You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Liberal 'Fertility Gap' Should Worry Democrats
2006-08-22
Liberals frantic to have the Democratic Party recapture the Congress in November are casting their nets far and wide to haul in a new catch of young voters for future elections.

If fertility statistics are considered, that catch has to be a disappointment for liberals because there are fewer and fewer young liberal voters in the electoral sea.

The reason? According to Arthur C. Brooks, writing in Tuesday’s Opinion Journal, it’s the "fertility gap" – the dramatically falling birth rate in this country.

Liberals, he writes, "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.”

Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs and the author of the forthcoming book "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," cites the 2004 General Social Survey as proof that liberals are vanishing. The survey reveals if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If, on the other hand, you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids - a "fertility gap" of a whopping 41 percent.

"Given that about 80 percent 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,” Brooks writes. "Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20 percent - explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.”

And the news gets worse for the prospects of a lot of new little lefties arriving on the scene: The fertility gap is widening by more than half a percentage point per year.

Here's a peek into the future:

Ohio, a state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004, will tilt right by 2012, 54 percent to 46 percent. By 2020, it will be certifiably right wing, 59 percent to 41 percent.

California, currently 55-45 in favor of liberals, will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020 - and all for no other reason than multiple births from family-friendly conservatives.
Conservative Republican families, a majority of whom are pro-life and religious, tend to have more children, whereas more liberal voters, many of whom are unmarried and who support abortion, tend to have less.

The suicidal impulse behind the liberal failure to reproduce was viewed by a liberal newspaper columnist quoted by Brooks as a symbol of liberal compassion and conscience: "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."

Writes Brooks: "It would appear liberals have been quite successful controlling overpopulation - in the Democratic Party . . .

"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."
Posted by:mcsegeek1

#32  although they were personally frugal they would spend "so their children could have a better life.

true. I also think that due to the depression, they saw many good people go on hard times and wanted to provide saftey nets. It's a good idea - but when people began to abuse them and the liberals refused to acknowledge that capable people also needed to be personally responsible and help themselves rather than rely on the handouts.

My parents were libs. I rebelled.

In the end - I think that's what it is about. It's the pendulum that swings. Things go to far in one direction and the next generation tries to achieve balance by pushing it back the other way.
Posted by: 2b   2006-08-22 23:20  

#31  Carter cured me of leftist views. This boomer never voted dem again.
Posted by: 3dc   2006-08-22 23:08  

#30  Q: What do liberals use for birth control?
A: Their personality
Posted by: DMFD   2006-08-22 23:05  

#29  "Baby Boomer's parents were children of the depression and were far more..."

Likely to be FDR democrats for life. One thing that I did notice growing up (like many here, I am a boomer) that although they were personally frugal they would spend "so their children could have a better life then they did." Hence the popularity of the Great Society programs of the 1960's: food stamps, housing, etc, etc, etc.

My parents were libs. I rebelled.
Posted by: Elmolusing Glomose5369   2006-08-22 22:46  

#28  if the boomers parents were primarily conservative

if you aren't going to be honest - what's the point of discussing it. Baby Boomer's parents were children of the depression and were far more conservative in values and on fiscal issues than were their children.

I don't know the actual average number of children parents of the boomers had - but I guess it would have been 4. The boomer's probably have an average of approx 2.

Thus - unless you want to include low income immigrants into the picture the very premise of this argument is bogus. But this author's point was that democrats were more enlightened and had less children - which hardly describes immigrant families.

This article makes about as much sense as saying that the wind blows when the trees bow down - thus the bowing of the trees creates the wind.
Posted by: 2b   2006-08-22 22:18  

#27  No problem NS. It's just that ANY of the "demographic voting profile" data HAS to come from the infamous EXIT polls. I do not trust exit polls. The only hard data is the state by state actual ballot tallies: Bush won.
Posted by: Elmolusing Glomose5369   2006-08-22 22:00  

#26  EG5369, I wnet through 5 pages of Google to find another more authoritative source without luck. I think it must be another Google selection function. If you can find another source, I'll be happy to accept it.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-08-22 21:45  

#25  "will vote a straight Democrat absentee ballot whether he knows it or not."

That's not an immigration problem, but an older democrat machine one.
Posted by: Elmolusing Glomose5369   2006-08-22 21:41  

#24  Broadhead6 has it right. This is one reason why the Democrats are hell bent on moving as many Mexicans as they can across the border. Every mother's son of the illegal sons of bitches will vote a straight Democrat absentee ballot whether he knows it or not.
Posted by: RWV   2006-08-22 21:37  

#23  Will all respect due towards CNN, where did they get their data, EXIT POLLS? Didn't some of the 2004 EXIT POLLS show Kerry winning? The "most busted name in news" is going to have to do better than that.
Posted by: Elmolusing Glomose5369   2006-08-22 21:31  

#22  if the boomers parents were primarily conservative

Who said that?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-08-22 21:25  

#21  it's normal for the younger children to vote democrat. Then they grow up, get a job, a family and learn to balance reality v/s idealism.

riddle me this batman - if the boomers parents were primarily conservative, which they were - then how did so many of their kids become liberals?
Posted by: 2b   2006-08-22 21:11  

#20  But it's not what is driving the young from the spectacular failure of the ideas put forth by liberal "elites".

That's why 18-29 year olds went for Kerry 54% Bush 45%.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-08-22 21:02  

#19  This is why libz love illegals.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2006-08-22 20:43  

#18  Here is a case where abortions have proven to be beneficial to our society. Get the donks out of the gene pool.
Posted by: smdshack   2006-08-22 20:41  

#17  20th century.
Posted by: 2b   2006-08-22 20:38  

#16  While I find this amusing - and I think having kids is a great thing - the idea that the way you win elections is to breed more votes is just one of those good lies that contains an element of truth.

This is just wishful thinking on the part of the democrats. Look at this whining comment: "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..."

Yeah, right. The reason that young people today are turning away from the failed liberal ideas of the 20th is only because the democrats are so much better than the rest of us.

There is truth to the idea of breeding to increase your numbers. But it's not what is driving the young from the spectacular failure of the ideas put forth by liberal "elites".
Posted by: 2b   2006-08-22 20:37  

#15  Liberals, he writes, "have a big baby problem"

There's a lot of truth in just THOSE words.
Posted by: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA   2006-08-22 20:12  

#14  Sh*t - sorry, Frank G; ahead o' the curve as usual...
Posted by: Raj   2006-08-22 20:06  

#13  Liberals, he writes, "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.”

James Taranto wrote about this at least a year ago (sorry, too lazy to find the links), but it's interesting that this angle is picking up steam.
Posted by: Raj   2006-08-22 20:05  

#12  same species? or no preference?
Posted by: Frank G   2006-08-22 19:47  

#11  Pleaser to put me down for Wanton Breeding.
Posted by: 6   2006-08-22 19:14  

#10  There are two election factors that are due to the birth disparity. The first are the decadal realignments of the electoral college due to red state/blue state raw head counts since Roe. And the second, actual voting patterns, which are only STARTING to change now (because not many 20 somethings vote). Roe was 34 years ago.
Posted by: A river, a boat, and no paddle   2006-08-22 18:44  

#9  This has been discussed here before, interesting; there was also that article by that same author of the "empty craddle", "the return of patriarchy".
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-08-22 17:13  

#8  There are fewer young liberals because the young people see "Progressivism" as the choice of braindead, hidebound reactionaries, and conservatism as the choice of those who try to use their hearts and brains to identify and analyze the real problems of the world. In other words, whereas in the old days the young followed their hears into liberalism (and the Democratic Party) then matured into Conservative Republicans, now they follow their hearts to the Republican Party. Goodness knows what they'll do when they become old fogies like us here!
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-08-22 16:27  

#7  Have you seen some of the Democrats at these rallies? Both the males and females arenÂ’t exactly desired breeding stock and often itÂ’s hard to tell which is which!
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2006-08-22 16:24  

#6  Taranto's (BOTW) "Roe Effect" theory validated
Posted by: Frank G   2006-08-22 16:24  

#5  Mullah, if you do the math, w/ regard to the abortions btw the time when RvW made abortion legal and November of 1986, the last period in which people could be born and still vote in the 2004 election, it's highly likely that Kerry would have won. I can't find my stats now, but that's not even contending that ALL of the aborted would have voted Dem, and did take into account normal voter registration and voting percentages. They literally kill their own chances at the ballot box by killing their young...
Posted by: gb506   2006-08-22 16:14  

#4  "Gay Marriage" and "Abortion Advocacy" tend to take a toll on the birthrates, also.
Posted by: Mullah Richard   2006-08-22 16:05  

#3  Grr...I hate it when I mess up HTML tags! (Last paragraph not meant to be in italics...)
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-08-22 15:59  

#2  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.

Damn, I hope this self-righteous yutz followed his own advice and didn't breed, at all! Not even one. 'Cause he's right about protecting the planet...from the likes of him or her.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-08-22 15:58  

#1  Poetic.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-08-22 15:57  

00:00