Liberals aren't self-replacing

JerrySeinfeld · November 30, 2006

Here is an excerpt from a neat article called "the fertility gap" by arthur c brooks - thoughts?

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.

Liam · November 30, 2006

I don't know the methodology of the underlying survey or how the survey takers ascertained the political affiliations of their subjects ("... deeep breaths, and puuuussshhh... are you a liberal?... three quick breaths... puuussshhh..."). I suspect that they got these results more by looking at fertility rates in certain parts of the country that tend to vote one way or the other and are extrapolating from there.

Here in the US, population growth is highest among Hispanics and Latinos who tend to vote Democrat much more than Republican. And in the 2006 election, Democrats increased their votes in the more child-bearing region of the sun belt.

kimmy · November 30, 2006

August posted a similar article (maybe the same article?) months ago. Some good points and counterpoints were raised. I don't recall the title, but perhaps somebody who does remember where to find that thread could provide a link to that discussion so that people can read the comments already raised on the subject.

-k

JerrySeinfeld · November 30, 2006

I don't know the methodology of the underlying survey or how the survey takers ascertained the political affiliations of their subjects ("... deeep breaths, and puuuussshhh... are you a liberal?... three quick breaths... puuussshhh..."). I suspect that they got these results more by looking at fertility rates in certain parts of the country that tend to vote one way or the other and are extrapolating from there.
Here in the US, population growth is highest among Hispanics and Latinos who tend to vote Democrat much more than Republican. And in the 2006 election, Democrats increased their votes in the more child-bearing region of the sun belt.

?

Hispanics and latinos are going republican as they tend to align more on religious issues as well as Bush's stance on illegal immigrants.

Electric Monk · November 30, 2006

Previous thread link as requested.

I think it is certainly plausible, but does not take into account children that change their views. I am one of those, but I may be in a minority.

Remiel · November 30, 2006

Since you state that liberals are not self-replacing, and then you state that your study found 147 children for each 100 liberals, one must conclude that you are either deficient in math, English, or both, Jerry.

jdobbin · November 30, 2006

Here is an excerpt from a neat article called "the fertility gap" by arthur c brooks - thoughts?
Here is the whole article

The midterm election looms,

Democratic politicians may have no more babies left to kiss.

Democrats didn't have to kiss more babies. They just had to win the seniors vote.

They voted Democrats because of the the huge complication and expense of the Republican drug plan. They voted because they didn't want to see their grandchildren sent to Iraq. They voted because they didn't want to go to Iraq (like that unfortunate retired psychiatrist who was recalled and sent to Iraq).

jdobbin · November 30, 2006

?
Hispanics and latinos are going republican as they tend to align more on religious issues as well as Bush's stance on illegal immigrants.

They didn't this past election. Maybe they were turned off my other Republicans who wanted them sent south.

Liam · December 1, 2006

?

Hispanics and latinos are going republican as they tend to align more on religious issues as well as Bush's stance on illegal immigrants.

They didn't this past election. Maybe they were turned off my other Republicans who wanted them sent south.

I concur. Bush got enormous praise for getting such high % of Hispanic/Latino voters in 2000. How many did he get? 40%. Whoop-de-frickin'-do. Bush was the sitting governor of a state with one of the largest number of Latino voters and, on top of the Elian Gonzales debacle, Gore still managed to get 60% of their votes nationally. Bush's 40% in 2000 was the high water mark for the GOP.

I think Latinos are msart enough to see that they agree with the GOP on some ethical matters, but they know social support is better under the Dems. I really don't see the GOP as having a winning strategy either way. If they suppress their nativist wing to appeal to the Latinos, they might actually trigger the splintering off from the GOP a separate, mostly white anti-immigrant bloc of voters. If they maintain their adherence to the principals of the religious right (which is notoriously nativist -- just look at Pat Buchanan's "Culture War" speech to the 1992 GOP Convention, which is still the GOP image), the Latinos will stay in the D column.

JerrySeinfeld · December 1, 2006

?

Hispanics and latinos are going republican as they tend to align more on religious issues as well as Bush's stance on illegal immigrants.

They didn't this past election. Maybe they were turned off my other Republicans who wanted them sent south.

I concur. Bush got enormous praise for getting such high % of Hispanic/Latino voters in 2000. How many did he get? 40%. Whoop-de-frickin'-do. Bush was the sitting governor of a state with one of the largest number of Latino voters and, on top of the Elian Gonzales debacle, Gore still managed to get 60% of their votes nationally. Bush's 40% in 2000 was the high water mark for the GOP.

I think Latinos are msart enough to see that they agree with the GOP on some ethical matters, but they know social support is better under the Dems. I really don't see the GOP as having a winning strategy either way. If they suppress their nativist wing to appeal to the Latinos, they might actually trigger the splintering off from the GOP a separate, mostly white anti-immigrant bloc of voters. If they maintain their adherence to the principals of the religious right (which is notoriously nativist -- just look at Pat Buchanan's "Culture War" speech to the 1992 GOP Convention, which is still the GOP image), the Latinos will stay in the D column.

Only the dumb poor ones will. The majority will go with the GOP.

jdobbin · December 1, 2006

Only the dumb poor ones will. The majority will go with the GOP.

Your numbers don't show that. Unless you think Republicans actually won last election.

JerrySeinfeld · December 1, 2006

Only the dumb poor ones will. The majority will go with the GOP.

Your numbers don't show that. Unless you think Republicans actually won last election.

Give it time my friend. Latinos are too won't just fall into the dem's lap and be taken for granted as African Americans have done...

jdobbin · December 1, 2006

Give it time my friend. Latinos are too won't just fall into the dem's lap and be taken for granted as African Americans have done...

Here is my prediction: Barack Obama and Bill Richardson in 2008. There is your black and Latino vote. Welcome to the 21st century and Republican defeat.