Posted on 12/08/2004 3:09:55 AM PST by crushelits
From email:
"There is a little-known movement sweeping across the United States," writes David Brooks in the New York Times. "The movement is 'natalism' ":
All across the industrialized world, birthrates are falling - in Western Europe, in Canada and in many regions of the United States. People are marrying later and having fewer kids. But spread around this country, and concentrated in certain areas, the natalists defy these trends. . . .
There are significant fertility inequalities across regions. People on the Great Plains and in the Southwest are much more fertile than people in New England or on the Pacific coast. You can see surprising political correlations. As Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates.
Why this would be surprising, we don't know; we've been writing about the Roe effect for years. And isn't "the Roe effect" a catchier and more provocative name than "natalism"? Brooks, though, seems to be trying to play down the provocativeness of his argument, perhaps to avoid alarming the sensitive Times readership: "Natalists are associated with red America, but they're not launching a jihad," he writes. "The differences between them and people on the other side of the cultural or political divide are differences of degree, not kind." Maybe true, but voting is a binary choice; there are no "differences of degree."
Another Times writer who acknowledged the Roe effect in passing is Matt Bai, whose Nov. 21 magazine article on how the Dems lost Ohio included this delightful passage:
This [Republican turnout] effort wasn't visible to Democrats because it was taking place on an entirely new terrain, in counties that Democrats had some vague notion of, but which they never expected could generate so many votes. The 10 Ohio counties with the highest turnout percentages, many of them small and growing, all went for Bush, and none of them had a turnout rate of less than 75 percent.
For Democrats, this new phenomenon on Election Day felt like some kind of horror movie, with conservative voters rising up out of the hills and condo communities in numbers the Kerry forces never knew existed. ''They just came in droves,'' [Kerry spokeswoman] Jennifer Palmieri told me two days after the election. ''We didn't know they had that room to grow. It's like, 'Crunch all you want--we'll make more.' They just make more Republicans.''
One of these days someone should sit down with the Democrats and explain where Republicans come from. Related story.
Maybe There's Hope for the Democrats
"Device for the Paralyzed Turns Thinking to Doing"--headline, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 7
If the bluenecks quit whining and started making babies, they would be a whole lot happier.
They don't need to make any more - they just need to quit killing so many in the womb.
No thanks, I prefer DUmmies do not reproduce.
bump
Maybe people just don't want to have sex with Demmies.
You say, "Maybe people just don't want to have sex with Demmies."
Funny! Many people find a lack of intelligence and a generally hateful outlook unattractive. . .
After looking at the Demographics of the last election, it dawned on me that the middle aged voters seemed to be more heavily Republican.
These are the folks that are sending a new generation of voters onto the voting rolls.
And many conservatives have large families. For instance, my sister and I discusssed the fact that by the next election, she and her husband would have more than tripled their little corner of "conservativsm."
She has 5 kids, and by next election all five will be of voting age, so the two produced 5 more votes, and now instead of two conservative voters from their family, there will be 7 (even if you don't mention spouses of the kids, a couple of which have been converted from the "dark side", LOL, to vote conservatively).
I think it comes down to SELFishness. Their self-centric "me me me" attitude is manifest in their voting and the belief that children will take away from their lives.
I say let them go childless.
"People on the Great Plains and in the Southwest are much more fertile than people in New England or on the Pacific coast."
Now, let's be fair--all those drugs they do, it's a wonder they have as many children as they actually do...
It's not the drugs up here in the northeast. It's the gene pool. Very limited.
Ditto
You may think you're joking, but wouldn't it seem natural for Sen. Hillary Clinton to call for federal legislation requiring that all parents be licensed?
Steven Sailor, who posted the first article on this topic in The American Conservative, deserves a Pulitzer Prize.
They already have - they're called "anti-sprawl measures." They know that if they limit suburban development & instead try to force people to live in the inner cities, they'll keep a region "blue."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.