Interesting column from the WSJ regarding the left and the right and babies. Just straight politics - no Iraq, no terrorism - pure plain boring politics:

The Fertility Gap
Liberal politics will prove fruitless as long as liberals refuse to multiply.
BY ARTHUR C. BROOKS

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. 

Jordan .

Maybe Angelina Jolie and Mia Farrow are onto something...

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I laughed when I read the quote: "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's an issue of overpopulation? Sure it is.

Here's some generalizations. Most feminists are liberals. Many feminists are working women who are trying to achieve success in the workplace (to show men they can do it). It's difficult to raise a child and achieve job success, so babies are on the backburner. Thus fewer feminist women are having babies. Nowhere in there are they concerned for the envrionment.

The other side of it is the left are also more apt to have abortions compared to the right. The thing is I'm sure most women going into a clinic aren't thinking about the environment. :)

The 60s created a notion that women don't need men, and don't need families. Women strongly motivated by that thought are still basically following that rule of thumb. Women who believe that are usually on the left.  

All 3 equal up to a lower birth rate among the left.  

Jordan .

 Pretty much sums it up.

 Young people can go left even if brought up in conservative families, but I wonder what the % of those who do that is.  I guess the DNC should start 'rocking' the vote of baby boomers.

Everyone has the right to decide if they want children. There are many good reasons not to have children. Taking a wider perspective however, the near zero and negative birthrates in America and among native Europeans do present an interesting phenomena. An aging population not replacing themselves. One writer suggested that the childless folks in their later 30s 40s and 50s have become, or remained the children they never had. I don't know if he is correct or not.  I do know that programs like Social Security depend on a vital population to maintain the programs.

So, go out and have children guys-I don't care if they become liberals or conservatives. But make sure poor ole Raymond is able to receive his Social Security checks in the future. Thank you in advance.     

I can officially say that at least on the Chambers family line - my dad, his brothers (I think), their father, and his brothers were all right-leaners. My great-uncle was a card-carrying Republican way back when. Two years ago when my grandfather died, we came across a column written by my great-uncle for the local paper involving something political.

80% seems reasonable, methinks. With a little moderation from both sides of teh fence.  

Jordan .

Yeah, I concur with the 80% figure being reasonable.  My parents = both Republicans though my mom always likes to tell me "I don't vote for the party; I vote for the individual."  And that is true when it comes to county supervisors and local politics.  I asked her which Democratic presidential candidate she ever voted for and she realized -- Zero.  She's been voting since Harry Truman! 

My brother is a Republican; my sister is --- uh, not.  Being the middle child, I went both ways starting left before making a right turn a decade or so ago.

Go forth and multiply all ye conservatives!  Jordan is doing his part!

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

My parents are hippy Liberals, and I loath hippies .. and you know, I might have a Jazz junior coming up .. (am a Liberal though .. just not the modern American way!).
Keep you posted  

Jordan .

Will we be throwing a cyber-shower for Baby Jazz?  Or are you just kidding about a pweshush widdle one possibly on the way?  Maybe the Gazette is spewing out fertility fumes!!!

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Jordan, you've said many things that were smart and conservative at the same time, but saying that most feminists work in order to prove to men that they can do so is not necessarily on that list...

WHAT DO YOU MEAN!!! I've heard women say those very words!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That was almost an exact quote from a feminist I heard on TV quite some time ago.

There was a number of reasons for the feminism movement. Some reasons are good - equal/fair wage for work, etc.

But there's another side of feminism that is extremely dangerous to civilization - and that is the lowering of standards so that women can be involved too (lowering standards for firefighters as an example so women can join). Women and men are DIFFERENT. And feminism has tried to say that they are the same, and that's just stupid. We live in a world where people scream and holler about multiculturualism and "embracing" indiviudalism, and yet feminism is the one movement in the past 50 years that is different from that - it embraces the notion that men and women are the same and throws away the concept of diversity (unless affirmative action is involved).

In any case, I stand by what I said because some (NOT ALL) women work simply to prove that they can be right up there with the big boys.

Did some Google-ing but haven't found exactly what I was searching for, but did find this little article from The Telegraph . Here's a snippet:

"The change has been most dramatic for women. Men no longer automatically pick up the bill. Women are expected to pay their way - and many want to spend more than men. Since liberation from being handed a weekly housekeeping allowance, women are now on a mission to prove they are just as financially independent as men - if not more so.

"Yet they aren't. Average wages for females still fall well below their male counterparts, and, thanks to more women working part-time, overall they have less spare cash. But an awful lot more to prove.

"Proving a point about equality is also behind the culture of women's drinking habits. Being one of the lads means spending as much, drinking as much, belching as much and being as rowdy as the boys. And women are excelling in their new role.

"If men can do it, so can we. Young females dismiss the damaging effects on both their health and the future health of any children they bear. Sclerosis of the liver is a long way off. Children can wait a while, even well beyond natural child-bearing age."

Note the author uses the word "also." The ALSO refers to the two previouis paragraphs which refers to finances and working. So even though the author doesn't use the exact words I used, he/she is using the same concept as to why women work (you gotta pay for your meal somehow). If women are drinking in the UK just to prove they can do it, but women may also very well be working simply to prove they can do it. AGain, it's a gross generalization, and I'm not saying ALL women, I'm just saying that the notion from feminism, in my opinion, is that women should work in order to prove to men they can.

Furthermore, in this Slate review of a book by Linda Hirschman it's stated that Hirschman basically tells women they should go to work because it's their duty, it's going to fullfill them, AND it's for the collective good of feminism (paraphrasing each point). She rejects the notion that women can be happy if they stay home and raise kids. To quote the reviewer: "If you buy her argument, then even if you find it hard to leave your baby at home, and even if you find the workplace sometimes less-than-fulfilling, it's important—to society as a whole—that you work." Again, not quite the words I used above, but to suggest women should work for the "collective good" is actually saying that women need to stay in the workplace (instead of raising children) to ensure that feminism remains strong, and to ensure that the workplace doesn't become a masculine place again, in my opinion. Not quite what I said, but it's only one step away from "you should work to show men you can do it!" 

Jordan .

Here's a good article from Forbes someone sent me yesterday.  It makes sense to me.  Any societal shift has consequences and it's almost silly to suggest there would be absolutely no difference from a time when most women stayed at home to raise kids to a time where women either forsook having kids to stay in the workplace or attempted to juggle both career and children.

Apparently this was a controversial article.  I'm too retro to see why.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Why? Well, despite the fact that the link between work, women and divorce rates is complex and controversial, much of the reasoning is based on a lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense. In classic economics, a marriage is, at least in part, an exercise in labor specialization. Traditionally men have tended to do "market" or paid work outside the home and women have tended to do "non-market" or household work, including raising children. All of the work must get done by somebody, and this pairing, regardless of who is in the home and who is outside the home, accomplishes that goal. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker argued that when the labor specialization in a marriage decreases--if, for example, both spouses have careers--the overall value of the marriage is lower for both partners because less of the total needed work is getting done, making life harder for both partners and divorce more likely. And, indeed, empirical studies have concluded just that.

Common sense, innit?  If you are a woman and want to have a career, don't get married and don't have kids.  You'd be lucky to pull it off and be happy at the same time.  You have nothing to lose but your chains...

i'm feminist and i never wanted children.the very idea has always been offputting.

i think humans,right,left and apolitical need to not only strive for zero population increase,but also to reduce our numbers-there are way too many people as it is.it's also good idea to postphone childbirth until late 20's/early 30's.just the other day,i'd seen a woman who looked like she was barely into her 20's,yet she had 6 children in tow,each a year apart.yikes.in some [male dominated culture]countries,women don't have reproductive freedom,but in the US they do.

it's pileated, isn't it?

Snog, I had a little private chuckle to myself reading your post as I remembered having those same thoughts, sitting on a beach in Malibu at age 23, watching mothers and kids running amok in the sand. Then, around age 26, something happened and every baby I saw started looking soooooo cute and cuddly and appealing.  Soon thereafter I went forth and did my minimal share of multiplying!

The problem with your plan, of course, is that its actual implementation could not be enforced and those who might be convinced that it's a swell idea are probably not those who would have a half a dozen kids anyway. The other day, I was reading stats on a very interesting website -- CIA World Factbook -- and found that one of the poorest nations in the world, Burkino Faso, has a reproductive rate of 6.5 children per woman. The US is just about even-steven with reproduction/death rates, while Europe and Japan have a negative rate.  In other words, annually more people die than are being replaced by newborn babies.

China, with its mandatory one-child-per-family, has found itself with a shortage of marriage age females for all their men. You know, they have this lopsided situation -- not 50-50 male/female, which is the natural order of things -- where many more boys are born than girls. Oh, there's just a world of problems when you try to control birth rates. In India, where abortion is now very common, large families are still commonplace and the India model has actually been of greater societal benefit than the social engineering attempted by the Chinese these past few decades. China and Inda together account for 2.5 billion of the 6.5 billion humans on the planet. Somehow, I don't think their large percentage of the population will turn out to be a deficit for them vis a vis competing with the declining West.

Go forth and multiply!   There's not that much difference between zero and one.

 Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

1. I guess taking children has worked out positively for Angelina Jolie, Mia Farrow (except for the one that Woody Allen took from her...) and Rosie O'Donnell. 

2. Don't most parents say they decided to have kids to keep up with the Third World? But no, of course Third World "over-population" should be no more a factor in deciding to forfeit one's reproductive abilities than it should be in deciding to have a family. Just to be perfectly clear on the subject, I think husbands and wives should have children because they intend to care for, nurture and love them with no regard to the population of China nor to the reproductive rates of Burkino Faso.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Ehm, yes .. tyhat was something like a joke .. no "Jazz baby" on the way.
I am deeply involved in processes, not sure 'bout end results right now. 

i'd read about the deficit of female children born in china.indeed,it causes a problem.and that mentality is due to a very misogynous  aspect of the culture.

too many people are just very hard on the planet,even if it works for indian society itself.

i agree with 'clown's opinion.in countries where people have reproductive freedom,i feel that people shouldn't be having these huge families-especially if they can't support all those kids.

at age 23,age 26 and well beyond,i've never wanted kids.the preschooler set is annoying beyond belief to me.i've never heard my biological clock ticking,believe me.so,there will never be an age when i suddenly find kids'cute'.i'm middle aged and it hasn't happened yet.

' Just to be perfectly clear on the subject, I think husbands and wives should have children because they intend to care for, nurture and love them with no regard to the population of China nor to the reproductive rates of Burkino Faso.'

agreed.bottom line here.people should have kids because they will love them and cherish them.

even if snog doesn't.

it's pileated, isn't it?

Well, I guess Snog just revealed her political affiliation?  Or is this article totally off base?

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I think kids are great. They are so cute to me and I like hanging out with them. I only had one kid of my own that I know of. I did that LaMaze bit and dug being a father-best "project " I ever undertook.  Never had a daughter. I enjoy my nieces and nephews and grand nieces and nephews. Of course I don't have full time responsibility for them so that makes it easier I guess. I look forward to my son having my grandchildren.

It makes my day when I am on a line in a store and a baby smiles at me. What could be better than that ? (rhetorical question )

If it wasn't rhetorical, the answer would have been - anything, including a 2 for 1 offer on shaving foam.

I shall only ever spill my seed on barren ground. 

it's pileated, isn't it?