Replies

Dear sinkspur,

"Birth rates always decline as countries become more economically secure."

People in the United States generally enjoy more economic wealth and security than people in Italy. We have enjoyed greater wealth and security for longer than Italy. Yet, our birthrate is twice that of Italy.

Though there is some truth to what you said, sinkspur, it's only a general and relative truth, and perhaps not directly causal. I think it's more likely that a declining birthrate occurs as folks lose contact with their religious tradition, and become increasingly more secularized. I think that better explains the difference in birthrates between Italy and the United States.

Economic prosperity is certainly part of what can cause secularization, but it's unsatisfactory as the primary explanation.

Furthermore, there are economic, political, and social policies which can be integrated into a prosperous society which can reduce the effects of secularization, and also can effect birthrates in a positive way.

"I remember the irony of Pat Buchanan encouraging folks in countries with predominantly white populations to have more children when Pat never had any children himself."

I concur with BlackElk, here. You don't know what is the cause of childlessness for Mr. Buchanan.

As Catholic homeschoolers, we encounter lots of Catholics with lots of kids. It can be awkward for us in that we have only two sons. However, I don't owe these others an explanation. Our first didn't arrive until after we'd been married 11 years. My wife and I had given up our hope for children when he came along. That this raises eyebrows is not sufficient cause for me to share with them what it was like to have come to the conclusion that we would not have children.

That Mr. Buchanan, to the best of my knowledge, has never discussed this publicly tells me that his childlessness was not by choice.

Frankly, your comments here are more reminiscent of some recent comments by wild-eyed posters who believe that they can read mortal sin in the heart of every Catholic who has fewer than five children.

sitetest

Another thing to remember about childlessness is that some of us would be happy to add to the population of the western world, but have a hard time finding the other half. It's terrifying to be out there right now. There's a lot of people from the group between the end of the baby boom and the typical gen-Xers (born after Watergate) who are kind of lost in that regard. We were pushed in another direction. And now we really need to get moving on having families and just can't find other people in the same boat. It's especially contentious looking for people with the same values.

And it is true that many people who want(ed) more children don't have more because it just doesn't happen, not through any artificial means. I know a lot of those.

Then there are the materialists....

To a certain extent I have to agree with Sinkspur on this one. Pat Buchanan doesn't owe anyone an explanation for why he has no children, but when someone in that position engages in an ongoing public lament about a nation's declining birthrate he ought to expect the issue to be raised. Besides, he's had plenty of opportunities to set a good example -- perhaps by adopting some of those young Mexicans or Zulus that he's always complaining about, and raising them as the most ardent conservatives on the planet.

This would usually not be a big deal, but it isn't the first time Pat Buchanan exposed himself to charges of hypocrisy. I seem to remember his first Presidential campaign back in 1992, when he would show up at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania or West Virginia, launch an eloquent attack against the forces of globalism that were destroying the U.S. textile, steel, and auto industries, then get into his Mercedes-Benz and drive back to his posh Beltway home.