A history of progressivism in the press

Over at the new and much-improved (which is saying something) TCSDaily, Patrick Cox has a chronic;es the rise of the left's media dominance, giving a history in miniature of how the big city press developed its progressive slant. It's a must-read for those who are as interested in understanding the liberal culture of the press as they are in heckling it.

Essentially, he argues that population density caused major metro areas to become increasingly depending on big-government programs. Meanwhile, immigration, which is naturally heavier in cities, infused population centers with people from nations overrun by government corruption, making them more appreciative of the allegedly well-meaning American bureaucracy. This combination of dependence and immigrant thankfulness meant big city populations gravitated towards pro-government policy. Newspapers a;sp flourished more in bigger cities, owing significantly to the ease of distribution in densely populated areas. And, since these cities already swung left, so too would their journals.

While I agree with nearly everything Cox says, I think he also misses a few things. Big cities, simply by virtue of having more people, are going to be more diverse economically, socially, and racially. The wider array of cultural exposure afforded to city-dwellers has the effect of loosening their standards of what is "acceptable" and "normal." Humans have a natural tendency to equalize with their surroundings; our minds and bodies cope with stress by developing ways of incorporating jarring input into our daily routines and worldviews. So, what begins as out of the ordinary quickly becomes passable and routine. Small town dwellers with a narrower range of experience consequently tend to have a similarly narrower range of what is socially permissable. This, I think, accounts significantly for the urban elite's socially liberal slant.

I'm also a bit dubious about his take on the progressive shift of immigrants. While there may be something to the escape-from-corruption-relief he proposes, it seems to me that our country's self-promoted reputation as "the land of opportunity" may have something to do with as well. The American government has, throughout history, trumpeted its willingness to give anyone and everyone an opportunity to succeed -- the American Dream and all that. I think many of those shoving off for the States seem to take the word "give" a little too literally. The attitude often seems to be that it's the government's job not to get out of the way of opportunity, but to instead stick its regulatory crowbar in the works and pry opportunity (preferably with some guarantee of success) out of our market. Broadcasting that we're the land of milk and honey -- if you can find it -- regularly translates into the notion that we're handing the stuff out at the door, free of charge.