Pat Buchanan s premise that the West is dying is wrong

Union Union ^ | April 12 2002 | JOHAH GOLDBERG

[2Trievers]

“I THINK YOU HAVE to say that Western peoples are dying. And that is a simple statement of fact.” That’s how Pat Buchanan summarized his demographic argument on a TV show recently. It’s a simple statement, but it’s hardly a fact, and the latest United Nations data makes Buchanan look a bit silly for saying it.

In his latest book, Buchanan argues that America and Europe will be swamped by the swelling hordes of the Third World. Indeed, the book title says it all: “The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization.”

Buchanan’s demographic thesis is that “Western” white nations aren’t having enough babies to keep up with the exploding populations of non-white nations. These nations, particularly the United States, are making up for this shortfall of babies by importing, via immigration, lots of people from “non-Western” nations or the “Third World.”

The linchpin to Buchanan’s argument is his tendentious reading of United Nations data that “prove,” according to Buchanan, that the West is “dying” while the Third World is “exploding.” Buchanan writes, “Of Europe’s 47 nations, only one, Muslim Albania, was, by 2000, maintaining a birthrate sufficient to keep it alive indefinitely. Europe had begun to die.” He cavalierly compares declining birthrates in Europe to the mass deaths caused by Hitler and Stalin.

Here’s the first and most obvious problem with Buchanan’s reading of population trends: It’s batty. A declining population is not a “dying” population. According to his reading of the statistics, Europeans are dying simply because the percentage of Europeans will decline relative to, say, the percentage of Mexicans or Indians.

What’s so batty about this is that birthrates are high in poor nations because poor nations are, literally, dying. In the West, people live longer and healthier lives, which is why the median age of Europeans and Japanese is rising so quickly. Babies in Europe and America are luxuries. In Africa or East Asia, women have lots of babies because they are economic assets.

But for Buchanan, nations that are getting progressively healthier and wealthier are at a disadvantage to nations that are poorer and sicker. He even imports this logic to economic and military debates where it is completely bizarre. Sheer numbers have never had much correlation to economic power. If they did, the Swiss would be applying for visas to live in the Congo.

As for the military, Buchanan can be a brilliant student of history, but it seems he’s forgotten that the British Empire ruled the globe when its population was a tiny fraction of those it ruled. Israel, for example, defeated the armies of the Arab world in 1948, 1967 and 1973 with a comparatively tiny population. The United States military had kill-ratios in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia and Afghanistan rendering such reasoning absurd. I’m not saying America wouldn’t be better off with a higher birthrate, but we don’t make babies to become cannon fodder, and that’s a good thing.

Perhaps the most deceptive aspect of Buchanan’s population argument is his attempt to make it sound like only Western nations’ birthrates are shrinking. The reality is that fertility rates have been plummeting around the world for three decades, including in the Third World.

“Of the 22 nations with the lowest birthrates, only two are outside Europe — Armenia and Japan,” he writes. He picks the number 22 for a reason. If he expanded the list to all of the nations with birthrates lower than what’s necessary to replace their populations, he’d have to include 65 nations including such non-Western nations as Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Macao and this obscure country you might have heard of called China — Buchanan’s insistence that “China’s enormous population swells inexorably” notwithstanding.

Buchanan’s use of U.N. data was selective, but nominally accurate up until 2001. But now new data, just released from the U.N., smashes Buchanan’s projections entirely. Some of the most populous nations in the world are expected to see their birthrates sink below the replacement rate far sooner than the worrywarts of the left or right predicted.

Very soon, women in Bangladesh, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, the Philippines and Vietnam are expected have fewer babies than needed for an expanding population. Joseph Chamie, director of the U.N.’s Population Division, whose data Buchanan relied on for his book, calls this a “revolutionary shift” in population projections. India alone will “lose” nearly 100 million people over the next five decades.

I wonder, is Buchanan worried that India is dying now too?

— Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online.

[Honestfreedom]

Buchanan has not dealt in facts for many years. One day he condemns Israel for whatever it does, then in Death of the West complains that its Arab population will destroy it. He is a demagogic jerk.

[junta]

"Honest?" FTR Goldberg is right on this occasion.

[jwh_Denver]

Liars figure and figures lie.

[Deathmonger]

Goldberg is a buffoon. Western countries are all moving towards below-replacement-level birthrates (i.e. declining populations), while the increasing median ages of their populations will put increasing strains on their welfare systems like our Social Security.

That's Buchanan's main point, which Goldberg completely misses. Instead he says that new data indicates that Third World countries' birthrates are coming down too, although of course their median population ages are decreasing.

Goldberg then makes some inane arguments about population not being important, and does some hand-waving about changing population projections. None of this detracts from Buchanan's main point.

[let freedom sing]

Very soon, women in Bangladesh, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, the Philippines and Vietnam are expected have fewer babies than needed for an expanding population. Joseph Chamie, director of the U.N.’s Population Division, whose data Buchanan relied on for his book, calls this a “revolutionary shift” in population projections. India alone will “lose” nearly 100 million people over the next five decades.

The population planners have it all figured out-- Family Planning, ie Abortion,-- the world's greatest evil.

[BradyLS]

As for the military, Buchanan can be a brilliant student of history, but it seems he’s forgotten that the British Empire ruled the globe when its population was a tiny fraction of those it ruled.

But Buchanan is arguing against the course of empire. Pat never forget what the British and Romans and where it eventually took them.

Israel, for example, defeated the armies of the Arab world in 1948, 1967 and 1973 with a comparatively tiny population.

Those are not the sorts of victories you can bank on. The '73 War was a particularly near run thing. And Isreal occuppies less territory than it has won. Mr. Goldberg forgets the vantage that he writes from: the winning side. War can bring troubles even to the clear winners.

The United States military had kill-ratios in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia and Afghanistan rendering such reasoning absurd.

But the US holds no ground in Iraq or Somalia. Our welcome is wearing thin in Bosnia and Afghanistan is unresolved. It should be noted that in Somolia, the people were willing to forfeit the long odds it took to drive us out. And the way the Palestinians are fighting, they appear to be willing to suffer long odds for an eventual win, too.

I’m not saying America wouldn’t be better off with a higher birthrate, but we don’t make babies to become cannon fodder, and that’s a good thing.

Mr. Goldberg is out to lunch. No one conceives a child with the idea that their child will be fodder UNLESS they plan to abort it. He would have been better off to say that educated, responsible Americans do not regard life as cheap. However, for the ignorant and irresponsible, in our country and in others, that may be debated.

[delphine]

Western countries are all moving towards below-replacement-level birthrates (i.e. declining populations), while the increasing median ages of their populations will put increasing strains on their welfare systems like our Social Security.

Increase retirement age to 72. Problem solved. What's the big deal? Western civilization faces real problems, but lack of people and a high median age aren't among them.

[Johnny Shear]

Of course it's wrong. Pat Buchanan is nothing but a racist pig. And I suspect, many of his "Buchanan Brigraders" support him for this one simple reason. Either consciencely or subconsciencely.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

It's been my experience that those who charge Buchanan with rascism or hate-mongering, either haven't read a word he's written or heard a word he's said. Or they're just lefties, who define "hate"as anything they don't agree with.

[skeeter]

It's been my experience that those who charge Buchanan with rascism or hate-mongering, either haven't read a word he's written or heard a word he's said.

Or for one reason or the other are content to let others do their thinking for them.

[TomB]

IT seems to me that his entire argument is based on the assumption that birth rates are static, which, of course, isn't the case. It parallels what the global warming proponents do by looking at the temperature trend for the last 25-50 years and extrapolating it ad infinitum.

[boris]

"Of course it's wrong. Pat Buchanan is nothing but a racist pig. And I suspect, many of his "Buchanan Brigraders" support him for this one simple reason. Either consciencely or subconsciencely."

I'm a Jew, and I like Pat. As I like to say..."he may be an anti-Semite, but he's our anti-semite." Just kidding; I am quite comfortable with him, and don't think he is one. On the other hand there is palpable ignorance, as in "subconsciencely".

I suspect Buchanan's admirers--and I am one--have superior spelling skills.

"Subconsciencely" describes, well, you.

--Boris