Why revolution begins in cities

This post by Edward Glaeser is pretty interesting.  From 1566 to today, he highlights how political uprisings and riots are unthinkable without the density of our cities. 

Cities are places of revolution, because urban proximity connects organizers of opposition. Large urban populations create the scale needed to initially overwhelm local law enforcement. The physical barriers that occur in cities make it difficult for troops to maneuver and disperse demonstrators.
And the economic importance of cities means that citywide demonstrations can disrupt the economic heart of a nation. Cities also create the social exchanges between soldiers and citizens, such as the food-sharing between protesters and the military, that can be so fatal for military discipline.
Isolated farms are stable; cities are not. The constant interaction of human energy in dense clusters creates innovations in every area of human life, including politics. Instability is scary, especially for people who already enjoy freedom, peace and prosperity and therefore have much to lose.

This gets to the heart of my explanation of why urban areas tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic and rural areas tend to vote overwhelmingly Republican.  Folks in urban areas can easily imagine being overwhelmed by an angry mob, while rural people really can't fathom such a circumstance.  I think another interesting point made in the article is this:

By contrast, the United States has maintained political stability through countless riots by summoning troops with little empathy for the rioters, like the farm-boy soldiers who surely had little fondness for the urban, often immigrant, draft resisters of 1863 New York.

I think we saw that same dynamic in the aftermath of Katrina.  The book Zeitoun deals with this issue a little bit.  I highly recommend it.