There are many books, articles and whatnot that decry the way Americans are segregating themselves. Segregation not along racial lines, mind you, but political ones. It seems we tend to move to places where we are in the political majority. Yes, there's a tautology going on here, but bear with me.

Folks will point to a state like Maryland, where Democrats hold 3-to-1 majorities in both houses of the legislature and whose Democratic governor was re-elected in 2010 (a very bad year for Dems) by double the margin of his original election in 2006. This theory would have people believe that my family moved to Maryland because of our politics.

But it's not true. We were moving to the D.C. area for a job, and we wanted to live close to downtown so as to keep commutes at a minimum. We looked at places in Virginia, D.C. and Maryland, and decided we liked the Maryland house the best. It is true that all the neighborhoods where we looked would probably pop up as heavily liberal on any political operative's map. But the same also would be true about almost any neighborhood we could afford near the city center.

The reason Democrats do well with city (and near-city) dwellers is because cities tend to engender a belief in the necessity of government. And poorly-run cities inspire an almost fervent belief in the necessity of good government.

Think about it. Where did the very concepts of government come from? Cities. The more human density, the greater the need for an entity to regulate society. Ancient cities needed government, and the ever-adaptable human created government. Today's cities are no different in their need for and appreciation of government.

Us city dwellers see evidence of a beneficial government all the time. Public schools. Public libraries. Public transportation. Trash and recycling pickup. Street cleaning. City and county police. In short, our citfied lives would be impossible without government.

Folks who live in rural areas and far-flung suburbs don't see the positives of government so much, even though they get even more benefits. Folks in the boonies (forgive the vague term) receive more money per capita than folks in cities. This isn't because outliers are poorer or mooch more. It's because of the lower density. There are few people in a larger space, but with the same needs for roads and services. For that matter, most military installations are in rural or semi-rural areas, and if you've never heard of the Farm Bill, you ought to check out one of the nation's biggest wealth transfer programs.

In short, the government is more visible (and more visibly good) in cities. And it is less visible (and easier to dismiss) in more rural areas. We move where we move for a variety of reasons, but our surroundings do help shape our view of government. And since, however correctly or incorrectly, over the last 40 years Democrats have been seen as the pro-government party and Republicans have been seen as the anti-government party, voting patterns have shifted rapidly along geographical lines over that time.

People who like the idea of a strong government are more likely to want to live in cities. And living in a city is more likely to drive a desire for a stronger government. This was true in the Athens of the ancient world. This was true during the time of the Founding Fathers. And it remains true today. The more urban our society, the greater the need for a strong and competent government. That's not a political statement. It's simply the truth.

Jon Worley has consented to his governments.