If you can't beat them, out-populate them
In today's Wall Street Journal, Arthur C. Brooks, professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, writes that conservatives are having significantly more children than liberals:
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%.
Professor Brooks points out that this has political implications:
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.
There is even good news for those of us living in blues states such as California(*):
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.
Lisa and I noticed anecdotal evidence of this baby-gap trend when comparing our former parish (liberal), with its one or two babies per family, with our "little-o" orthodox parish, where families with four or more kids are quite common. It's interesting to see our experience borne out in the national statistics.
(*)Note: California's status as a blue state is solely a function of the voting habits of two populous areas: the Los Angeles basin (specifically, Los Angeles County) and the San Francisco Bay Area. If you look at the results for the 2004 Presidential Election, you'll see that much of California is "Red State," but the populous counties on the coast are "Blue State."
It's the interior counties, however, that have the highest population growth rates. Perhaps California will be "Reagan Country" again some day, after all.
Comments
Yep, you're right. Most of the families at our church have 3 or 4 kids. We have 2 families with 7 and 8 kids. We are the "freaks" with only one but that couldn't be helped on my end so I get a pass.
Posted by: Betsy Cuthbertson | August 22, 2006 1:21 PM
Betsy,
We, too, can identify with being the "freaks" at a church with lots of large families. It's a particularly counter-cultural cross to bear to be unable to have a large family, despite wishing to do so.
People who favor small families assume we're "one of them,"and they aren't really able to offer much sympathy. People with large families sometimes assume that we've chosen not to have more children. Again, not much sympathy.
But, as Alex thoughtfully pointed out to us the other day, "Life's not fair."
Posted by: Don Roberts | August 22, 2006 2:36 PM