Liberal extinction, by the numbers
New America Foundation fellow Phillip Longman in USA Today on March 13 (synopsized from a longer piece in the March/April issue of Foreign Policy magazine) says basically this: Population equals power; therefore, conservatives/traditionalists have historically and will soon again inherit the earth. Writes Longman:
Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families....
This dynamic helps explain the gradual drift of American culture toward religious fundamentalism and social conservatism.
Do you distrust the army and other institutions? Do you find soft drugs, abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? Are you an environmentalist*? These are progressive views, and you are thus part of a literal dying breed.
Juxtapose that to this massive Zogby poll (30,117 respondents in 48 contiguous states with margin error of +/- 0.6%) conducted March 10-14, and you'll see why the pro-abortion position is a growing loser for Democrats.
[*The logo, right, is from the environmentalist website Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Its motto, "May we live long and die out," could not more aptly demonstrate why liberalism is a dying concept.]
21 comments:
Read
Fertile Ground by Charles Mahtesian,
Democrats are not only concentrated in low-marriage states but also in low-marriage congressional districts. Consider this: As of 2002, 55 of the top 60 congressional districts ranked by percentage of married people were represented by Republicans. That disparity was manifested on Election Day when national exit polls revealed that the Democratic share of the two-party vote among married women (under 65) with children was 43 percent in 2004, down from 49 percent in 1992. Among married men with kids, the Democratic share was even more anemic at just 38 percent, down from 46 percent in 1992.
Since the New Deal era, the Democratic Party has been accustomed to thinking of itself as the nation's majority party. This was true enough for decades but today, as political analyst Rhodes Cook has pointed out, Democrats are at best the plurality party. That leaves Democrats with one last option if they hope regain their former status: The party needs to figure out why the Census Bureau's marriage and fertility data so closely mirrors the 2004 electoral landscape.
Are you two jokers serious? Democrats are going to "die out"? I didn't know political party was an inherited trait. My God, Stanek is a moron. And you're not acquitting yourself either, Baar.
Firstly, RFC: Jill wrote that "liberals/those with progressive views" were dying out. That does not qualify the statement to mean "Democrats". Read the post before you comment. The Democratic party was mentioned only in reference to their pro-abortion stance.
Secondly, Jill: I didn't see the implication in your post but I think you'll logically find that progressive/traditional or liberal/conservative dominance oscillates over time and pretty much always has been throughout recorded history.
Liberalism has experienced a dominance in recent history that will likely ebb as large traditionalist families outnumber the liberals. That will in turn lead to another rise in liberalism as disaffected children of traditionalists turn to liberalism in direct contrast to their upbringing.
This is nothing new in history and is always viewed as the dark time for one side or the other. History will march on as it always will.
To equate the demographics at work here to American politics is, well, stupid.
The liberals whose populations are rising more slowly are what we often know as Westerners.
The religious conservatives whose populations are quickly rising are, demographically, poor Muslims.
So any glee with which this red herring was posted ought to be considered in the harsh light of the real world reality.
Jill Makes a good point here, but I think you are taking it out of context. She is not saying all the liberals are going to be gone next week. She is saying there is a steady decline in the liberal population.
The 2004 election shows an increased conservative presences in politics among young voters. This is the first of a pro-life religious generation in the era of Roe vs. Wade.
Overtime our numbers will increase and liberals will decline. Add the increased conservative presences on liberal colleges and new conservative colleges and you have a decline in conversions to liberalism as well.
This will not be some profound one day swing, however, if liberalism continues to advocate abortion and small families conservatives will gain a stronger foothold on politics in the future.
The reason the "rebel against parents" is not working is in this case the rebelion among the youth in the conservative movement is against liberal society, not our parents. Conservative youth consider themselves more oppressed by liberals trying to stop them from praying in school, constantly pushing homosexuality in nearly every movie and tv show, a rather horrific obsession with pushing abortion, ect...
So Conservatives are turning against liberal culture not our parents. As long as this holds true the conservative youth will remain conservative and liberals are in trouble.
That may be true, but conservatives have a major problem.
Being far less intelligent then their progressive friends, they NEED to reproduce at higher rates.
You see the same thing in nature. Less intelligent animals with lower overall survival rates reproduce more just to maintain the population. That is why fruit flys produce hundreds of young.
The progressive/liberals, being more smarter and more successful, need not reproduce at that high rate to maintain the population.
I notice no offense at equating American conservative idealogues with their head-lopping, testicle zapping theocratic brothers in arms.
This has been another fascinating trip on the crazy train, but this is my stop.
The premise of this argument does seem to be that the offspring of liberals will become liberals; and the offspring of conservatives will become conservatives.
Take it from this liberal whose parents are pro-life, anti-gay, and (one of whom at least) believes in Creationism as a scientific theory: that sure ain't the case.
The other somewhate disturbing implication is that people who are pro-choice will not have offspring, presumably because they will choose abortion over childbirth. I simply don't think that's the case. I know plenty of pro-choice activists who have children and even grandchildren.
Last, there's this assumption that conservatives are the dominant majority in this country. I'd say the country is rather evenly divided -- and the ideological split has grown wider, but the numerical split is narrower. When the country last experienced a highly ideological realignment in the 1930s, the liberal Democrats (and liberal Republicans) were a clear majority. The 51% W received in 2004 hardly constitutes a landslide or overwhelming majority.
The argument presented by Ms. (Mrs.?) Stanek says more about her view of the world and family than it says about political reality.
Jill, you ignorant slut.
Gee whiz, the liberal race is dying out. That means the few of us who are left will have to work double duty to create decent paying jobs, adequate health care, full employment, clean air and water, educational opportunities, religious freedom and peace on earth for all those conservative offspring yet to be born. And then again, may I will stay home, get stoned and listen to my Grateful Dead albums. What is an old liberal to do?
The government really shouldn't subsidize or discourage children, but rather be child-neutral. The child tax credit (and all tax breaks really) is silly and the entire tax code should just be replaced by a simple flat tax with on all income above $20,000 for single filers and $40,000 for couples.
By the way, both people who are afraid of overpopulation and those afraid of population decline are silly. Humans are adaptive and will be able to reply to such shocks with productivity growth.
Also, there are two things that I believe will be true in 30 or so years:
Gay marriage will be legal in a majority of states.
and
Abortion will be restricted to cases of rape, incest, or threats to a mother's life (possibly also health) in a majority of states.
Both of these would be great for all Americans who believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
(PS Supporting gay marriage is the real conservative position, which is different from the reactionary theocrat position. Also, any one who is pro-Life yet opposes gay adoption is a sick hypocrite who makes me want to vomit. I support both because I am a real conservative.)
Also, I'm a conservative and I believe that drugs should be legal. People should be able to decide what chemicals they put in their body, not the government.
Jill, I think you're confusing real conservativism with Christian Socialism, which is the philosophy of George W Bush. Basically, it supports a big spending government that seeks to control people's lives by legally imposing Christian values on them. It's as despicable an abuse of government power as those advocated by "progressives" and secular socialists who want to use government to impose their own values on people.
While I will agree that progressives are less likely to reproduce at the voluminous rates that evangelicals are, I am certain that my position is more correct than yours and will win out.
BTW, I am deeply saddened that your boy couldn't take down Kosel to prevent her pulling another Lipinski style move to give her son the seat in a few cycles. And how did you guys con Cheif Sanders into agreeing to your mailer?
Jill -
1. That was a "SNL" reference. It's a show on what people call the TV. It's like a big box where the people move like real people. I also hear, and this is just a rumor, that these days people go to the bathroom IN THEIR HOMES. Talk about crazy.
2. Wow. USA Today and Foreign Policy magazine. Talk about your credible sources. Give me a couple days and I'll quote you some material from Bowling This Month and Cat Fancy.
3. What is your deal with babies? All they do is slobber all over the place and occasionally babble. You can't have a decent conversation with them without having to pop a fake nipple in their mouth (what kind of a fetish IS that anyway?) When, I ask, when has a baby ever offered to pay for dinner? Never!
4. Liberals already inherit the earth. Actually, Dubya is a liberal. He's just been playing a practical joke on America for the last five years.
Woops. Meant "rule the earth" on that last point in my rant. FIXED.
By my position I mean the progresive point of view.
In regards to Renee Kosel, I would love to see another Republican go down and have their true colors show, but I haven't yet seen any solid evidence that she is a target of an investigation. Not that Patrick Fitzgerald is very forthcoming with his plans.
The reason Renee didn't spend much campaign money, I suspect, is due to the belief that her name recognition would pull her through, and it did.
I think Chris Kosel is still too green in terms of his experience and will not be Lipinskied in in the near future.
In terms of Darrell Sanders letter I will have to take your word for how it came about. However this is disappointing to hear.
I am not so anonymous as it may seem as Lairdude is a longtime nickname and others know it. However I don't speak for anyone but myself and don't want to be seen as speaking for a group that I don't hold the power to set policy for.
People like Tony give Liberals a bad name.
Respectful (irony noted) -
So I guess I'm the liberal Jill Stanek, eh? Awesome.
Post a Comment