R: Run for the Hills

Where we live affects how we live. To the extent that one has a say in where he or she lives, the options are threefold: urban, suburban, and rural. Each of those categories has many connotations, but for our purposes, they should be taken literally. This debate is not about red states versus blue states. To run for the hills means to flee the cities in favor of what lies beyond them, regardless of the place’s politics, though that might be a consideration. While I intend for the split to be urban-rural, ardent defenders of the suburbs can take the affirmative in this debate. Prudence and state of life go a long way in determining where each of us lives, but this is a serious matter. “It depends” is not sufficient. Pontificate a little bit!

The affirmative wants to run for the hills. To live a good life, one must escape the cities. Those sites of moral degradation have been devastated by progressive policies. Not only are the values bad, but rampant crime also plays a major role in the deterioration of what were once great American cities. And none of this is to mention the fact that urban areas are sorely lacking in beauty. Concrete jungles cannot sustain life. The hills, or the country, on the other hand, are most conducive to human flourishing. A child raised in the city loves no land, for countless cityscapes look like his or hers. A child raised in the country learns to love the land he or she grows up on. Children and adults alike gain the fullest understanding of stewardship when they live closer to unspoiled nature. Furthermore, in the country, people are at ease and their beliefs tend to make room for liberty and virtue.

The negative finds that cities are best. A good life can be lived in urban centers. Human beings have been living in cities for thousands of years. The city is an ancient form of political organization. Life in common allows people to develop a particular set of virtues. This seems to be key here: virtue can be found in places like Los Angeles, New York, and London. Someone needs to stay in cities to fight for what is right. It is worth remembering that the politics of a place changes over time. Cities need not be a place where everyone is isolated in his or her apartment and nobody knows one another. Major cities often have thriving religious communities. If someone wants to partake in a rich associational life, he or she can simply choose it or create it in urban areas. Better yet, such a person will also likely be able to walk to the grocery store, ride public transportation to work, and enjoy increased access to amenities.

So what is the proper relationship between the city and country, or urban and rural? What are cities good for? Can we save them? Is it time for the Benedict Option?