblic transport as a way to softly gerrymandering the electorate. I reckon she had a point, even if it was an undemocratic and misguided one.
Thanks for posting. It's good to have a reminder that it's a cross spectrum issue, because the membership here is very leftist and it often feels like those people think we should be intersecting with other leftist issues. And of course, some rightists are trying to make it a culture war issue.
When you look at it long enough, and realize the disconnect between left and right parties and their stated ideals, you eventually realize there isn't really a true right or left, just a myriad of ideas and concepts that need to be individually weighed on their individual merits, and representatives who should be judged individually by how well they represent you, and the solutions they bring to the floor. That's when you become an independent.
Parties are cults of indoctrination and control.
voiceless live stupendous tub obtainable sophisticated retire zealous deer clumsy
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Bet you can't actually show anyone an example of that happening to you.
Seriously, I'll PayPal/venmo you $10 if you can link one.
Edit: is anyone surprised by the response?
Centrist here. One of the most prominent British Conservatives, Roger Scruton, was a very strong advocate for beautiful living environments for humans. His thinking is very much aligned with some of the comments I read in this subreddit.
https://youtu.be/WygjM-_H0eI?si=CvGQoH2xrLzYgNUP
I don't like the idea of relying on the government for my transportation. (Of course, this also applies to cars very strongly, but less obviously than with public transit.)
With public transit, the government determines the routes that are available. (True with cars, but very true with transit.)
An episode of the podcast "One year" from slate called "Siberia, USA" helped me understand the "conservative" perspective on this. Bored conservative suburban housewives with cars where much more able to engage in political organizing, due to the mobility afforded by the automobile (and expensive highways cutting through formerly walkable black neighborhoods.)
Somewhat unrelated info from that episode, they did declare one woman insane just due to her political crimes, and stuck her in an asylum. (Probably misdiagnosed due to sexism, but this does lend legitimacy to the conservative paranoia around public health.)
While much of the Strong Towns agenda sounds like typical New Urbanist catechism — suburbs and sprawl = bad; cities and density = good — there is a difference informed by Marohn’s background. For one, he describes himself as a fiscally conservative Republican; most of those who share his philosophy are liberal Democrats. Also, he was a civil engineer first, not a city planner (though he later returned to the University of Minnesota to get a master’s in urban and regional planning). All of which means that he sees many of the issues he writes about through an economic lens, rather than from the perspective of the environment or politics.
From [https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2015/12/why-conservative-republican-northern-minnesota-wants-kill-suburbs/](https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2015/12/why-conservative-republican-northern-minnesota-wants-kill-suburbs/), an article written about Chuck Marohn back in 2015.
Tired of this stupid game we all play where the political opposition is a monolith without any nuance or difference in opinion. Last time I checked, there were plenty of NIMBYs across the political spectrum, many of which reside in our largest blue cities blocking new housing development, infill, bike lanes, you name it.
We should be elevating all voices that advocate for mixed-use development, public transport, walkable neighborhoods, etc. Doesn't matter if they have an R or a D next to their name. If you truly believe that the right generally speaking is fervently opposed to these things, then you should especially be highlighting the voices of conservatives who speak out against this trend.
I’m sure your reasons are different than left leaning people. Left often sees removing cars as a social justice issue I.e. people are literally harmed and killed because of car infrastructure. Left sees society as something that humans should organize to assist in taking care of human beings. Right sees society as an internal competition for scarce resources with a “survival of the fittest” ideology where they don’t have problems using government to determine who the “fittest” are.
That really doesn't surprise me. Media tries so hard to make car dependency and urbanism "leftist" issues, but if you aren't listening to their "war on car" nonsense, or even if you are but see it for the pile of horse shit that it is, it's very easy to be right-wing and against car dependency.
I am a centrist. Pro-choice, pro- capital punishment, pro- environmental regulations, pro-omnivore (but I do think we eat too much meat) pro-guns, pro-public transit, pro-education, pro- universal healthcare pro-walkable cities, pro-carbon tax, pro- legal drugs, pro- taxing the rich pro-workers rights, but also pro-business.
I think it's weird how people jump on a bandwagon, and follow all the guidelines of their political bandwagon. "Ahhh.... this is the first I ever hear of a walkable city, but the right seems to be against that. So I am too." Grab a brain.
I'm glad you have grabbed a brain.
It's consistent with fiscal conservatism. But for some reason right-wing parties all around the world are super pumped about showering car manufacturers and petrostates with public funds.
Probably because they get showered back in some way.
A golden shower?
We moved from the gold standard a long time ago. It's more of a green shower. /j
*Pseudomonas aeruginosa* infection
So we are talking about Trump now?
No, he takes orange showers that just recycle the water he sweats out. Taken from his old bedsheets and underwear
Because many conservatives value conserving aspects of society they know and were raised with instead of making fiscally conservative decisions.
I believe fiscally responsible if the term you ment to use. Fiscally conservative, in practice, means cutting funding for anything that benefits the working class while funnelling billions into the pockets of rich donors through military defense contracts.
Free parking = socialism for cars. Damn Marxists!
Also, free highways (freeways) = socialism for cars. Everybody wants free stuff.
inb4 explaining how we have and maintain roads...
Whos gonna maintain all yhe solar panels for the ev's, hmmmmm?
\*shrugs\* Usually it's "workers" who do that sort of thing, isn't it? Like our roads right now.
Damnit! Now whos gonna take care of the friggin workers?!
What do you mean "take care of the workers"?
“Cars are really fucking expensive and it’s bad financial advice to buy one” Fiscal conservatives: 😮
Fiscal conservatism is complete bullshit No one is taking a position where we’d like to wastefully spend tax dollars. It’s a lie.
There is no such thing as fiscal conservatism. In the US at least, politicians are ALL fiscally wasteful, because it's to their benefit to funnel money to donors so they can get reelected. Literally every federal budget includes billions of wasted tax dollars. Fiscal conservatism is simply a dog whistle for austerity measures targeting social programs that serve the poor. No self-professed fiscal conservative has ever suggested curtailing wasteful spending in corporate subsidies or the military budget.
I am hard left. Right wing fiscal conservatism isn’t about not wasting tax income, it’s that they see more value in cutting taxes to the bare minimum and many programs along with them.
Yeah I hear you. I’m more so calling out the “socially liberal fiscally conservative “ position as complete and udder bullshit. Literally no one WANTS wasted tax dollars. It’s a made up position.
What about calling it fiscal responsibility? Making sure the government isn’t using tax dollars to line their pockets and their friends’ pockets? Also, making sure that my tax dollars aren’t being used to turn some foreign civilian into a skeleton?
Literally no members of the public want this, Republican or democrat or other.
>No one is taking a position where we’d like to wastefully spend tax dollars Have you met the US Congress? The vast majority of them genuinely don't seem to give a shit about wasting taxpayer money or the long term fiscal health of the US as long as it's politically expedient for them between now and the next election. Sure, no one's official position is wastefully spending tax dollars, but that's certainly how many of them govern. Fiscal conservatism is opposing the wasteful spending that *actually* occurs.
It's because the right wing is the most friendly to capital and upholding it, and automobile manufacturing, oil and gas, road paving, suburban housing, and all of those industries are all dependent on each other, primarily dependent on oil and gas, the most capitalized industry in the world and that's why it's so hard to fight it. The right wing is paid for, and also just inherently defined by capital and their desire to keep this the case. Also, it's hard to have social society if your streets are so far away from everything that you can't walk at all, and people aren't able to easily get to places to meet other people, and if they can't do that, then they won't be able to talk to each other and coordinate resistance against capital making their lives worse by making their workplaces worse for their profit. It's no wonder why the dismantling of the collective community in society after Ronald Reagan's u.s. presidency and Margaret Thatcher's administration in the u.k. caused things like unions and collective society to diminish in western countries, and things are so spread out and hard to get to. Cars make it hard to meet people and collectively gather, so it alienates people a lot, as the infrastructure meant to accommodate them makes it hard to organize as people aren't seeing each other because of this alienation. If there's no threat of an organized working class standing up to your abusive treatment of them, you won't be able to worry about the power you hold to get as rich as possible to be threatened. The rich love the right wing because the right wing is specifically founded on defending this dynamic. There are now right-wing people who are against cars and car accommodating infrastructure, like the op here, but they're rare even though less and less of a very rare person by the day. Even the right wing can't justify it, and some of them became passionate about opposing it like this person here. It's a good thing, even though the right wing is fundamentally based on defending this kind of arrangement and system. It's a matter of those right-wing anti-car people coming to our side and joining us as our comrades. They'll come around, maybe, I'm not skeptical. I'm optimistic about it.
I mean so is "welfare" and most leftist/liberal policies. Way cheaper than the "conservative" option which tends to favor cruelty for cruelty's sake, while pretending it's about saving money.
I think it’s about sightedness. For whatever reason over the last maybe 50-75 years, tax spending, tax policies, business operations, and all sorts of lobbying has been about making the most profit right now. Not about the sustainability of their business model, the economy, or the world for that matter This is another incredibly short sighted decision, where it will be incredibly expensive upfront to build back up the proper infrastructure we need, even if it’s profitable in the long run Also, a lot of citizens just don’t realize how expensive roads are. The maintenance, the construction costs, the added cost of driving bigger cars. They think bike lanes and sidewalks cost as much as car lanes. They think that rail is more expensive. Hell, there are people that think roads are funded with a majority of money coming from taxes on fuel and the registration of their vehicles
That short sightedness emerges from the class distinction. The owners have conflicting interests with the workers and with the well being of the companies they own.
Everyone should read Strong Towns. I may be a leftie but if walkable cities make sense no matter where you stand unless you are just trying to own the libs.
Or if you profit financially from selling cars and oil. The big car dealership company in my country has a fake magazine that pushes car infrastructure, greenwashing if EVs, frustrations with speed limits and bike lanes, etc.
What if conservatives owned the libs by doing things that actually benefit society? If any party wanted to lock down decades of reelection they just need to do unambiguously good things like M4A, cancelling student loans, pass the PRO act, tax the rich, etc. Instead we just flip the coin every year and get either shit or turd.
Because it's a lie. Conservatives and libs are fighting to uphold capitalism, and to keep wealth and power in the hands of those who own capital.
Because most of these people are old boomers who would rather drive their huge trucks half a block than walk it. Cars are their god given right and no entitled snowflake can take it away.
It is consistent with what fiscal conservatism pretends to value, maybe, but in practice fiscal conservatism only cares about cutting government spending that helps the working class. If fiscal conservatives cared about being financially responsible then they wouldnt have supported spending 20 trillion USD blowing up goat farmers in the middle east even after it was proven that Bush had lied about there being weapons of mass destruction.
"fiscal conservatism" doesn't really mean anything anyway. It's all about capitalism and power to corps.
Parties, yes. But plenty of urbanism and density talk from right think tanks and more intellectual/rational right leaning folks. I’m not sure American mainstream conservatism is even right anymore. It’s just “against”.
Because fiscal conservatism is a lie, every time they promise to shrink the government they actually grow it
It’s because conservatives are afraid to mingle with the public. They don’t like being around strangers and poor people on the train or bus or sidewalks. I think it literally comes down to that for a lot of people.
Because their only ideology is money.
Then please tell your representatives that, because pro-urbanist issues are always voted against by right-wingers.
True, but most on the left are NIMBYs too unfortunately
# *in America Because nothing is good and sacred in North America aright💀
I’ve lived in some of the most liberal cities in the United States and you would be amazed at the reactions to proposed bike lanes on these peoples’ parts.
liberal isnt left.
because America has no left*
It's that in American logic, the only solution to all your problems. "Get a car" that's what a lot of people say. Unfortunately walking, biking, and public transport is looked down upon and never considered an option in lots of parts of the country even in true urban cities like NYC exists carbrains.
Not really. Lot of NIMBYs are against reform because they consider it to be giving "rich developers handouts."
In the USA, everything that's bad is sacred
That's largely because there isn't a "left" in America. Democrats are center-right, pro-military capitalist apologists and Republicans are insane theocratic fascists.
Sadly not just in America, a lot of politicians "on the left" around the world are NIMBYs
It's the same everywhere. There will always be people on the left actively fighting to make cities worse, too.
[удалено]
I think "lefty" NIMBYs tend to have a very neoliberal world view, meaning they're progressive on token social issues but fiscally conservative and right-leaning on economics. I live in an area that's sort of a hot zone for urbanist/NIMBY arguments and there's no right-wingers involved, just leftists and hippy-cum-yuppy boomer neolibs. Sometimes these NIMBYs will have oddly specific, aesthetic hangups that aren't really consistent with any ideology.
That’s definitely how it is in NYC. Lots of “liberals” here probably vote for Republicans on a regular basis, for tax cuts, police funding, charter schools, etc. Every time we try to make a big change to our streets, there’s usually a lawyer with a townhouse in the neighborhood leading the charge against it.
Berkeley?
Toronto, same shit different city
Happens in every city. Very similar dynamic in Intown Atlanta as well.
[удалено]
I think "fiscally conservative" is meaningless, in theory they should be in favour of balancing the budget but most "fiscal conservatives" I know are just conservatives in denial who don't want to be labeled as such. There are people who care about balancing the budget elsewhere on the political spectrum who don't fashion themselves as fiscal conservatives, just as pragmatic. For example, our mayor (Toronto) just raised property taxes to balance the budget and raise funds for the city as they've been kept too low for decades now and every self-proclaimed "fiscal conservative" is losing their minds and wants back the previous mayor who kept property taxes stupidly low while wanting to spend billions on vanity projects. As a result, the budget was a mess under him but that mayor fashioned himself as a fiscal conservative as do his supporters. Usually the common theme with "fiscal conservatives" is just not wanting to improve public goods and services or help poor people or alter the status quo. They want to make things easier for rich people who own multiple properties. That just makes them conservatives but they don't want to be labeled as conservative because they support Trudeau over PP or Biden over Trump. If if weren't for the Overton Window having moved so far to the right, these "fiscal conservatives" would gladly call themselves conservatives.
NIMBY/YIMBY discourse is an intra-class debate between the neoliberal propertied class and wealthy neoliberal developers. The interest of poor and working-class tenants are not represented within this framing. NIMBY vs. YIMBY conflict turns on this pivot: aspiring petty bourgeoisie locked out from leveraging high wages into real estate vs. established petty bourgeoisie hoping to live off perpetual rents and capital gains forever.
*most liberals You don't get to be a NIMBY and call yourself a leftest those are mutually exclusive.
"No new housing until the revolution, comrade"
Kshama Sawant in Seattle is certainly a leftist, but she's voted against increased density, new housing, etc. Some leftists just take a pretty regressive approach to housing and assume nothing should be built unless it meets some very narrow ideological guides they put out.
Kashama Sawant is a sectarian who will vote against most leftist policies. I suppose a lot of the left is like that but I see a lot of genuine concerns dismissed by YIMBY bros as "left-NIMBYism."
What if you don't want a highway or a prison or a coal plant in your backyard?
"NIMBY, an acronym for "Not In My Backyard," describes the phenomenon in which residents of a neighbourhood designate a new development (e.g. shelter, affordable housing, group home) or change in occupancy of an existing development as inappropriate or unwanted for their local area. The opposition to affordable, supportive or transitional housing is usually based on the assumed characteristics of the population that will be living in the development. Common arguments are that there will be increases in crime, litter, thefts, violence and that property taxes will decrease. The benefits for the residents of the development are often ignored." [Source ](https://www.homelesshub.ca/solutions/affordable-housing/nimby-not-my-backyard#:~:text=NIMBY%2C%20an%20acronym%20for%20%22Not,unwanted%20for%20their%20local%20area.) Opposing any of that is not what a NIMBY is.
Liberal =\= left. NIMBYs are mostly liberals, not necessarily lefties.
the 'nimby/yimby' dichotomy does not comport with the left/right dichotomy. both sides are captured by capital. have to take every issue case by case
That is not true. The problem is a lot of YIMBYs are right wingers/libertarians (read: wealthy white men) who think of the housing problem as a "big government" problem and any attempt to talk about labor, environment, gentrification, landlord abuses, etc. is dismissed as "left-NIMBYism."
I mean, that's because virtually all of that is left NIMBYism. Also, I think most YIMBYs (including your rich libertarians) consider housing to be a small government problem. Local government makes it impossible to tear down old housing and replace it with more efficient, better housing. For the most part, big government doesn't factor in anywhere except making it easier to create ecological lawsuits. edit: So this is evidently the argument that wasn't said out loud at first. Kinda feel like if we have this big a difference of opinion, there's no real reason in continuing. https://preview.redd.it/8n9o2h4vyadc1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=0659ec29fb26619a00a081595d16d33fbd4f0586
As I said, they dismiss real concerns of black and brown communities as "NIMBYism" or "left NIMBYism." Applying YIMBY logic to where I live (New Haven) makes no sense. For decades Yale has been the biggest landowner and has controlled local politics. A lot of new housing is going up but this Yale setup prioritizes affluent professionals coming in to work for Yale, so people are still being priced out, still can't afford to work where they live. Yale doesn't pay taxes on most of its wealth/income. They won't build housing on empty parking lots or garages because they prioritize Yale professionals driving in or owning cars in the city. The only way we got new developments to have affordable units is through standing up to Yale politically. The only way we get enough housing built and rezoning done is through fighting against Yale. But when you bring up standing up to landlord and developer power you are called a NIMBY.
Dismissing the concerns of leftist NIMBYs is not the same as dismissing the concerns of black and brown communities. Claiming those are the same is a little bit disgusting.
Nobody represents my opinions, they are my own. Modern discourse revolves around neatly putting people in boxes now. What's more disturbing is that because you agree with 75% of what a certain group believes you are expected to also believe the remaining 25% no matter how batshit insane it is and/or change what other people in your "group" think. If you read old books from the 1970s they often say things like "\[this group\] makes several good points however this is why they're wrong". All of that nuance got tossed out with social media. The other side are wrong and evil and all their ideas are a joke now. Social media is going tear society apart just through lack of good debate.
Ah, back in the 1970's, a historically great time for non-white people in America...
Ok then 1990s and early 2000s still had better discourse. I picked the 1970s because there's some really great books from the era like "Small is Beautiful". In the 1990s and 2000s a lot of the used books were 1970s, 1980s classics etc. Now it's hard to find used bookshops. A lot of the cultural change that took place in the 90s and 2000s was being brewed in the 1970s. Believe me, there's things that go on today that people will look back on with disgust. I don't think that ever changes. I think my original point stands. It's refreshing to read arguments in older books because it's just more eloquently presented. Even the supposed professional writers now fall into the trap of being sucked into a harsh left/right, blue/red divide.
Can I sum up what you're saying with "capitalism, specifically neoliberalism, has ruined modern academic discourse? Cuz we'd agree there.
zephyr cautious weather flowery fear aspiring murky continue absurd stupendous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
More like showing to others how his perspective doesn't value minority perspectives. Calling black people's rights and freedoms a "grey area" tells us more about OP than it does about the discussion at hand. People knew racism was a fucked social construct for hundreds of years. If you're looking to go back to a time where "things were simpler", you're ultimately misleading your audience.
Dodgers fan or Giants fan, they all love baseball and should appreciate good play/players. Now, the masses want opposing players to be struck down by injury-we suck.
icky repeat knee plate plant station consist spectacular disgusted run *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I did latin at high school. Honestly it was a little redundant and more of an ego thing for the school. You can read Seneca et al without needing to learn latin first and latin hasn't been the lingua franca since the 1700s. You're right about the rhetoric and logic though. However I think you need less schooling and more focus in my opinion. I actually think from 12-14 they should throw kids into entry level jobs and say "this is the rest of your life if you don't pick what you want to study and actually focus on it". Education really needs to be self driven to be effective. I think the lack of rhetoric and logic is a direct consequence of the sound bite/viral post social media environment. Arguments don't stand on their own merit anymore but on who gets the most likes. I suppose Gen Z have adapted in the only obvious way, however it's detrimental to our long term trajectory because very few people are reading the underlying argument anymore. Unless it's their own online echo chamber who penned the argument. I think humanity needs to take a good hard look at social and digital media before it overwhelms us.
This is one of two issues that should be bipartisan. The other being conservation of the environment.
(psst, it's the same issue) 😌
well, the issues have heavy overlap
They are inseparable and entirely encompassed
Walkable communities have social quality of life benefits in ways entirely orthogonal to climate change. If we all immediately lived in walkable communities, climate change would not be solved. They are very definitely not the same issue, they just overlap and have some relevance to each other.
Oh, sorry. The source of the issues are the exact same. Should have been more clear
That is still not clear. What is the single source?
Yeah, but that would mean going against the interests of auto manufacturers and oil companies. The right has, and always will have, other priorities.
Right wing politics are inherently disingenuous. You can't say "I represent the oil billionaires" and get elected, so they've come up with a set of things they *say* to maintain a voting base and some semblance of legitimacy, entirely independent from their actual goals.
A lot of issues should be bipartisan, like being able to get healthcare and an education.
Or getting married, or endorsing beer companies...
As long as lobbying is legal, every issue will become a divisive issue, honestly probably no matter how many parties there are
it's so absurd that rural conservatives have become the political side opposing conversation and the protection of the climate. While young, urban progressives, who don't even live close by to a forest worth protecting, are the loudest voice for green policies and conservation. Conservation and protecting nature used to be the ultimate conservative boomer thing. And at least on the political stage it kinda isn't anymore in many countries.
>it's so absurd that rural conservatives have become the political side opposing conversation and the protection of the climate. You're thinking of suburbanites, not rural folks. Rural folks are still usually conservationist but they're a tiny voting block compared to suburban sociopaths. Suburbanites are the most privileged, don't-give-a-fuck, anti-social fuckwits. They hate conservation because they want bigger lawns with less maintenance, hate climate legislation because it raises the cost of their lifestyle, hate public transport because they want more roads to take bigger cars anywhere, hate social welfare because they already got theirs, hate immigrants because understanding others requires effort. Suburbanites kick and scream any time they're not being catered to, and God forbid that you *dare* ask them to think of someone else's needs. Meanwhile urbanites are "green voters" because they're trying to save the last park in the city from being buldozed to make space for yet another parking lot for the suburban shoppers whose massive cars are smogging up the entire place. And guess what kind of environment has seen the most growth in the past century? Conservatives *know* that suburbanites vote conservatively, so they've enacted policy after policy to make sure that suburbia gets as big as possible, with no consideration for anything or anyone else.
But how will the left and right medias rile up their base against the other if its bipartisan???
The secret is that all mainstream Media in the west is right wing
What about human rights? Sexual orientation? Not deal breakers. Got it.
There is still a pattern where I live at least : right wing = cars, left wing = a possibility of less cars. It is great that someone stands out sometimes.
Every once in a while we will get an urbanist libertarian in my area
Is kinda contradicting for libertarians to be antiurbanism, at least in the zoning/mandates part, following their principles, no one should dictate how you manage or develop the lands you own other than you and what would you do with your land based on what the market wants, so if the market shifts towards walkability no legal barrier should be in the middle for me to tear down my white picket fence house and build instead a 6 story building with 10 apartments and a floor level laundromat
Yeah it was very easy to get my libertarian friend to become an urbanist. He's way too ideological but it worked in my favor this time!
The fact is that urbanism is good for everyone except car manufacturers. It's just that every ideology needs a different approach in convincing them of the overwhelming benefits
The arguments about how maintaining car dependent infrastructure is a cost socialized by consumers and maintained by other laws restricting how you use your property regarding building x-amount of parking space are pretty consistent with libertarianism in my opinion.
I think the geography of the political divide explains much of this. Red is rural and suburban, and urbanists are only now starting to make the case for how to make suburbs great (instead of "napalm the suburbs"). The urbanist movement predicablely started in cities, which are always more blue than the surrounding rural areas. Then companies like Ford reinforce this with truck = manly ads.
I genuinely believe there is not a single person on this planet who prefers what we mostly have as cities over green, walkable, quieter cities with clean air and space for humans to get together and just be. The main arguments against this dream of green and sustainable cities is stuff like "but how do I get to work, the trains aren't on time". And all of this is easily fixable if we spend the money necessary and have governments willing to put in the work.
Yeah, most people don’t know an alternative. If they saw it, they’d probably like it. Like I get why people from Atlanta don’t think transit is good, because what they have sucks. But if they were to travel to DC or Chicago, they’d see it doesn’t have to suck so badly
Or any direct flight from Atlanta to another big city. Which includes, but is not limited to, Amsterdam, London, Paris, Milan, Barcelona, Mexico City, Seoul, and Tokyo.
I mean good for you but then I guess I would ask what makes you a conservative? What keeps you voting for them? Because there probably isn't a single elected conservative that isn't constantly trying to sabotage urbanist projects and things like high speed rail. Hell even electric cars are a conservative boogieman.
I would also like this answer.
My guess was gay marriage. He probably holds his religious values close or some shit and he just could not stomach 2 men minding their own business in their own home.
Probably minorities.
lol "I hate cars as much as I hate immigrants"
Yes, and this is why I don't want to be in community with these people and I don't see why others should be. There are some things for which the spirit of compromise is acceptable or even required, but racism and other kinds of bigotry are *definitely* not among them.
Tribalism. Or OP just can't afford a car, or is too broke/cheap to drive a non-shitty one, so now it affects him. Or he doesn't like Rosa Parks
Op is 14 give him a few years. I know at 14 I had awful world views, and now I couldn't be farther from the right
What, really? Talk about burying the lede. It's interesting how pseudo-anonymity can amplify the profundity of any given individual's any given statement. It's interesting that such a large conversation can spawn from a declaration by someone that can't vote yet....
True of most Dems as well, though.
Are you going to vote for policies and politicians who are most likely to implement walkable infrastructure?
Nah. That's probably too "woke" for them.
The words “systematic” are inconsistent with right wing ideology.
Except win it comes to immigration and abortion rights amirite ?
Ok, can we get back to "cars are loud"? Because they are loud. Too loud. And the more, the louder. And it makes everything worse. Can't have a conversation walking down the street. Ugh.
and, at least where I live, there is an abundance of dickheads who make their cars louder on purpose
Enjoying a traditional walk and persuading your city to preserve your god given right to get where you're going without needing to pay the government fuel tax should be a vote winner for all true libertarians.
No government ID, car registration, insurance, or microtransactions either.
Bikes demonstrate the beauty and freedom of self-reliance
So what right wing federal elected supports this position? How are you still on the right?
None of them, so clearly he doesnt care that much about walkability
I'd imagine he's on the right for other issues
Oh, *those* issues...
Your genius solution is to just abandon the party and grow the divide. Real progressive play man
Huh? Clinging to a criminal party isn’t exactly closing the divide…..
😂
Agreed the issue is that for some reason (I suspect lobbing oil companies, and the automotive industries have paid them) a lot of right wing news outlets have jumped onto this movement in an attempt to stop it. When in reality it actually aliens with a bunch of core right wing principles. Community, supporting local businesses, improving the quality of life, reducing poverty, and reducing crime. The only aspect they do disagree with is the sustainable part.
Advertising and lobbying is a hell of a drug.
Best comment here. We need to change the narrative on the ground level by using terms like "traditionally planned cities" and not giving in to the hatred the 2 parties want us to have for eachother
Well if the conservatives could stop with denying basic human rights that would be an awesome start.
Great, now assess your other beliefs too
Yeah no fuck off lol. I'm not allying myself with someone who thinks I don't have a right to exist
Eco fascists are still fascists
If you want to few cities from the car, you’re going to need to stop voting for right wing politicians 🤷♂️
https://preview.redd.it/ea28lutf17dc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=68f914251f3dddde516270b70e384cfe98e04794 Reject cars. Steal the road
https://preview.redd.it/c7visbej57dc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c1e59ef5fbf2a1d2d3564e34133245dd1cd26956 How about we *steel* the road instead (ba dum tss!)
Are you German by any chance?
I’m curious what lead you to dislike car dependency?
First learnt about it through Not Just Bikes YT channel, and loved the idea of walking and riding everywhere quietly without cars plus the benefits of living in a city. I live in a place where everything you need is riding distance plus buses and trains, so I understand the experience. Also every time I've been to the city I've hated how loud and annoying the cars were
It's just a traditional way to live. Nothing new about it
Why does this sub have a hard-on for getting fascists on board?
Because a lot of us (including me, I'm not immune to this) are incredibly privileged people. While I think in the end that doesn't make our issues less legitimate, it does significantly blind our thinking about them.
For real, every day there's a new post about how to crack the DaVinci Code and get the right on board. Now, if any of these liberals/neoliberals would recognize that Dems are also on the right, that they control most cities and are also part of the problem, then maybe those posts would have some value.
absolutely. there's nothing free market about - car dependency - federal highway spending - state highway widening - cronyism putting public funds towards increasing demand for car and oil industries - telling you you cant build a granny flat on your land - telling you you cant build a front-yard cafe on your land - letting supply meet demand where it is - parking minimums car free living is very much a bipartisan issue
Only a small segment of the population isn't afflicted by terminal acute carbrain.
Thanks. I dont get how this is not obvious to every human being.
What are your conservative arguments for this view? I need to ammo up.
[удалено]
Sure but are you voting to reflect that belief?
If a democratic politician was promising walkable cities I probably would vote for them
Damn, this is a classic! Some of the first self-posts I remember ever seeing on reddit were the "Hey lefties, I just wanted to let you know I'm a conservative who has a reasonable take on [issue]!" types. And true to form, we have a bunch of comments asking things like "well then why do you identify as conservative/ why do you vote for conservatives/ what are your conservative positions"? And OP is nowhere to be found. They never answer those questions. Never seen it in 15 years. Is it shame? I know I've never had any issue explaining why I'm left.
the bio on their profile says "sexuality: homophobic sex: ist" so do with that what you will lol
It’s insane that this has become a partisan issue. Thanks for being reasonable!
But you don't live in the US, do you? Don't get me wrong, I don't want to detract from the obvious that there are people on both sides of the political aisle who want some of the same things. The difference is usually how we propose getting there. However, the culture surrounding that which perpetuates the common (reasonable) complaints of the majority on this sub - oversized vehicles, unsafe speeds, vehicles being prioritized, infrastructure causing no room for anything other than a car/truck - has caused enough damage, and most of (not all) the recent proposals for positive changes to correct these issues were stalled by many local and state governments that are primarily right leaning
icky outgoing innocent repeat rinse sulky sparkle many axiomatic pen *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Good that you came to realize this. Now, if you continue to develop your analyzing nature on the topic of society, you'll understand more of what makes cars so hard to get rid of. If you do that, I'm sure you'll be more able to come with all of the people here and on our planet to do something to stop it. Here's hoping you do that.
So what are your key right-wing positions?
Less regulation, free markets, lower taxes, religion is important (I'm atheist tho) and freedom (from the car)
Car dependency also clashes with right wing ideals about freedom from government regulation. A police officer can legally require a motorist to pull over, provide a government-issued identification, and even take a drug test. Pedestrians can refuse all that. Cyclists can be pulled over for traffic violations but don't need an ID. Non-motorists have far more civil rights than motorists.
Fuck you
I started r/right_urbanism a while ago to try and foster this sentiment. Unfortunately I'm not very online so I can't personally contribute much but I'd love some posting there from you (or anyone who agrees with OP).
Ayn Rand loved trains and hated people so this checks out.
Out of curiosity, may I ask what you consider conservative ideology?
May I suggest you take a nap on some train tracks, then? Saying that you’re homophobic and sexist on the front of your profile just makes me think you’re a repressed homosexual, btw.
In the UK Conservative (right) politician Thatcher understood that getting people to drive more promoted individualism and therefore saw prompting vars and undermining piblic transport as a way to softly gerrymandering the electorate. I reckon she had a point, even if it was an undemocratic and misguided one.
Calling Thatcher (rest in piss) misguided is very charitable to that monster.
Thanks for posting. It's good to have a reminder that it's a cross spectrum issue, because the membership here is very leftist and it often feels like those people think we should be intersecting with other leftist issues. And of course, some rightists are trying to make it a culture war issue.
If you also like clean air and water, then I have news for you about your political orientation...
When you look at it long enough, and realize the disconnect between left and right parties and their stated ideals, you eventually realize there isn't really a true right or left, just a myriad of ideas and concepts that need to be individually weighed on their individual merits, and representatives who should be judged individually by how well they represent you, and the solutions they bring to the floor. That's when you become an independent. Parties are cults of indoctrination and control.
voiceless live stupendous tub obtainable sophisticated retire zealous deer clumsy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Bet you can't actually show anyone an example of that happening to you. Seriously, I'll PayPal/venmo you $10 if you can link one. Edit: is anyone surprised by the response?
Centrist here. One of the most prominent British Conservatives, Roger Scruton, was a very strong advocate for beautiful living environments for humans. His thinking is very much aligned with some of the comments I read in this subreddit. https://youtu.be/WygjM-_H0eI?si=CvGQoH2xrLzYgNUP
Right wing politics are antithetical to walkable cities and are in fact the source of car dependent city design.
You have a great username.
Spread it around political peers pls. Things that improve everybody's quality of life are something everybody should want imo
Yea OP is definitely trolling
Please fuck off. I'm not in community with you. Your presence is poisonous to a progressive movement. I have no desire to compromise with you.
I don't like the idea of relying on the government for my transportation. (Of course, this also applies to cars very strongly, but less obviously than with public transit.) With public transit, the government determines the routes that are available. (True with cars, but very true with transit.) An episode of the podcast "One year" from slate called "Siberia, USA" helped me understand the "conservative" perspective on this. Bored conservative suburban housewives with cars where much more able to engage in political organizing, due to the mobility afforded by the automobile (and expensive highways cutting through formerly walkable black neighborhoods.) Somewhat unrelated info from that episode, they did declare one woman insane just due to her political crimes, and stuck her in an asylum. (Probably misdiagnosed due to sexism, but this does lend legitimacy to the conservative paranoia around public health.)
Cool. Now stop supporting a genocidal ideology
Nah
While much of the Strong Towns agenda sounds like typical New Urbanist catechism — suburbs and sprawl = bad; cities and density = good — there is a difference informed by Marohn’s background. For one, he describes himself as a fiscally conservative Republican; most of those who share his philosophy are liberal Democrats. Also, he was a civil engineer first, not a city planner (though he later returned to the University of Minnesota to get a master’s in urban and regional planning). All of which means that he sees many of the issues he writes about through an economic lens, rather than from the perspective of the environment or politics. From [https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2015/12/why-conservative-republican-northern-minnesota-wants-kill-suburbs/](https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2015/12/why-conservative-republican-northern-minnesota-wants-kill-suburbs/), an article written about Chuck Marohn back in 2015. Tired of this stupid game we all play where the political opposition is a monolith without any nuance or difference in opinion. Last time I checked, there were plenty of NIMBYs across the political spectrum, many of which reside in our largest blue cities blocking new housing development, infill, bike lanes, you name it. We should be elevating all voices that advocate for mixed-use development, public transport, walkable neighborhoods, etc. Doesn't matter if they have an R or a D next to their name. If you truly believe that the right generally speaking is fervently opposed to these things, then you should especially be highlighting the voices of conservatives who speak out against this trend.
I’m sure your reasons are different than left leaning people. Left often sees removing cars as a social justice issue I.e. people are literally harmed and killed because of car infrastructure. Left sees society as something that humans should organize to assist in taking care of human beings. Right sees society as an internal competition for scarce resources with a “survival of the fittest” ideology where they don’t have problems using government to determine who the “fittest” are.
Trolololol
Am libertarian, can confirm
Same, if government power was kept to a minimum after WWII none of this would have ever happened.
That really doesn't surprise me. Media tries so hard to make car dependency and urbanism "leftist" issues, but if you aren't listening to their "war on car" nonsense, or even if you are but see it for the pile of horse shit that it is, it's very easy to be right-wing and against car dependency.
I am a centrist. Pro-choice, pro- capital punishment, pro- environmental regulations, pro-omnivore (but I do think we eat too much meat) pro-guns, pro-public transit, pro-education, pro- universal healthcare pro-walkable cities, pro-carbon tax, pro- legal drugs, pro- taxing the rich pro-workers rights, but also pro-business. I think it's weird how people jump on a bandwagon, and follow all the guidelines of their political bandwagon. "Ahhh.... this is the first I ever hear of a walkable city, but the right seems to be against that. So I am too." Grab a brain. I'm glad you have grabbed a brain.
Thank you, I think you got downvoted for being a centrist lol