Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
Jill Lawrence writing in the Daily Beast doesn't have a problem, per se, with large families. It's just that they're so 19th century and...Republican.
Presidential elections are supposed to be about the future, but more than a few Republicans eyeing the White House this year are throwbacks to the past – the 1800s, to be exact, when the typical American family had five to seven children.
The math is striking: Six Republican candidates and prospects have 34 children among them. And that’s not even counting Michele Bachmann’s 23 foster children.
The disdain that the author has for large families is palpable throughout her column. She considers Americans with large families to possess an "overweening self-confidence" and to be a rather backward lot (considering their religious nature and their stance on abortion). But a look at the Republicans' fertile future seems to suggest that the joke is ultimately on Ms. Lawrence.
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. Even adjusting for other variables like age and income, there is a gap of 19 percent.
Looks like Republicans have a mighty significant advantage in the race to "win the future."
- Comment (41)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
I wonder what "adjusting for age and income" entails when comparing liberal and conservative adults? Assuming that higher income means less children, would that imply that liberals have an higher average income? And that the Democrats are the Party of the Rich?
The other important factor unmentioned is the time between generations. You can end up with more people if you have fewer kids per woman, but at a younger age, because you'll have more generations alive at the same time.
Jun '10
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
Bingo. Among the professors I know (an excellent sample of a couple dozen liberals), none have more than two children and several are childless. We should assume Conservatives are at least as smart and motivated as Muslims in their investment in children.
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
Could this somehow have to do with the fact that these Republicans tend to think of marriage is something other than merely two adults shacking up? Unless I am mistaken, those statistically most apt to have few or no children are those most apt to favor gay marriage. A strange coincidence, isn't it?
Jun '10
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
Just a coincidence, Professor. As we know, the way marriage is viewed and defined has no influence on children. Just a coincidence.... If you want to go to the root of it all, we'd have to talk about contraception, the root problem. We can talk about that if everyone wants.
Jun '11
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
"Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate." -from Psalm 127 They had no doubt back then about the importance of children, of family. More reason to not view history as a straight line moving and progressing always forward. Since Roe v Wade, we've aborted a nation nearly the size of Germany. What passes for progress often makes us barbarians.
Oct '10
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
I think it's strange that she thinks that kids have something to do with the past. When college students complain about rising tuition they often say that they're the future and subsidizing their education is an investment in the future. But having so many of those kids is retro? The cognitive dissonance among liberals never fails to surprise me.
Dec '10
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
I know of people who have converted to and from Roman Catholicism over the issue. Some see prohibition of contraception as too demanding to live up to in this modern era and move away from the Church. Others are completely aligned with the idea of pro-creative sex in marriage as a participation in God's creative enterprise and view the Church's prohibition of contraception as affirming of an eternal truth and join the Church for that reason. Having reverted at the end of my pro-creative years, it isn't something I dealt with personally.
I'm guessing your point is that contraception has led to a host of social ills, among them the disdain for human life generally and large families in particular. Care to elaborate?
Mar '11
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
100 liberals have 147 kids? They are breeding below the replacement rate. Way below. I guess this is one of those problems that is going to solve itself, by and by.
Oct '10
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
The Left is procreating a nation of Leftist children. They are the children of Republicans that are turned over to the Leftist educational establishment for training to adulthood.
Government schools, and most universities, are the womb of the Progressive movement.
Jun '10
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
Western Chauvinist
Care to elaborate? · Jun 20 at 7:00pm
Sure. The divorce rate has roughly doubled since the mass production of the contraceptive pill. Today, we put girls, 14 years, sometimes younger, on the pill and they don't go off of it until they're 28. The levels of artificial hormones in the pill are altering a generation and causing wide spread "need" for more egregious offenses to nature (and God) such as artificial inception.
What's more, contraception separates marriage from procreation. Many, in a culture that demands sex almost on demand without consequence, use abortion as back up contraception. If we look further at the rates of child abuse, pornography use, spousal abuse, and the general treatment of women over the last half century (I'm thinking of hardcore rap, for example), one need not look far for the culprit responsible for the general lowering of respect for women: contraception. Once people are robbed of their inherent dignity as persons and are seen as objects (which contraception allows for, often inadvertently or subconsciously) many abuses follow.
Abortion, abuse, illegitimacy, divorce. Quite a list of social ills.
For more information, see Dr. Janet Smith's work.
Jan '11
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
There is no correlation cited between the political beliefs of parents and their children. My personal/family experience is having been raised in Chicago by a true "blue" set of parents and having gone through twelve years of parochial education (this applies to myself and my two brothers) we turned out as such: 3 hardcore righties, 1 convert to lutheranism, 1 agnostic and 1 atheist.
The premise that offspring follow their parents' belief systems is flimsy at best.
May '10
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
The second link in Diane's post, page 2:
Edited on Jun 20, 2011 at 9:08pmJan '11
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
Why so much defensiveness, folks? Why all the useless explanations and justifications?
The woman Ms. Lawrence holds us in disdain and we want to reason with her. She's not going to listen to us or entertain our arguments - we are all unhip old guys...and probably religious nuts to boot.
My approach is different. I return the favor with a modest proposal. Taking a page from the Democrats' playbook, I endorse "targeted tax increases." Has a nice progressive ring to it, doesn't it?
Let's reform the tax code to increase the tax liabilities of single heads of households. Implement a 40 percent income tax rate at age 30, increasing it by 10 percent every ten years. Enact a similarly confiscatory rate for childless couples. Call it the "Grasshopper Tax."
Women such as Jill Lawrence will very quickly lose their contempt for children and big families when society changes the incentives that have made such attitudes possible.
And don't worry about offending her; she sure isn't worried about offending you.
And here's the forward-looking slogan to go with the new targeted tax:
"Let those without futures support those who have futures."
Edited on Jun 20, 2011 at 9:12pmJan '11
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
Mark Wilson
The second link in Diane's post, page 2:
Edited on Jun 20 at 09:08 pm
Jun 20 at 9:07pm
Ms. Haddock cites no study just the ephemeral "Political scientists have long found that 4 out of 5 people with a party preference grow up to vote the way their parents voted." I call shenanigans on the whole phony baloney premise.
Jul '10
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
Freesmith:
My approach is different. I return the favor with a modest proposal. Taking a page from the Democrats' playbook, I endorse "targeted tax increases." Has a nice progressive ring to it, doesn't it?
Let's reform the tax code to increase the tax liabilities of single heads of households. Implement a 40 percent income tax rate at age 30, increasing it by 10 percent every ten years. Enact a similarly confiscatory rate for childless couples. Call it the "Grasshopper Tax."
"Let those without futures support those who have futures." · Jun 20 at 9:10pm
Edited on Jun 20 at 09:12 pm
I'm already subsidizing your kids, buster. Big time.
I really despise the notion that those who have children are somehow more morally elevated than those who don't.
Children are a self-indulgence, like sports cars or Jet-ski's. Get over it.
Jan '11
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
Freesmith: Why so much defensiveness, folks? Why all the useless explanations and justifications?
My approach is different. I return the favor with a modest proposal. Taking a page from the Democrats' playbook, I endorse "targeted tax increases." Has a nice progressive ring to it, doesn't it?
Let's reform the tax code to increase the tax liabilities of single heads of households. Implement a 40 percent income tax rate at age 30, increasing it by 10 percent every ten years. Enact a similarly confiscatory rate for childless couples. Call it the "Grasshopper Tax."
And here's the forward-looking slogan to go with the new targeted tax:
"Let those without futures support those who have futures." · Jun 20 at 9:10pm
Edited on Jun 20 at 09:12 pm
I'm not sure if this is in jest or not. On the off-chance you're serious about your proposal, call yourself every nasty name you can think of that would violate the Ricochet code of conduct (I'd do it myself but don't want to get banned - you're not worth losing the podcasts for).
May '10
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
Kenneth
Freesmith:
Children are a self-indulgence, like sports cars or Jet-ski's. Get over it. · Jun 20 at 9:26pm
Children are voters down the road. Jet-skis don't vote. Nor do they go down the road. I should've analogized to sports cars...
Mar '11
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
Kenneth
Children are a self-indulgence, like sports cars or Jet-ski's. Get over it. · Jun 20 at 9:26pm
I would love to have Peter Robinson weigh in on this position.
Jul '10
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
ChristmasBeard
Kenneth
Children are a self-indulgence, like sports cars or Jet-ski's. Get over it. · Jun 20 at 9:26pm
I would love to have Peter Robinson weigh in on this position. · Jun 20 at 10:03pm
One hears couples say it all the time: "We want to have children." Or, "We want to have more children."
Explain to me how - absent the Old Testament injunction to go forth and multiply - that is any different from someone saying. "I want to have a Porsche".
Some people get more personal satisfaction from children. Some get more personal satisfaction from sports cars. Government shouldn't be in the business of taxing the latter to indulge the former.
Re: Why Republicans Will "Win the Future"
Freesmith:
My approach is different. I return the favor with a modest proposal. Taking a page from the Democrats' playbook, I endorse "targeted tax increases." Has a nice progressive ring to it, doesn't it?
Let's reform the tax code to increase the tax liabilities of single heads of households. Implement a 40 percent income tax rate at age 30, increasing it by 10 percent every ten years. Enact a similarly confiscatory rate for childless couples. Call it the "Grasshopper Tax.
This makes sense in a twisted, lefty sort of way. Make childless people pay more into the entitlement system because they aren't contributing future taxpayers to society who will help prop up the failing system.