The Fertility Gap

Discussion in 'Politics' started by red states rule, Aug 24, 2006.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    I found this very amusing. If this turns out to be true, the future is looking good.



    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
    The Fertility Gap
    Liberal politics will prove fruitless as long as liberals refuse to multiply.

    BY ARTHUR C. BROOKS
    Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

    The midterm election looms, and once again efforts begin afresh to increase voter participation. It has become standard wisdom in American politics that voter turnout is synonymous with good citizenship, justifying just about any scheme to get people to the polls. Arizona is even considering a voter lottery, in which all voters are automatically registered for a $1 million giveaway. Polling places and liquor stores in Arizona will now have something in common.

    On the political left, raising the youth vote is one of the most common goals. This implicitly plays to the tired old axiom that a person under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart (whereas one who is still a liberal after 30 has no head). The trouble is, while most "get out the vote" campaigns targeting young people are proxies for the Democratic Party, these efforts haven't apparently done much to win elections for the Democrats. The explanation we often hear from the left is that the new young Democrats are more than counterbalanced by voters scared up by the Republicans on "cultural issues" like abortion, gun rights and gay marriage.

    But the data on young Americans tell a different story. Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.

    Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today's problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason than babies.
    The fertility gap doesn't budge when we correct for factors like age, income, education, sex, race--or even religion. Indeed, if a conservative and a liberal are identical in all these ways, the liberal will still be 19 percentage points more likely to be childless than the conservative. Some believe the gap reflects an authentic cultural difference between left and right in America today. As one liberal columnist in a major paper graphically put it, "Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation." It would appear liberals have been quite successful controlling overpopulation--in the Democratic Party.

    Of course, politics depends on a lot more than underlying ideology. People vote for politicians, not parties. Lots of people are neither liberal nor conservative, but rather vote on the basis of personalities and specific issues. But all things considered, if the Democrats continue to appeal to liberals and the Republicans to conservatives, getting out the youth vote may be increasingly an exercise in futility for the American left.

    Democratic politicians may have no more babies left to kiss.

    Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, is the author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," forthcoming from Basic Books.
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,165
    This is exactly why Ive always said the abortion debate has always been a winner for the pro life crowd. Because at some point, those in favor of life are going to outnumber those who are against it just because those against it are preventing any replacement numbers from entering the political arena. You cant systematically call for the murder of your young and expect to remain in power more than a generation or two. Even with converts to the cause, you are still fighting an uphill battle because its perfectly natural to want to reproduce.

    I do have comments on this statement though:

    This just screams arrogance and condecension. And I have no doubt that if people like this man/woman were in power and saw this happening they would do anything in their power to ensure that there was "Population control" with their political opponents children.

    Oh and I completely disagree that conservatives dont care about the ramifications of breeding. Quite the opposite. We understand the point of it better than the liberals did. If we didn't wed be out their killing our children too. The planet isnt going to be hurt by overpopulation. In fact, I am not sure the planet can be hurt by anything if was tried to hurt it. If anything did happen it would be the people that are screwed not the planet.
     
  3. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,873
    Thanks Received:
    1,791
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,884
    Uncle Ferd says dat's why he don't use condoms...

    Research points to link between male fertility, plasticizers
    Wed, Nov 18, 2015 - TESTING TESTES: The level of plasticizers in the system of an infertile man was more than double that of a fertile man’s, a research team discovered
     
  4. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,317
    Thanks Received:
    2,087
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +4,320
    Interesting.

    The libs keep saying that republicans are dying out too...
     
  5. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    45,663
    Thanks Received:
    6,458
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +18,458
    Conservative's and liberals are not born.

    Americans are having fewer babies. That's why we need immigrants. Economically, this nation would face some real trouble if we were to make it more difficult for immigrants to come here.

    However.....advances in biotech promise to greatly extend our lifespan over the next generation....so we will have options. Hopefully, the research needed to take advantage of these advances will be funded. Guess who wants to do that?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. ChrisL
    Offline

    ChrisL Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    Messages:
    64,014
    Thanks Received:
    17,896
    Trophy Points:
    2,320
    Location:
    Wherever the wild things are!!
    Ratings:
    +39,193
    Reviving the dead? This thread is from 2006!
     
  7. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,317
    Thanks Received:
    2,087
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +4,320
    There seems to be a few posters doing that atm. Usually I note the age but for some reason missed this one.
     
  8. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    It comes as no surprise that so many on the right look to the nonsense of the thread premise for 'political salvation' rather than putting forth policies reflecting sound, responsible governance.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,990
    Thanks Received:
    7,977
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,734






    Why? What do we need people for? Most jobs can be done with machines now. Other than the people needed to maintain those machines there will be very little work that we need people for. I thought you progressives were supposed to be all sciency and stuff. How is it you think that mankind will suddenly stop developing technological solutions to problems and issues? Why are you all so anti science and technology?
     
  10. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,317
    Thanks Received:
    2,087
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +4,320
    The short of it is that we don't.

    The long issue though in the context of what you are referring to is how do we address this basic issue. When jobs are no longer a normal reality how does capitalism compensate?
     

Share This Page