We're all aware by now that social media is and will continue to be the bane of our existence. It has disrupted our focus, ignited our envy, stolen our attention, and for many—turned their brains to mush... and I say this as someone whose career was built on social media. Over this holiday break, I checked in on the mind-numbing apps one too many times and saw things that hit a few nerves and made me question if anyone has critical thinking skills anymore.
One "reel" on Instagram that received 320,000 likes featured a woman asking the question: "Why are there no major Republican cities? ... oh, that's right." I'll point out that the creator who posted this has these emojis in her bio: 💘✨💀🌈🪄🥑👾, and a link to her new song, "I Touch Myself." Immediately, we can assume she doesn't "do" religion, knitting, has attended a plethora of marches, and didn't go to Thanksgiving—because how could she eat with people who "don't value basic human rights!?"
The issue with these trite comments is that they're trite. Spend two seconds diving into the claim "there are no major Republican cities," and you realize it's both specious and lazy. All the inane comments on the post are just as bad, if not worse. Let me explain.
First of all, the premise is incorrect. There are major Republican cities. If we define "major" by population, you can look to Oklahoma City, OK, which has over 700k residents and is overtly Republican. Fort Worth, TX, has about 1 million residents (top 15 in population) and is traditionally red. Other top 100 conservative cities by population include Dallas (TX), Jacksonville (FL), Virginia Beach (VA), Tulsa (OK), Colorado Springs (CO), Miami (FL), and Provo (UT).
So, there are major Republican cities, but I'm assuming this woman is referring to a handful of megacities (NYC, LA, Chicago), which the Left usually cites when presenting this claim. Still, first they must redefine "major" to mean the largest, densest, bluest metros.
Let's discuss these large, dense, blue metros: NYC, LA, and Chicago. Yes, they are governed by Democratic mayors and have been by Democratic city councils for decades. They also have higher homicide and violent crime rates than the national average. These cities experienced massive crime spikes around 2020-2022 in homicides, shootings, carjackings, and retail theft, especially where liberal prosecutors emphasized decarceration and "reforms" like bail changes and non-prosecution of misdemeanors. These blue locales are rife with subway crime, homelessness, open-air drug use, and shoplifting.
Now, by contrast, the three largest GOP cities have lower homicide and violent crime rates than these big coastal cores, below national averages. Why? Because they're less tolerant of open-air drug markets, street camping, and soft-on-crime policies, and they're quick to hire more police, anti-gang, and believe in broken-windows style enforcement.
While we're on the topic of the Left's beloved "blue mega cities," I'll also point out that these three liberal hotspots have seen net domestic out-migration in recent years. Hundreds of thousands are leaving for other states and metros. The folks leaving are often middle-class families and high earners who are most sensitive to taxes, cost of living, and crime. Therefore, these cities rely on legal (or illegal) immigration and young singles to keep their populations afloat.
Red-leaning cities and metros like Fort Worth, Jacksonville, and Dallas have been among the fastest-growing in the country. So before I rebut the heck out of the subsequent comments on her cute little post, it's important to point out that if this progressive governance produced a clearly better quality of life, people would be flocking to New York, LA, and Chicago. But instead, they're bleeding life into the red-run cities and suburbs.
Importantly, politics in 2025 is metro vs. rural vs. suburb, not ‘city vs. everyone else.’ Urban cores lean left, but the surrounding suburbs and exurbs—where most people in a metro actually live—are competitive or lean Republican, and they’re a majority of the national electorate.
One of the more sanctimonious comments, which received 139k likes, read: "Because when you bring hundreds of thousands of different people together, they learn that thriving means looking out for one another. And that requires supporting people who aren't exactly like you." I laughed out loud at this one. He really thought he was sticking it to the Republican bigots!
But that's just not what happens. Are New Yorkers not known for being rude, harsh, and impatient? Is LA not known for being soul-sucking? Aren't Chicagoans having to step over dead bodies to get to work? I can tell you that living in DC, I have never felt LESS connected to my neighbors, less charitable, less "together". Living in a Democratic run city in 2025 means your streets smell like poop, the homeless get priority over the taxpayer, your rent is too high, and your tax dollars somehow never fix the pothole you hit on your way to work every day—but the new Section 8 housing next door sure looks fancy and modern. I also know for a fact that not one of those liberals who claim they "support people who aren't exactly like themselves" would extend that same benediction to a "MAGOT VOTER."
The thought is laughable.
Trust me, I’d be out of D.C. in a flash if it weren’t for my job. I’d flee to a red area where taxes, home prices, and rent are low, and your morning coffee doesn’t cost you an arm and a leg. I’d escape to the suburbs, where people are more neighborly and friendlier, where they donate to their local church's food drive and show up for the semiannual mission trip to build homes for the homeless—where societal problems exist. People actually solve them instead of just virtue signaling about them to feel better.
In a sentence: In blue cities, you're engulfed by crime, poverty, sickness, and taxed so the government can experiment with solutions; in red suburbs and exurbs, you thrive with lower taxes and fewer regulations in a community that actually rolls up its sleeves when something goes wrong.
Another brazenly lazy comment read, "You can only be conservative if you live in a bubble." Dear Lord. Here we go again.
(FYI, the author of this comment writes in her bio: "Till death, do we art." She's a Cancer, Leo, Scorpio—oh my!)
She's also wrong. The 78 million people who voted for Donald Trump just last year definitely don't live in a bubble. They were so enraged and disgusted by what Democratic policies were doing to our communities and nation that they popped whatever bubble this person was living in and proved the silent majority is more aware, involved, and informed than the Left ever gave them credit for.
Moreover, calling conservatives "bubble dwellers" ignores the reality that millions of Republicans live in blue metros, commute into liberal cities, consume the same national media, and still reach different conclusions. Disagreement is not isolation; it’s pluralism.
I'll use myself as an example. My parents grew up in the suburbs of Pennsylvania, both from Democratic families. They both attended the University of Pittsburgh and grew more conservative. They moved us to another suburb in Pennsylvania. We traveled, volunteered, studied, worked, and all stayed conservative-leaning. I went to college at Ohio State. I grew more conservative. I moved to Washington, DC. I grew more conservative—my sisters—same outcome. The more I saw of Democratic policymaking, the more "cultured" and "educated" I became, the less attractive those Democratic policies looked to me.
And get this—through it all, I never lost my faith, had an incredible family to lean on in times of distress, never dyed my hair pink, never pierced my body every which way, never threw myself into hookup culture to fit the norm, and never fell for the propaganda that would alienate me from friends and family who care so much about me! I stayed mentally sound, happy, and healthy. God bless!
Some other comments that had me chuckling were: "Cities have libraries, universities, and museums..." and "Cities require culture and innovation." What incredibly creative and thought-provoking conclusions! Eye roll.
Red America has all of those too—plus thriving businesses, churches, civic clubs, youth sports, charity drives, mission work, and the hardworking men and women who make this world go round. The real question is not whether a place has a Starbucks next to an art museum; it's whether ordinary families can afford to live there safely, raise kids, and build community. On that score, many "uncultured" red suburbs and exurbs quietly outperform the blue bubbles that love to lecture them.
Also, your white, educated female who became "liberal" once she got to her big city is more likely to have anxiety, depression, forgo marriage, prioritize work, and be on psychiatric medication. A surefire recipe for success.
How about the comment that "Red states are poorer welfare states bailed out by blue states." That's just plain wrong. Both red and blue states are on federal assistance. In 2024, 19 states were net contributors and 31 states plus DC were net recipients. California, New York, Texas, and a few others paid in more than they got back, but many blue and many red states were on the receiving side. That means the “taker” list is bipartisan.
Net flows mainly track population, income mix, and federal programs, not party virtue. Big, high-income states (often blue because of big cities) naturally generate more federal tax because they have more people and higher earnings, so they look like big net payers. Meanwhile, poorer or older states (many red, some blue) receive more because formulas for Social Security, Medicaid, SNAP, and military/defense contracts send more per person there. That is how national insurance and safety-net programs are supposed to work.
Plus, several red states are net contributors, and some very blue places are huge net takers. Texas (red), Nebraska (red), and others send more per person than they receive, while Virginia (blue), New Mexico (blue), and DC (blue) take in far more federal dollars than they pay. The biggest per-person gap in favor of federal money is DC, one of the bluest places in the country!
So, online bots who know no better, calling red states "welfare states," mislabel national priorities as charity. A lot of what shows up as "money to red states" is defense, veterans' benefits, federal workers, and infrastructure that blue states rely on.
So much virtue signaling in one little comment section. So many lies.
In short, there are conservative-leaning major cities. Suburbs and exurbs (where most people live) are purple or red. Conservatives don't live in bubbles—in fact, they're constantly surrounded by opposing views. Federal money flowing to red states reflects policy design, not conservatives' inadequacies.
The Left hates to admit it, but conservatives are many in number, largely silent, but strong in their convictions. They believe in our God-given rights—life, liberty, property, conscience, self-defense, fair treatment, and limited government. They value family, faith, and freedom. They will not be swayed by talking points that fall apart as soon as you look at the data.
Keep up the hollow posting and moral posturing; I do so enjoy proving y'all wrong!