The future is so bright, I have to wear shades. The good news about the future is that it will be owned by those who have children today. Those who prefer not to pass on their genes will go the way of the dinosaurs.
I'm talking about a species known as the American liberal. As luck would have it, this political affiliation will probably end up on the endangered species list within two or three generations. Liberals, by all accounts, are suffering from a fertility gap - they aren't having children, while their conservative counterparts are being fruitful and multiplying. As time goes on, fruitful conservatives will outnumber childless liberals.
According to a 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article, "Take a randomly selected sample of 100 liberal adults and 100 conservative adults. According to an analysis of the 2004 General Social Survey - a bible of data for social scientists - the liberals would have had 147 kids, while the conservatives would have had 208. That's a fertility gap of 41 percent...Now superimpose this on a map of the United States. The highest fertility rate is found in the most Republican state, Utah, home to the Mormon Church. The lowest fertility belongs to Vermont, a state liberal enough to be the first to sanction gay unions. The states with the next highest fertility rates, according to the latest National Center for Health Statistics survey, are Arizona, Alaska and Texas, otherwise known as 'red states.' States with the next lowest fertility rates are Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, all 'blue states.'"
Contrary to popular belief, conservatives enjoy sex. Meanwhile, liberals are sewing the seeds of their own long-term defeat by limiting family size, for one reason or another. The exact causation is probably complicated and abstract, having to do largely with religion and lifestyle. The urban/suburban/rural trichotomy probably also plays a role, as well as education, income, feminism, and regional culture. They're all valid explanations, but the end result is always the same - fewer liberals in the future.
The San Francisco Chronicle elaborates: "Liberal women are statistically more likely to delay childbirth into later years than are conservative women, and they may also be more open to abortion, although the data is unclear. Gays and lesbians, who vote Democratic by a roughly 4-1 ratio, are much less likely to have children than heterosexuals. Some on the left advocate fewer children as being 'socially responsible' to lessen the toll on the planet's finite resources."
By no means do I advocate abortion, not even to reduce the population of liberals. Yes, I want liberals to be "socially responsible," but not by killing their children in the womb.
Nonetheless, the idea of anemic liberal birthrates gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside that I can only compare to being seven years old on Christmas morning. I'm absolutely giddy, and it's as if I'm bounding down the stairs to see what Santa has left me. As I think of the future of the "progressive movement," I envision silver-haired liberals growing old somewhere in the Pioneer Valley, with nothing but their Subarus and organic vegetables to keep them company. There will be no pitter-pattering of grandchildren's feet, because they will have voluntarily removed themselves from the gene pool.
Parents have a large influence on the political preferences of their children. With some exception, liberal parents tend to raise liberal children and conservative parents tend to raise conservative children. Commenting on the political fertility gap, Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks stated: "80 percent of people that express a political party preference are voting like their folks."
My only fear about the fertility gap is what liberals will do in their desperation to maintain power. One of their traditional methods is to find a group of people that is normally unable to vote (felons, illegal immigrants and the deceased) and somehow get them to the polls - legally or otherwise. Hence the push for "immigration reform" among most Democrats. Many Republicans - including our president - have their own unsavory reasons for "immigration reform," but the Democrats' motivation is largely political. If they could only get some documents for these "undocumented Americans," as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called them, they would win the loyalty of Latinos for the foreseeable future.
Hope remains for Republicans. Forty-four percent of Latino voters chose President Bush in 2004. I have a feeling that if the rest of this devoutly Catholic demographic group learned a bit more about the Democrats' hostility toward their faith, they might swing toward the GOP. Democrats however, will try to make Latinos into wards of the state who will blindly vote for Democrats just to keep their government handouts coming. I believe that the Latino community's tireless work ethic and sense of pride will be enough to thwart the efforts of the Democratic Party to infantilize their people. At least that's my hope.
In any case, the left's power will decline in coming generations if they don't start having more children. Fortunately for me, liberals never listen to my advice and I'm not afraid that they will start now. Perhaps my great-grandchildren will inherit a world without liberals. What a glorious day that would be.
Ben Duffy writes on Wednesdays. He can be reached at baduffy@student.umass.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!